At Singleton Reynolds, our people are what makes us great. We come together every day with the common goal of providing exceptional legal services and ensuring we go above and beyond for each and every client.
The range of backgrounds of the partners, counsel, associates and staff of Singleton Reynolds enables us to offer a broad range of services.
Singleton Reynolds’ lawyers spend a significant amount of time researching and thinking about how industry or legislative changes could affect your business.
Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP is recognized as a leader in construction and infrastructure, insurance, commercial litigation, real estate and business law.
Singleton Reynolds has offices to serve you in Vancouver and Toronto.
Singleton Reynolds believes in community. Our team members are teaching at Canadian universities and abroad, lecturing the next generation of lawyers.
How was Singleton Reynolds first established? Find out more here.
Recognizing the leadership that contributes to the company successes.
Singleton Reynolds prides itself in being a leader in corporate social responsibility. We encourage diversity, charity, mentorship, civic dedication and neighbourhood support.
Singleton Reynolds strives to understand the balance between your career and your personal goals and encourages our legal and operations staff in the pursuit of their interests outside of the firm.
Our goal is to develop strong lawyers from student right through to partner. Mentoring and training start when you are a student and continue throughout your practice.
We are always on the lookout for talented professionals to contribute to our team. Singleton Reynolds offers a professional and challenging work environment, with a competitive compensation and benefits package.
It is written in stone that during the procurement process for construction projects an owner must not negotiate with bidders from the time tenders have closed until the expiry of the procurement process. To do so would amount to a breach of “Contract A”, that is the bid contract between the Owner and each bidder, and expose the owner to a claim for damages by each of the unsuccessful bidders in such a process. That does not mean the owner can never negotiate with bidders: the right to negotiate can arise in one of two situations.
First, an express term or condition of Contract A can provide for the owner’s right to negotiate. Indeed, such a clause is not unusual, particularly in the process of procuring by means of a Request for Proposals, commonly used in the public sector. But without such a clause the right to negotiate is non-existent, at least during the life of the Bid Contract.
The second way in which the right to negotiate might arise is when for either substantial reasons, or owners exercising their right pursuant to the “Privilege Clause” commonly found in Contract A, all bids received to the procurement process are rejected. Upon that occurrence, a recent case from the B.C. Supreme Court has reaffirmed the owner’s right to freely negotiate with one or more of the unsuccessful bidders.
In Cambridge Plumbing Systems Ltd. v. The Owners of Strata Plan VR 1632., 2009 BCSC 605, Cambridge had alleged the owners were guilty of “bid shopping”, relying on some evidence that some of the Strata Plan owners became unhappy with the prices submitted during the procurement process and explicitly expressed their wish, if not intention, to enter into negotiations with the bidders to see if a better price could be obtained. Following the advice given to them by their consultant and other strata owners that no such negotiations were to be held during the procurement process, Cambridge’s bid was submitted to a special general meeting of the owners where, upon a duly constituted vote, the bid was rejected as being more than the owners were willing to commit to. One of the owners shortly thereafter proceeded to negotiate with both Cambridge and one of two other unsuccessful bidders, whose bids had been earlier rejected, and subsequently awarded a contract to one of those unsuccessful bidders.
Cambridge, being unhappy with the result and the process, alleged in an action they commenced against the owners that the subsequent negotiations constituted bid shopping. Madam Justice Dorgan of the B.C. Supreme Court disagreed with Cambridge and found that upon rejection of Cambridge’s bid at the Special General Meeting the bidding process came to an end and that the owners then became entitled to negotiate with any one or more of the bidders to see if a better price could be obtained. Neither the stated desire of one of the owners during the procurement process, nor the negotiations conducted after the Special General Meeting constituted bid shopping. In the result, Cambridge’s action for its loss of profits on the project failed.
John Singleton and Aaron Sherriff acted as counsel for the Strata Owners.
For more information, please contact:
Or call toll-free at 1-877-682-4404
This field is required