Talsma Builders, Inc. (“TBI”) was the general contractor for the Pullman Bank & Trust Company (“Pullman”) building. TBI solicited bids from various subcontractors for the Pullman building, including B&C Electric, Inc. (“B&C”), an electrical subcontractor. While preparing its written bid, B&C discovered the plans and specifications for the Pullman building required the electrical contractor to include the cost of all temporary power and lighting in its contract in accordance with TBI’s requirements and to provide all temporary facilities required to supply power and light. The same plans and specifications later provided, however, that TBI would arrange and pay for all temporary light and power, and would pay related operating expenses. B&C submitted a $350,000 written bid, which did not include the cost of labor and material to install the temporary electrical services.
TBI accepted B&C’s bid and provided B&C a written subcontract agreement, which required B&C to provide all necessary temporary electrical service. B&C refused to execute the subcontract because its bid excluded the cost of the temporary electrical service. Nevertheless, B&C began to perform the electrical work set forth in its bid so that the construction of the Pullman building would remain on schedule. The work performed by B&C included the installation of the temporary electrical service, which B&C billed as a $7,980 extra to TBI. Thereafter, TBI made regular progress payments to B&C based upon the work completed, but credited the $7,890 payment against the $350,000 bid. B&C responded by demanding that the payment for the temporary electrical service be in addition to the amount set forth in its bid.
When B&C and TBI were unable to resolve their dispute involving the temporary electrical service, B&C ceased work. TBI withheld B&C’s final two progress payments and retained a new electrical subcontractor to complete the work. TBI’s cost to complete the electrical work exceeded the balance due B&C under its bid. B&C filed a claim for mechanics’ lien and a suit for breach of contract to foreclose the lien. TBI filed a counterclaim to recover the additional amount expended to complete the electrical work. After a trial, B&C was awarded $97,244 and a mechanics’ lien on the Pullman building, even though the court found there was no written contract between B&C and TBI.
On appeal, TBI asserted the judgment in favor of B&C was erroneous because, among other things, the court failed to find that B&C had entered into a contract with TBI, a finding necessary to award B&C damages and a mechanics’ lien. In holding that a contract between B&C and TBI existed, the appellate court noted that Illinois law provides that when a subcontractor provides a bid in accordance with the plans and specifications supplied by the general contractor, the general contractor’s acceptance of the bid forms a contract on the terms and conditions set forth in the bid, even though no formal written contract is executed. Thus, TBI’s acceptance of B&C’s written bid formed a contract, which was the basis for B&C’s recovery of damages from TBI and the awarding of a mechanics’ lien on the Pullman building.
We regularly assist contractors, subcontractors and owners with the drafting and enforcement of construction contracts. Please telephone us if you have a question regarding a construction contract issue.