AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Constructors, Inc. (Constructors) was awarded a contract by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) for an urban roadway construction project in Portales, New Mexico. The contract required NMDOT to provide plans and specifications in accordance with acceptable engineering standards. However, a drainage report indicating potential flooding was not included or referenced in the bid package. During the project, the site experienced flooding, leading Constructors to incur additional costs. Constructors sued NMDOT for breach of contract, claiming the omission of the drainage report constituted a failure to provide adequate plans and specifications (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Constructors, Inc.): Argued that NMDOT breached its contractual duty by failing to include or reference the drainage report in the bid package, which led to unforeseen flooding and additional costs (para 5).
• Defendant-Appellee (New Mexico Department of Transportation): Contended that the contract was not breached, asserting that the plans and specifications provided were in accordance with acceptable engineering standards and that the inclusion of the drainage report was not required (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether NMDOT breached the contract by not including or referencing the drainage report in the bid package (para 5).
• Whether the district court erred in excluding certain expert testimony relevant to the breach of contract issue (para 4).

Disposition

• The district court's judgment in favor of NMDOT was affirmed, finding no breach of contract and no error in the exclusion of expert testimony (para 20).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Briana H. Zamora and Zachary A. Ives concurring, held that Constructors failed to appropriately challenge the district court’s findings and that its contentions regarding the exclusion of expert testimony were without merit. The court found that Constructors did not clearly articulate the basis of the district court's alleged error in resolving the breach of contract issue and failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure by not directly attacking the district court’s findings or setting out the applicable standard of review. The court also noted that Constructors did not present the substance of evidence supporting the district court’s findings. Regarding the expert testimony, the court found that Constructors was able to obtain the substance of the evidence it sought from its expert, Gene Beisman, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the opinion testimony of another expert, Walter Hines, due to lack of qualification in the specific area of roadway construction and design (paras 4-19).