In a suit for damages arising from its unsuccessful bid on a pipeline project, Griffin Brothers, Inc. “Griffin” appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Town of Alto the “Town”, contending 1 that the trial court erred because the Town was required to accept Griffin’s bid as it was the lowest, and 2 that the Town is estopped from denying that a contract existed between Griffin and the Town. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp .1 So viewed, the evidence shows that the Town planned to install a water pipeline and contacted Griffin, a contractor, to get an estimate on the cost. Griffin provided a “rough estimate,” and a few months later a Town council member, Phil Lomax, responded to Griffin, asking for a more detailed written estimate after a site visit. After Griffin provided the written estimate, the mayor, Audrey Turner, telephoned Griffin and, due to rising material costs, asked Griffin to order the pipe necessary to do the job. After Griffin ordered the pipe, Turner telephoned Griffin and explained that the Town would be advertising the project in a formal bidding process, and that Griffin would need to submit a formal bid as part of that process.
Griffin and one other company, Higgins Construction Company “Higgins”, submitted formal bids. The bids were discussed at a Town council meeting attended by Higgins but not Griffin. Consistent with the Town’s solicitation for bids, Higgins’s bid price included a longer run of pipe, and the Town council awarded the project to Higgins despite the fact that the Higgins bid $89,989 was higher than the Griffin bid $70,415.