Common use of Forfeiture of Security Clause in Contracts

Forfeiture of Security. Forfeiture of Proposal Security in accordance with Section 4.8 of the ITP will constitute liquidated damages. By submitting its Proposal, Proposer agrees and acknowledges that such liquidated damages are reasonable in order to compensate TxDOT for damages it will incur as a result of Proposer’s failure to satisfy the obligations under the RFP to which Proposer agreed when submitting its Proposal. Such damages include potential harm to the credibility and reputation of TxDOT’s transportation improvement program, including the CDA program, with policy makers and with the general public, delays to the Project and additional costs of administering this or a new procurement (including engineering, legal, accounting, overhead and other administrative costs). By submitting its Proposal, Proposer further acknowledges that these damages would be difficult and impracticable to measure and prove, are incapable of accurate measurement because of, among other things, the unique nature of the Project and the efforts required to receive and evaluate proposals for it, and the unavailability of a substitute for those efforts. The amounts of liquidated damages stated herein represent good faith estimates and evaluations as to the actual potential damages that TxDOT would incur as a result of Proposer’s failure to satisfy the obligations under the RFP to which Proposer agreed when submitting its Proposal, and do not constitute a penalty. By submitting its Proposal, Proposer agrees to such liquidated damages in order to fix and limit Proposer’s costs and to avoid later Disputes over what amounts of damages are properly chargeable to Proposer.

Forfeiture of Security. Forfeiture of Proposal Security in accordance with Section 4.8 4.6 of the ITP will constitute liquidated damages. By submitting its Proposal, Proposer agrees and acknowledges that such liquidated damages are reasonable in order to compensate TxDOT for damages it will incur as a result of Proposer’s failure to satisfy the obligations under the RFP to which Proposer agreed when submitting its Proposal. Such damages include potential harm to the credibility and reputation of TxDOT’s transportation improvement program, including the CDA design-build program, with policy makers and with the general public, delays to the Project and additional costs of administering this or a new procurement (including engineering, legal, accounting, overhead and other administrative costs). By submitting its Proposal, Proposer further acknowledges that these damages would be difficult and impracticable to measure and prove, are incapable of accurate measurement because of, among other things, the unique nature of the Project and the efforts required to receive and evaluate proposals for it, and the unavailability of a substitute for those efforts. The amounts of liquidated damages stated herein represent good faith estimates and evaluations as to the actual potential damages that TxDOT would incur as a result of Proposer’s failure to satisfy the obligations under the RFP to which Proposer agreed when submitting its Proposal, and do not constitute a penalty. By submitting its Proposal, Proposer agrees to such liquidated damages in order to fix and limit Proposer’s costs and to avoid later Disputes over what amounts of damages are properly chargeable to Proposer.

Forfeiture of Security. Forfeiture of Proposal Security in accordance with Section 4.8 4.6 of the ITP will constitute liquidated damages. By submitting its Proposal, Proposer agrees and acknowledges that such liquidated damages are reasonable in order to compensate TxDOT for Texas Department of Transportation US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Xxxxxxxx Project Exhibit B Page 7 of 18 Request for Proposals Volume I – Instructions to Proposers Final RFP September 5, 2012 Ex. B – Technical Proposal Instructions damages it will incur as a result of Proposer’s failure to satisfy the obligations under the RFP to which Proposer agreed when submitting its Proposal. Such damages include potential harm to the credibility and reputation of TxDOT’s transportation improvement program, including the CDA design-build program, with policy makers and with the general public, delays to the Project and additional costs of administering this or a new procurement (including engineering, legal, accounting, overhead and other administrative costs). By submitting its Proposal, Proposer further acknowledges that these damages would be difficult and impracticable to measure and prove, are incapable of accurate measurement because of, among other things, the unique nature of the Project and the efforts required to receive and evaluate proposals for it, and the unavailability of a substitute for those efforts. The amounts of liquidated damages stated herein represent good faith estimates and evaluations as to the actual potential damages that TxDOT would incur as a result of Proposer’s failure to satisfy the obligations under the RFP to which Proposer agreed when submitting its Proposal, and do not constitute a penalty. By submitting its Proposal, Proposer agrees to such liquidated damages in order to fix and limit Proposer’s costs and to avoid later Disputes over what amounts of damages are properly chargeable to Proposer.