>Perhaps we should give our opinion from the side of the initial contractor instead of just Alex's side.

Good point

>Alex said that this contract was worth a huge amount of money. Usually those contractors have the protection (lawyers, marketing dept...) that goes with those contracts. So Alex really needs to protect himself here.

Having those responsability coverage cost several thousands of dollars per year now. So, as this is practically no longer applicable to most consultants, I guess the tolerance of such action would be approached differently from a legal perspective.

>1)For giving bad advices that resulted in a loss of contract. I guess that if you get many lawyers on your side everything can become good or bad. Depending on the side that you want to take and as long as you pay the bills.

If you would have said "add malicious intentions" where strong evidences could be given, yes, it could be used. But, "bad advices" is something that goes with a lack of competence and is somewhat different. Basically, someone who do not have strong skills, who has done his work without any bad intention, shouldn't have any problem here.

>2)The initial contractors could argue that he did'nt have all the information that Alex had. That explains the bugs and the delays. If the initial contractor he had all the right information to begin with that would have changed the amount on the bill and the time required to develop it. So Alex could be sued based on unfair competition.

Yes, the contractor would be able to do something but not against Alex but against the employer.

>This is if Alex does'nt continue working on this contract after the evaluation.
>
>If Alex ends up getting the contract then anything goes as for opportunities to sue him.

Again, in such circumstances, this should be done against the employer as he's the one applying the guidelines here where Alex only respond to his assignment.