made the first offer by bidding on the contract. Whether Dinwiddie’s bid, to which it attached the Qualifications and Exclusions document, was an offer or a counteroffer, we conclude that there is at least a triable issue whether Dinwiddie intended, at the time that it submitted its bid documents, to be bound by the No Damages for Delay Provisions. 2 . At most, United suggests that the No Damages for Delay Provisions and other parts of the Contract evidence contrary intent because they evidence United’s desire to avoid all costs associated with delay damages. But this conclusory statement that a certain contract provision has a certain meaning does not suffice to create a triable issue of fact. See Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990)
holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment holding that conclusory allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim