My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1991/07/24 Council Minutes
>
Council Minutes
>
1991/07/24 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2020 12:45:17 PM
Creation date
9/29/2020 9:58:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Minutes
Date
7/24/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
( 371 <br /> July 24,1941 <br /> exception of Wilder followed the directions and bid that one <br /> o s <br /> bid item correctly. The cast of that item w % of the Pull <br /> bid price. Wilder bid 1%. Because they did not bid correctly <br /> the City has no other option but to declare it a non-responsive <br /> bid and award the bid to the next lowest bidder. <br /> Mr. Gent <br /> stated that i just a atter of misallocation and <br /> thesebids are not bid in a vacuum. He said Wilder's bid did <br /> ( not prejudice the other bidders. He further stated they were <br /> willing to do the job as bid. <br /> Paul Noble, who estimated the project for Tri State <br /> Construction felt Wilder's bid w responsive. .111 other <br /> bidders met the 2%demobilization was <br /> dnrequirement excpt Wilder. <br /> JudBent made reference to a comment by City Attorney Bruce <br /> ea durig the July lathe meng where Attorney J <br /> he could understand how this minor a could happens.saidMr. <br /> Gent felt Mr. Jones' <br /> A <br /> opinion w based on the fact that wilder <br /> tried to Contrive to get the bid award by misallocating the <br /> numbers. <br /> CBruce Jones, City Attorney, said his comment meant there was an <br /> error but it was probably inadvertent. The problem is that it <br /> was an ex that disadvantaged the other bidders. He further <br /> pointed to error <br /> additional memo from Dan Mathias dated July 16 <br /> outlining the four bidders' mobilization and demobilization <br /> figures. This showed the 1%demobilization advantage that was <br /> given to Wilder while the other bidders met or exceeded the 2% <br /> requirement. <br /> Councilman Overstreet asked Mr. Nobel, Tri State, to explain <br /> their mobilization error. Mr. Nobel stated that their mistake <br /> was an extensionerror <br /> made the total amount on <br /> mobilization in er . The amount in the bid was correct. <br /> Mr. Gent reiterated that demobilization is not in the standard <br /> specs and it is inequitable that you can do all sorts of things <br /> with mobilization and <br /> o verbitl demobilization, but if you <br /> underbid demobilization your bid gets thrown out. He <br /> reiterated that this was an allocation error. <br /> Councilman Overstreet asked for the implication on B80 tax for <br /> the City regarding the bidders. Attorney Jones answered that <br /> all bidders were required to have a business license. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.