08/27/01 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 2001 QUOTATION: $46,200.00 FIVE STAR PAINTING, INC. 3959 Bluebell Street Portage, Indiana 46368 Quotation was submitted by Mr. Steve Passaloukos QUOTATION: $52,750.00 Upon a motion made by Mr. Littrell, seconded by Mr. Gilot and carried, the above Quotations were referred to the Division of Engineering for review and recommendation. After reviewing those quotations, Mr. Toy Villa, Public Construction Manager, recommends that the Board award the contract to N.I. Spanos Painting in the amount of $31,500.00. Therefore, Mr. Gilot made a motion that the recommendation be accepted and the bid be awarded as outlined above. Mr. Littrell seconded the motion which carried. AWARD BID - ROBERT BOSCH CORPORATION FACILITIES UPGRADE - PHASE I - PROJECT NO. 101-046 Mr. Carl P. Littrell, City Engineer, advised the Board that on August 13, 2001, bids were received and opened for the above referred to project. After reviewing those bids, Mr. Littrell recommends that the Board award the contract to Kaser Spraker Construction, Inc., 25487 West State Road 2, South Bend, Indiana in the amount of $1,899,995.00. Mr. Thomas Bodnar stated that the Board received two bids for the Bosch project. The specifications required that in addition to the Form 96, a four -page bid form had to be filled out and signed, with questions and information specific to this project. In the case of one of the bidders, two separate sections were not filled out, the base bid breakdown and the contractor list. Each contained the notation that it would be filled out within 24 hours. Whether it was legally sufficient to submit the information 24 hours after the opening of the bid, the information was never submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Public Works. IC 36-1-12-4(b)(10) states that in determining whether bidders are responsive the Board may consider the following factors: "(A) Whether the bidder has submitted a bid or quote that conforms in all material respects to the specifications. (B) Whether the bidder has submitted a bid that complies specifically with the invitation to bid and the instructions to bidders. (C) Whether the bidder has complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, resolutions or rules pertaining to the award of a public contract." This particular bidder clearly did not submit a bid that complied with the invitation to bid and the instructions to bidders. The bidder was aware of the requirements, since there was writing over the place where the information should have been typed or written in. The notice on the first page of the bid form was emboldened. For these reasons, it is in the Board's power to state that as this particular bid did not comply with instructions to bidders, the bid was not responsive and is disqualified. The fact that the bid is not responsive is not a comment on whether the bidder is responsible, and it conveys no slur or any other comment on the character, reputation, competence, experience, or ability of the bidder or on its capacity to perform the work. The second bid was filled out completely. A review of the numbers included in its base bid breakdown shows that they were filled in, but added up incorrectly to give the total base bid. This matter has been brought to our attention and verified. The correct number should have been 5% higher, and the incorrect number was then transferred to the first page of Form 96. Although the contract has not yet been let, the Board of Public Works has been notified of the discrepancy in the numbers.