08/27/84 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

347 REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 27, 1984 bid for computers awarded to Computerland and questions he had regarding the evaluation of the bid submitted by Computer Specialists. He advised that he received last week what he assumes to be a final statement by Crowe Chizek and from the Board refusing to answer any questions and that Crowe Chizek stands on their recommendation. It was noted that in response to Mr. Eidietis's letter of August 2, 1114, to Mr. Vance, his letter of August 2, 1114 to City Attorney Richard Hill, his letter of August 3, 1984 to Board President John E. Leszczynski and Common Council President Beverlie J. Beck's letter to the Board of Public Works dated August 6,.1984, Crowe Chizek and Company provided to Mr. Vance a response to all those inquiries. A copy of Crowe Chizek's .response was sent to Mr. Eidietis by Mr. Vance with a cover letter dated August 21, 1984. Mr. Eidietis stated that accord- ing to his letter from Mr. Vance it is Mr. Vance's position that the City is going with the recommendation of Crowe Chizek and accepting their evaluation. He stated that he has met with Crowe Chizek regarding his concerns over the evaluation process but it was explained in general terms. He specifically had questions regarding the point scoring system used and he believes that Computer Specialists was grossly.mis-scored and a difference of 3,000 points would have given Computer Specialists the favorable recommendation. He believes he was mis-scored 22,000 points. In general, Mr. Eidietis was displeased with the response received from Crowe Chizek and indicated that the information provided was contradictory to prior conversations held. Mr. Eidietis had with him a tape recording of his conversations with Crowe Chizek and he wanted to play a 30-40 second segment of the tape for the Board. Mr. Hill on behalf of the Board advised Mr. Eidietis that the Board did not want to listen to a 30-40 second segment of the tape as that segment could be taken out of context without hearing the entire conversation. Mr. Eidietis stated that he has questions regarding how Crowe Chizek applied the guidelines adopted to the evaluation of the bids and he believes they were not consistent. Mr. Hill advised that he has reviewed all the correspondance relating to this matter and it is obvious that Mr. Eidietis's disagreement is with Crowe Chizek's evaluation process and obvious that he is not objective, but no more objective than any other bidder would be who was not awarded a bid. As every vendor wants to believe their equipment is'the best suitable for the City, the City hired Crowe Chizek, professionals in the field, to provide the City with the services it required in this matter. Mr. Hill advised that it appeared that nothing could be said to bring Mr. Eidietis to the point of agreeing with Crowe Chizek's recommendation and the City has no intention of reject- ing their recommendation. Mr. Eidietis stated that he did not expect the City to reject Crowe Chizek's recommendation but his concern is based on the fact that the bid they recommended is in excess of $30,000.00 and wondered if the Board thought that perhaps Crowe Chizek had made a mistake in the evaluation and that perhaps an independent consultant should be hired to review the matter. In response to Mr. Eidietis' last comments, it was the consensus of the Board that they are confident with Crowe Chizek's recom- mendation for the award of the bid for computers to Computerland and had no intention of rejecting Crowe Chizek's recommendation.