10/23/1978 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

WE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 1978 apparently not going to honor the award and is instead planning to rebid this contract. This is a very unusual step to take. To my knowledge, my client has never been allowed to withdraw from a bid when it has been awarded and I question how the Board of Public Works is permitted to withdraw an award. It is understandably distressing for a bidder, particularly a successful bidder, to find that a bid letting agency is reletting a contract after all of the bidders have gone to the effort and risk of submitting their best and lowest bid. What that does, of course, is to allow unsuccessful bidders to examine the work product of the successful bidder and to then attempt to formulate some type of bid that may be found more acceptable, in effect forcing the successfu lbidder to bid against himself. I am sure you will agree that this is hardly in keeping with the spirit of public bidding and is hardly in keeping with the-traditional notions of fair play. I don't know of any bidder that would not take extreme delight in having two shots at a public contract, the second being based upon the known prices and proposals of the successful bidder. The specifications also provide that "This lease /rental agreement must include a clause allowing cancellation without penalty at the end of any federal fiscal year in the event that federal CETA funds are not available to the City ". Indiana Bell is a public utility and cannot offer any term that is not allowed by tariff. This sort of cancellation clause is not permitted under tariff and Indiana Bell may not therefore bid under this set of specifications. The elimination of Indiana Bell as a potential bidder is made even more explicit by the following asterisk note on the final page of the specifications: "Bidder should not fill in the 60 and 120 months figures for equipment rental unless contract is compatible with annual cancellation clause in the event of loss of CETA funding." The effect of these the specifications earlier this month, It does indeed seem drawn in such a way the lowest and best provisions, which were not Present in ander which Indiana Bell successfully bid is to eliminate Bell as a possible bidder. unusual that the specifications would be that the company which earlier submitted bid now cannot submit any bid at all. There are other Problems with the specifications that are too involved to discuss in this letter but which could only result in increasing the total cost to you. We will be happy to explain -.this in person at your convenience. I do not know why all of this has taken place. As a lawyer, I am not able to understand what is taking place and as a member of the public I am quite concerned. It is quite possible that the members of the Board of Public Works are not aware of all of this and it is for that reason that I am writing this letter. Perhaps, on the other hand, there may be some facts I do not know that may explain:;why this action was taken. If so, I would appreciate an explanation so that I may discuss the matter with nay client. We wish to resolve this problem by reasonable discussions and, if appropriate, by explanations. The past dealings which