10/23/1978 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING �I OCTOBER 23, 1978 Indiana Bell has had with the various agencies in the City of South Bend have been very agreeable and fair. We have every reason to believe that this problem is due merely to a misunderstanding or some type of unauthorized conduct and we have every hope that the matter can be cleared up now that it has been brought to your attention. Respectfully yours, s/ Harold L. Folley Attorney Indiana Bell Telephone Company Mr. McMahon then commented that Indiana Bell was not the low bidder in the last bid opening. Mr. Kelzenberg made a recommendation to the Board that Indiana Bell was the low bidder based on an assumption he made which was in error. When that error was corrected and those charges added to the bid of Indiana Bell, they were not the low bidder, but were second or third low. That was the situation described to the Board when they took action to rescind the bid and re- advertise for bids, as being in the best interests of the City of South Bend. Mr. McMahon asked Mr. Kelzenberg, Director of the Bureau of Employment and Training, if he had advised Indiana Bell Telephone Company of this situation. Mr. Kelzenberg said he did inform the representative of Indiana Bell and that representative was present at a pre -bid conference held on October 13. Mr. Kelzenberg said he reviewed the specifications with five bidder's representatives and they were asked to inform him if they would have any trouble meeting those specifica- tions. He said the City was interested in obtaining the maximum amount of response in the competitive bidding process. Mr. Kelzenberg was asked if he had met with the Indiana Bell representative since that time and Mr. Kelzenberg said he met with an Indiana Bell representative last Friday, October 20. The representative had called and set up a meeting to give some supplemental information. He did not indicate that there was any problem with the specifications. Mr. Brunner asked Mr. Kelzenberg if the specifications were changed from the first bid to the second. Mr. Kelzenberg said the specifications were revised. One of the changes was suggested by Indiana Bell and was to provide for capability of expansion of the system from the thirty -six lines in the original specifications. Considering the present size of the CETA staff, it was suggested that the specifications allow for expansion up to fifty -two lines. This would allow for the same kind of response from all bidders. Mr. McMahon asked Mr. Kelzenberg if Indiana Bell took issue with the termination clause at no penalty. Mr. Kelzenberg said they did and he advised them that he could not obligate the city without providing a termination clause in the event CETA funds are withdrawn. Mr. McMahon asked if this was included in the first bid. Mr. Kelzenberg said bidders were advised if they could not give him a month -to -month rental, the very least he could accept was a cancellation clause or a pre - payment option. He said if that caused a problem for the other bidders, they did not comment on it. Mr. Brunner asked if this was a change from the original bid. Mr. Kelzenberg said he had not received a definite ruling on this matter at the time the first bid was sought but has since been advised that he could not purchase the system but would have to go with a lease. Deputy City Attorney Charles Leone reviewed the matter and advised Mr. Kelzenberg that he could not enter into a multi -year commitment unless he included a termination clause. Mr. Brunner asked Mr. Kelzenberg if it was correct that Indiana Bell was not the lowest and best bid. Mr. Kelzenberg said that was correct. Mr. Brunner asked Mr. Kelzenberg how he reviewed the first bids. Mr. Kelzenberg said he made an assumption on the first bid that Indiana Bell could tie into the Centrex system which would eliminate a cost of $15.40 a line. None of the other bidders bid on the cost to tie into the Indiana Bell cables. He made the assumption