Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend F <br />Regular Meet <br />6. NEW BUS] <br />c. Cont <br />Mr. <br />the <br />elopment Ccomission <br />- February 25, 1983 <br />(Continued) <br />Donaldson asked if we would be rejecting <br />contractor? <br />Mr. Nimtz explained that we would be reject- <br />ing the awarding of the bid to Reese and Sons. <br />Ms. Auburn asked what is the effect of doing <br />that. <br />Mrs. Kolata explained that the Conission <br />awa ded the loan so the loan amount will have <br />to adjusted. <br />Ms. Schwartz stated that the contract with <br />the next contractor would have to come before <br />the next Commission meeting and of course that <br />wou d delay the timetable for any kind of work <br />that might be done on the house. Also the <br />amo t of the loan would have to be adjusted <br />at <br />he next meeting. <br />Mr. Donaldson stated that was his question. <br />Do e give the loan along with the contract <br />or 'ust reject the bid of the contract. <br />Ms. Schwartz said we would have to cane back <br />for an adjustment of the loan. <br />Ms. <br />Auburn stated that the question is what legal <br />bas's do we have for rejecting the bid. <br />Ms. Schwartz stated it would be the determina- <br />tio on your part that this was not the lowest <br />and <br />best bid and from what she had heard it <br />woul be under the best category. <br />Mr. imtz asked Ms. Holston if she agreed with <br />the <br />rationale that we would have to cane back <br />with the next contract to the next meeting. <br />Ms. <br />Holston said yes and then we would have to <br />adj t the loan. <br />Mr. imtz stated that the motion is that the <br />awa <br />ding of the contract to Reese and Sons <br />conc ruing Nannie Smith be rejected. Is there <br />any <br />further question or discussion. The motion <br />was <br />approved unanimously and the contract was <br />rele ted. <br />COMMISSION REJECTED THE <br />BID OF REESE & SONS FOR <br />1137 W. JEFFERSON <br />