04/26/04 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

t � tI REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2004 AWARD BID -TWO(2)PRE-OWNED COMPACT AUTOMOBILES -CODE ENFORCEMENT- GENERAL FUND/CONSOLIDATED BUILDING DEPARTMENT FUND (CUMULATIVE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FUND Mr. Matthew Chlebowski,Director,Central Services,advised the Board that on April 12,2004,bids were received and opened for the above referred to equipment. After reviewing those bids, Mr. Chlebowski recommends that the Board award the contract to Pine Chevrolet, 1522 East Lincolnway,LaPorte,Indiana,in the amount of$18,400.00. Therefore,Mr. Inks 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 - ONE 1 POTHOLE PATCHER - STREET DEPARTMENT CUMULATIVE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FUND Mr.Matthew Chlebowski,Director,Central Services,advised the Board that on April12,2004, one (1)bid was received and opened for the above referred to equipment. After reviewing the bid, Mr. Chlebowski recommends that the Board award the contract to Wildcat Manufacturing, Post Office Box 1 100, Freeman, South Dakota in the amount of$139,365.00. Attorney Thomas Bodnar stated the minutes of the April 12, 2004 meeting show that the only bid for the pothole patcher was submitted by Wildcat Manufacturing. The minutes further show that Bid Form 95 was not included with the bid documents but have now been filed with this Board. I.C. 5-22-7-11 forbids a purchasing agency from permitting changes in either bid price or other provision "other provisions of bids prejudicial to the interest of the governmental body or fair competition." There could be no action prejudicial to the interest of fair competition,as the bid was duly advertised and all other possible bidders elected not to submit bids. It apparently would not, in this case, prejudice interest of the governing body in accepting this change (submission of the bid form) at a late date. The bid price was locked in when the bid was submitted. If the bid is rejected there is no set price and it should not be assumed that the price could be bettered or even met through negotiations with potential bidders. As responsiveness is not something that the Board can waive,the question remains as to whether or not the deficiencies were material. See Appeal of Associates Sign and Post 485 N.E. 2d 917 (Ind. Ct.App. 1985). Non-material variances can be corrected after the bid opening. See Broomes v. City of East Chicago, 342 N.E. 2d 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976). To determine if a discrepancy is material, the key question is whether or not it gives the bidder a substantial competitive advantage over other bidders and destroys the competitive character of the bidding process. See Bowen Engineering Corporation vs. W.P.M., Inc, 557 N.E. 2d 1358 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). The absence of the form at the time of the bid opening but arriving later is a non-material variance. In my opinion such variances can be waived. If the Board wishes to waive the variance, it should make a record that it is doing so. I.C. 5-22-7-13 requires that such a change must be in writing. The Board finds as follows: I. On April 12, 2004 at 9:30 a.m., after complying with all Notice requirements, this Board opened the bids for one pothole patcher for the Street Department.. 2. Only one bid was submitted. 3. That bid was from Wildcat Manufacturing in the amount of$139,365.00. 4. While the bid price was contained in writing and while the other requirements were met, the bid was not on the State Form required by the specifications. 5. The Board can waive a deficiency in responsiveness that is not material. 6. To waive the deficiencies and accept the Wildcat bid would not be prejudicial to the interest of fair competition, as no other bids were submitted. 7. To waive the deficiencies and accept the Wildcat bid would not be prejudicial to the