AgdaPkt 2005-05-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

b • � �.. � �c/ Rank Bidder Amount 1. Nexus IS Inc. - Pleasanton, CA $324,088.72 2. Verizon Enterprise Solutions - Pleasanton, CA $519,573.48 . 3. American Telesource Inc. (ATI) - Emeryville, CA $534,536.41 � 4. NEC Unified Solutions - Livermore, CA $614,496.31 The low bid by Nexus IS Inc. of $324,088.72 is considered a good and responsive bid. A complete copy of the agreement is available for review in the City Clerk's office. Nexus IS, Inc.'s bid was considerably lower than the other bidders due to their lower cost of installation and warranty. Calls to previous Nexus clients of a similar scale revealed their lower cost of installation and warranty is not reflected in the quality of their work. All references were very positive. There were two concerns as to the responsiveness of Nexus IS's bid: 1) Whether they had met the requirement of having been in business for five (5) years, and 2) whether their lack of unit pricing was a major defect and warranted a rejection of their bid. The City Attorney and outside legal counsel were consulted regarding these concerns. Section III (H) of the Invitation for Bids (IFB) entitled Bidder Qualifications states that the successful bidder "must have been in business for a minimum of five (5) years prior to bid date." Nexus IS Inc. has been operating under the name Nexus IS Inc. since January 2004. Staff and legal counsel's investigation revealed that this was in name only. The principals and majority of staff at Nexus IS Inc. have been operating as an NEC value- added reseller (VAR) since 1983. The name change and subsequent incorporation as Nexus IS Inc. in 2004 was due to the company having been bought and soFd over the years. In California, procuring agencies are allowed to exercise discretion in determining whether bidders have met IFB requirements. In the case at hand, the IFB specifies that the bidder must have been in business for at least five years, but does not define the term "in business." Staff and legal counsel are of the opinion that the City has the discretion to determine whether the 2004 acquisition by Nexus of the assets of a business that started in 1983, combined with continuation of the management team, satisfies the "in business" requirement. � In addition to the above, Nexus IS's bid did not contain unit pricing even though unit pricing was requested in the IFB. Staff and legal counsel are of the opinion that the City has discretion to accept the bid submitted by Nexus IS Inc. even though it did not fill out the unit price bid forms in that the City has discretion to determine that the failure to provide unit prices constitutes a minor defect or irregularity. Since the intent of unit pricing was to confirm that the total cost was calculated correctly, City staff and legal counsel concluded this to be a minor defect. City staff and legal counse.l are satisfied that both issues are non-material and non- disqualifying. Moreover, neither issue affects the bid amount or gives the low bidder an advantage over others.