AgdaPkt 2004-04-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

g.�3-Z On February 20, 2004, one bid protest was received from Interstate Paving and Grading, Inc. The protest focuses on how pricing on one altemate bid is presented in Dryco Construction, Inc.'s (Dryco) bid. Discussion 1. IGP Bid Protest • � Staff has met with the City Attomey and we jointly recommend that the Council reject IGP's bid protest. IGP's protest is based on the fact that Dryco stated the value of Alternative 1(Alternate Synthetic Turt Material) as a deduction to the cost of line item 40 (Synthetic Turt) rather than as a stand-alone amount. Although, the bid documents are somewhat ambiguous about how the pricing should be stated, the form of Dryco's pricing of this item has no effect on the total bid price. The bid documents state that the apparent low bidder will be determined based solely on the the Total Base Bid Items 1 though 40, (Section 00200-1, 1.02), so the form of pricing on the Alternate 1 does not affect the determination of the low bidder. Section 01030 (Alternates), Subsection 1.01A(1) and (4) provide that alternate bids will be stated just the way Dryco did, as the net change in price for the work involved. SectiAn 01030, Subsection 2.01, which describes Altemate A, requires a price "in-lieu-of Base Bid" for the affected work. Dryco pointed out this ambiguity in its response to IGP's bid protest. The form of Dryco's pricing for Alternate No. 1 is immaterial, because it will not affect the price the City pays for either the base bid item or the alternate, if the City setects it. The City has not even made any decision as to the materials. Rejecting Dryco's bid on this basis alone would put torm ahead of substance and force the City to pay more for the work as a whole. IGP made an entirely different argument in its effort to obtain the contract in a letter to the City dated, April 6, 2004. in that letter, IGP seeks to have the City award the project to IGP based on language in the Instructions to Bidders that apply oniy if the low bidder fails to execute a contract with the City. There is nothing within the Insiructions to require (or even allow) this result, because the City has not yet even accepted Dryco's bid. IGP cites the following language in support of its claim: Subsection 1.20(b) provides in pertinent part that: "... the award of a bid, if made, will be made within 45 days after the opening of the Bid." Subsection 120(c) provides in pertinent part that: "If the Lowest Responsible Bidder refuses or fails to execute the Contract, the award may be made to the second lowest responsible Bidder.' Page 2 of 4 720268v1 33786/0002