CC Min 1997-10-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. I u . , . - participate in the construction field... what we use to call pencil whipping can actually really hurt you." He said, "We should not find that.... it's not what you know, it's who you know." Mr. Albert said the City advised that the bond documents were being rejected - due to irregularities. He said there were none. He said he was not allowed to submit a substitution. Mr. Albert said, "the staff tried to fmd all avenues... to try... to get us kicked out.... We are here to find out why that is happening." Mr. Albert described what he alleged to be irregularities in bid documents of Interstate Grading and Paving, referring to terms used that were under dispute, including, listed, authorized and "admitted in the State of California." Mr. Albert said the City tried to change the documents for the second bidding process to keep Willie Electric from getting the contract. He said, "we gave the City Attorney a standby letter of credit that Zenith drew up for ten million dollars... We have done all we can do for this project, but still they look over the irregularities of the second lowest bidder.... The decision lies with the City Council and that's why we're here." Mr. Albert described his company's qualifications. Mr. Albert said what staff is "telling you is an out and out lie." Mayor Hartnett told Mr. Albert he was given longer than the usual three minute limit since he was an interested party. Mr. Jimmy Albert and Mr. Brian Albert who had submitted speaker's cards, declined to speak when called upon by Mayor Hartnett. Mayor Hartnett stated that City Attorney Schricker had advised Council in writing of this situation, and asked him to respond to Mr. Albert's comments. City Attorney Schricker said, there are "a number of issues raised tonight that had not been raised before - with respect to the second lowest bid which I will address in a moment.... The first comment related to the first bidding procedure, where you may recall the recommendation of staff was that all bids be rejected and that the project be readvertised. And that did take place. All parties had a fair and equal opportunity to participate again in the bidding process, as is evidenced by the fact that Willie Electric did in fact bid on the second project. On the first go around there were irregularities, and not only in the Willie Electric Company (bid), but in other bids as well. On that ground, staff recommended and the Council followed the recommendation to reject all bids. Our office has spent considerable amount of time with the Willie Electric people in conference in our office, and on the telephone as well, with their attorney as well as with the principals of the company. I dare say that it is entirely inappropriate to suggest that any bias exists. I'd like to go down the issues which were raised with respect to this process. First of all the attack that's made with respect to the second lowest bid, that is a new item that was brought up tonight, but the irregularities that were purportedly brought to your attention relate to, as I can see it, a calculation regarding the funding of signs, and apparently what the second lowest bidder did was to repeat a unit bid as opposed to indicating a total bid. That is a calculation error which is allowed to be, under the rules of the bidding process, allowed to be corrected. You don't have to correct it. You can look at it and see that it is in error which can be corrected or can be understood. That is a waivable error or a waivable irregularity. The bid bond that was submitted by, with the respect to the second lowest bidder, was issued by the Wausau Insurance Company, and they are admitted, (have) a license in California. - Now going to the documentation that was handed to you, is simply in furtherance of those REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 OCTOBER 27,1997 MINUTES Page No. 633 PAGE 17