Bear Creek Restrooms Bid No. 1
Meridian Parks & Recreation
Memo
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2003
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor Corrie & City Council
Doug Strong, Director f611
Elroy Huff, Park superintendent~
June 26, 2003
Bear Creek Restroom Project
The low bid price for the Bear Creek Restroom construction project was $123,418.00
submitted by EKe Ellsworth Kincaid Construction. There were two additional bids
submitted by Haemker General Contractors and K-J Corporation.
We feel these bids were too high and believe we can trim down the total cost of the
project.
There was also some controversy regarding the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Bill
Nichols was requested to review this issue and recommended that we reject all bids
and re-bid the project.
We are, therefore, recommending that the city council reject all bids for the Bear
Creek Restroom construction.
Page 1
E
....
o
u..
c
o
.~
-S
.0
(I:l
I-
'0
'05
<:)\ ~\
" ~
..- ~
0 ~ ~
z ~ 'r-.
Q) ~ ~
'" "'-
c ~.... ~ ~
~
'- ""-. ~
~ ~ .:: ~ "-
~
.~ ~
\
<:1\ .~
~\ \\ 'l> .:...
1ii ~ ~
'" ~ <;::,
~ "- ~
0 ~ ~ ~
0:
Q) ~ ~ ~' ~
'" N'
'" ~
CO ~
\lc\ ........ '- ~
'- ~ ~
~
'0
C
0 ~
CO \ \
;g
CO
- \
~ ~.
~ ~
- ..,
0- '}
.~ ~
&
'" \. \. \ ~ "t-
'0
C 0::. <::.
Q) ,
'0 ~
'2
-....): .i
~ ~ +.:
':'\- ~
S~ 1: ~~ ~
~ .~
.lo .'"
8\-j ~~
~ i~ ~ ~ ~
~\ ~ i.:
\ T~
~ I..l>~ ~ ~
i
...t:'
~
'\,
.t
'Il
~
~
~
E
0
0
.P
'"
&
0<.
~ ..-
0
0 .ri
~ '" ~
'" N
.2l CO 0
"-5
~
'"
., c:
'" 0; .,
.0 .so
0 E E
~ '" '"
Z Z
~ ~
'"
8 'e .0
~
0.. 0..
13
o
t'l
<i
.,
c
'"
....,
:s
c3
~
Message
Page 1 ofl
Doug Strong
From: Bill Nichols [wfn@WHITEPETERSON.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25,20033:24 PM
To: 'bergw@meridiancity.org'; 'strongd@meridiancity.org'
Subject: Bear Creek Restroom bid dispute
Confidentiality Notice: This email message may contain confidential and privileged information exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by
replying to this message or telephoning us, and do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute this message. Thank
you.
William F. Nichols
WHITE PETERSON, Attorneys at Law
5700 East Franklin, Suite 200
Nampa, Idaho 83687
(208) 466-9272
Fax (208) 466-4405
E-Mail: wfn@whitepeterson.com
Will and Doug
I have reviewed the following:
Spec book version of Advertisement for Bids that includes reference to Prebid conference;
Advertisement for Bids as submitted by Cierk for publication;
Advertisemenl for Bids as published in the Valley Times.;
Bid tally sheet; and
Addendum No.1 to Bid documents.
It is my opinion that all bids should be rejected and the project rebid. Here are my reasons. The Advertisement
for Bids as published did not match the Advertisement for Bids as set out in the Spec book. Therefore, the official
advertisement did not include any reference to the prebid conference. The second publishing in the Valley Times,
although the Times says it is published on Mondays, was in a paper that bears a date of Tuesday, June 17, the
day after the prebid conference.. Theoretically, a contractor could first see the Advertisement for Bids after the
prebid conference had already been held. The fact that notice was also published in the Statesman does not help
in that the state statute requires the publication of the notice in the official newspaper. As for the prebid
conference notice, allhough it states that interested contractors must attend, it does not explicitly state what will
happen if someone does not attend. When attendance at a prebid conference is a qualification for bidding, the
notice should also specifically state that "No bid shall be accepted from any contractor who does not have a
responsible representative attend the prebid conference." The second and final Advertisement for Bids should be
published at least two days before the prebid conference.
There are no Idaho cases directly on point. I did find a Louisiana case that upheld a refusal to accept a bid where
the contract documents clearly stated that failure to attend the prebid conference would prevent a bid from being
accepted. The case did not address whether there were any inconsistencies between the spec book and the
actual notice.
Nobody likes it, but it appears that this is the right thing to do under the circumstances.
Bill Nichols.
6/25/2003