Laserfiche WebLink
these reasons in mind, the statutes require the acceptance of <br /> the lowest responsible bid whether it be one cent lower or one <br /> million dollars lower. <br /> In the meeting of March 17 , councilman Oliver sought of <br /> this author, a clarification of the time line involved in the <br /> reference process. Councilman Oliver indicated that there was <br /> concern regarding the eleventh hour nature of some of the <br /> facsimile documents provided by the various references. <br /> While it is absolutely true that many of these documents <br /> were received by counsel for Entler' s by facsimile as late as <br /> late afternoon, March 17 ; it is never the responsibility of <br /> one providing references to also contact those references. In <br /> fact, the only reason that counsel for Entler Excavating <br /> Company contacted the references was to determine whether or <br /> not the City had in fact performed that function. Once it <br /> was determined that the City Engineer' s Office had not <br /> contacted the references provided by Entler' s it became <br /> obvious that it was necessary for an informed decision of the <br /> council that the council have in its hands the actual <br /> statements of the individuals. Despite the lack of contact, <br /> the irony existed in the Engineering Department' s claim that <br /> the responses from the references was the very basis of the <br /> rejection. <br /> "THE REAL REASON" <br /> Mr. Swanson' s letter dated 3/12/97 , indicated that the <br /> bid bond was being returned and the Engineering Department was <br /> suggesting a rejection of Entler' s lowest bid claiming that it <br />