Laserfiche WebLink
of BGM does not support that subjective interpretation. In <br /> fact, Mr. Price provided a written document directed at both <br /> this author and the City such that no misrepresentations of <br /> his recommendations could be made. <br /> STATUTORY PROVISION: <br /> 65 ILCS 5/9-3-26 states in part as follows: <br /> Contracts when awarded shall be awarded to <br /> the lowest responsible bidder subject to <br /> ratification and approval of the corporate <br /> authorities. (Emphasis added) <br /> RESPONSE TO IN UIRIES OF LAST MEETING: <br /> "TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT" <br /> It was indicated in the March 17 , 1997 meeting that the <br /> City has previously rejected the lowest bidder to the <br /> preference of another non-low bidder. While this conduct may <br /> have occurred in the past, the statutory provisions state that <br /> contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. <br /> Shall being mandatory in construction. <br /> Certainly if the City were free to select whomever they <br /> chose to perform the work, the necessity of the provisions in <br /> the statute for bidding and acceptance of bids would be <br /> superfluous. The City Engineering Department does not possess i <br /> the power to reject the lowest responsible bidder and return � <br /> the bid bond on their own. Further to request references <br /> after the acceptance of the bid is a practice which may not be <br /> prohibited but certainly should be discouraged. To sully the <br /> fine reputation of a company in a public forum is not only <br /> discourteous, but certainly is against the public good as it <br /> tends to have a chilling effect on the bidding process. With <br />