|
Exhibit A
<br /> Bid Evaluations — Legal Framework
<br /> Bids and bidders are evaluated to determine the most responsible and/or most qualified
<br /> bidder in accordance with City Procurement rules, specifically: Section 1-27, Paragraph
<br /> K.
<br /> The determination of whether a bid is "responsive" is distinct from the determination of
<br /> whether a bidder is "responsible." A bid is responsive if it materially conforms to the
<br /> requirements of the solicitation, such as completion time, certifications, and licensing.
<br /> See, e.g., Marshall Found. v. Aronoff, 159 Ariz. 337, 338-39, 767 P.2d 224, 225-26
<br /> (App. 1988). Requiring bids to be responsive allows:
<br /> ...all bidders to have an equal opportunity to obtain the item for sale. When bids vary the
<br /> terms of the offer, that opportunity is lost. Those who abided by the original terms are
<br /> cheated of their opportunity if a bid varying the terms is accepted because they did not
<br /> have the chance to compete on those terms.
<br /> Id.; see also REM Constr., Inc. v. Houghton, 162 Ariz. 322, 323, 783 P.2d 261, 262
<br /> (App., 1989).
<br /> In contrast, the determination of whether a bidder is responsible "embraces such
<br /> elements as the bidder's integrity, skill, capacity, experience, and facilities for doing the
<br /> work he is contracting to perform." Brown v. City of Phoenix, 77 Ariz. 368, 373, 272 P.2d
<br /> 358, 361 (1954). The evaluation of a bidder's responsibility allows the municipality to
<br /> "form an intelligent and sound opinion as to fitness and qualifications to do the work."
<br /> Osborn v. Mitten, 39 Ariz. 372, 377, 6 P.2d 902, 904 (1932).
<br /> A municipality has a duty not only to comply with the provisions of its own code but also
<br /> "to act in the public interest, to be fair, honest, prudent and to exercise a wise
<br /> discretion" Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority, 81 Ariz. 80, 85,
<br /> 299 P.2d 1071, 1074 (1956); Prescott City Code § 1-27-4 (A) and (B) (City Procurement
<br /> Code) serves "to ensure fair competitive access to City procurement by responsible
<br /> suppliers of goods and services" and requires City employees and officials to "conduct
<br /> themselves in such a manner as to foster public confidence in the integrity of the City
<br /> procurement organization".
<br /> As the Arizona Supreme Court has noted, "the purpose of requiring competitive bidding
<br /> is "to prevent the plundering of the taxpayers." Brown, 77 Ariz. at 373, 272 P.2d at 361
<br /> (citing Osborn, 39 Ariz. at 382, 6 P.2d at 906). As long as the decision to reject a bidder
<br /> as "non-responsible" is supported by sufficient evidence, it is not arbitrary or capricious.
<br /> Responsiveness of Bid - CLM Earthmovers, Inc.
<br /> There are discrepancies with CLM's bid for the Park Avenue Reconstruction Project.
<br /> • CLM picked up bid documents on April 7, 2014 and submitted a bid April 10,
<br /> 2014. It is unreasonable, given the size and complexity of the project, that a
<br /> responsible contractor can compose a reliable bid in three days. CLM is more
<br />
|