Laserfiche WebLink
• . • • <br />i <br />FORREST AND COTTON <br />CQYC,Xu.I.ttl'C!3 Y-YL4t2YE.EZ'9 <br />600 VAUGHN BUILDING <br />T. CARR FORREST, JR. DALLAS I, TEXAS <br />JAMES A. COTTON <br />January 29, 1957 <br />Mr. A. K. Steinheimer <br />City Manager <br />City of Paris <br />Paris, Texas <br />Dear Mr. Steinheimer: <br />At 7:00 P. M. on January 28, 1957, the City of Paris opened bids <br />for the purcha.se of water treatment plant equipment. The bid included <br />two schedules, each of which called for lump sums. <br />Two bids were received, one by Infilco, Inc., E. G. Rominele, Vice <br />President, P. O. Box 5033, Tucson, Arizona, hereinafter referred <br />to as bidder No. 1, which covered both Schedule I and Schedule II, <br />and without any elimination of items called for in the Schedules. A <br />second bid was submitted by Bailey Meter Gompany, H. E. Weaver, <br />Manager, Proposition Department, 1050 Ivanhoe Road, Cleveland 10, <br />Ohio, hereinafter referred to as bidder No. Z. However bidder No. 2 <br />deleted one of the items from Schedule No. I and failed to bid at all <br />on Schedule No. II. Bidder No. 1 supplied a bid bond with his bid <br />and bidder No. 2 supplied two certified checks, #32328 in the sum of <br />$700. 00 and #32329 in the sum of $125. 00, both issued by the Cleveland <br />Trust Gompany of Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid-Ivanhoe Office. <br />Since bidder No. 1 has submitted an unqualified and total bid without <br />reservations or eliminations and since bidder No. 1 is well qualified <br />to furnish the equipment called for and since bidder No. 2 failed to submit <br />an unqualified bid, we therefore recommend that the contract be awarded <br />to Infilco, Inc. <br />We have evaluated the partial bid of Bailey Meter Company, together <br />with substantiating data which this company submitted with its bid. In <br />Schedule I the item of cast iron fittings and cement asbestos pipe filter <br />underdrain laterals which was eliminated from the bid of bidder No. 2 <br />ha.s a value of $5, 300. 00. Based upon this, the evaluation of the bid of <br />bidder No. 2 on Schedule I would have been $21, 564. 00, if this item had <br />