My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
13-C PEDC (01/20/04)
City-of-Paris
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2001-2010
>
2004
>
02 - February
>
2004-02-09
>
13-C PEDC (01/20/04)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2012 3:51:59 PM
Creation date
1/30/2004 5:14:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
AGENDA
Item Number
13-C
AGENDA - Type
MINUTES
Description
Paris Economic Development Corporation
AGENDA - Date
1/20/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Director Rodney Bass made a motion to award the bid to Stephens and Sons, <br />who was the lowest bidder. Director Wall called for a second to the motion; <br />there being none, the motion died for lack of a second. <br />President Wall called for further discussion. Director Severson stated that he <br />was unfamiliar with the bid process and asked how it worked if one bid was <br />different from another. Executive Director Vest stated that in some instances <br />that bid could be considered an incomplete bid and thrown out, but the PEDC <br />doesn't have those kinds of conditions or restrictions. He explained that the <br />decision was the prerogative of the Board, since they are a private corporation <br />and not a political subdivision of the State. <br />President Wall asked City Attorney Schenk if Stephens and Sons was the low <br />bidder, and he did acknowledge item No. 13 but did not charge for it, would <br />that be considered a valid bid. City Attorney Schenk agreed that this could be <br />considered a valid bid with the understanding that if the contractor refused the <br />award, then the bid could be awarded to the next lowest bidder. He indicated <br />that a zero dollar item in a bid is not unusual and that this would be considered <br />a valid bid. He also stated that the term "no bid" does not absolve the <br />contractor from completing the item. <br />Director Bass again made a motion to accept Stephens and Sons as the lowest <br />bid. Director Dunn seconded the motion. President Wall reopened the <br />discussion. <br />On a question by Director Dunn if this was recommended by Council, City <br />Attorney Schenk explained that the City Council needed to authorize the <br />proj ect, so it could be built on the City right of way, but this is a PEDC proj ect, <br />to be handled and paid for by PEDC and the decision of awarding the contract <br />is up to the PEDC board. City Attorney Schenk again confirmed that this bid <br />could be accepted. He indicated it is the lowest bid; if the bidder is qualified <br />and able to meet the bonding and insurance requirements, then the bid could <br />be accepted. <br />President Wall voiced his concern about setting a pattern that was above <br />reproach. The City Attorney stated that the PEDC is not subject to the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.