AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST COMPETITIVE BIDDER

Home Browse Search

mean the lowest bidder ~,~hose offer best responds in quality, fitness, and capacity to the particular re- quirements of_ the proposed work. Rnd the term "best" as used by the P?est Court has been inter- preted in Inglewood as not applying a standard of relative superiority, but rather permitting lowest bid rejection in such instances as :here the bidder's product was not satisfac- tory or because his previous work on another puhlic project ~,?as pocr. In our own Charter, the term "lowest and best bidder" does suggest a standard of. relative superiority. However, the use of_ such a standard is disapproved in the Inglewood case and in the law generally, because it provides no adequate measure to restrain the kind of_ favoritism which competitive bidding is designed to prevent. Accordingly, we believe that our Charter language must be read as if_ the phrase "lowest resporsible bid- der" appeared. With. this background, we can state the case in Inglewood. Bids were invited on ar_ aspect o_f. construction of the City-L.A. County Civic Center by the Civic Center Puthority which, under State law, was obligated to use the bidding procedure. The invitation stated that the award would be made to the lowest responsible bidder, considering the contractor's financial resources, surety and in- surance experience, completion ability, construction experience, personnel., equipment, work load and other pertinent factors, and it required information concerning the contractor's financial responsiblity, the best estimated cost of the work and estimated completion schedule. nf_ twelve bids received, at least nine c~~ere rejected. Petitioner's bid was low by $7~,OOQ.00 over the nearest competitor, nn the financial responsiblity questionnaire, the second lowest bidder received more points than the low bidder, but both achieved at least the minimum rea_uired score. There- af_ter, a panel interviewed the contractors with respect to their experience capabilities. Can a point system, the second lowest bidder scored higher than the low bidder. The panel recommended to the Puthority that the contract be ac,~arded to the second low bidder. There was no findin.c~ by the panel or_ the Authority that the low bidder was not responsible; to the contrary, there tags evidence that the low bidder ~.~as considered capable but that the next lowest bidder had significantly superior qualifications. 2'he lo~~~est bidder successfully challenged the award of_ the con- tract to the sc~c~nd lowest bidder. The Supreme Court. reasoned as f_ol lows ; (1) Where the 1<zw requires a~~~~rd ~~f the contract to 48