AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST COMPETITIVE BIDDER

Home Browse Search

furnish the evidence of non-responsibility (non-"best") and give the contractor a brief but adequate period in which to reply with written evidence and to request, at his option, a hearing, (2) Since the City Council is the ultimate awarding authority, that body should conduct the hearing. (3) Due process requires that the aggrieved party be given notice of_ the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, to present witnesses and to cross examine those who appear in support of the decision to deny him the contract award. (4) The strict rules of evidence d.o not apply. (5) The specific requirements of_ the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply. (6) Formal pleadings are not required.. ~- (7) Formal findings are not required. (8) While a verbatim transcript is not required, it mi_aht be advisable in certain serious cases; in any event, there should be a reasonably extensive summary of testimony and an exact notation of any documentary evidence received recorded in the min- utes so that any court reviewing the council's find- ings can determine whether there was substantial evidence to support a finding of non-responsiblity. (9) Since the purpose of the hearing is to determine the correctness of_ the decision to refuse to award the contract to the low bidder, the burden of proof rests with the city to show non-responsiblity. (Note: The decision in the Inglewood case was reached by a four to three vote. However, the basis of_ the disser_tinq opinion was that the specific contract in question was not a standard con- struction contract, but rather a contract for services as a con- sultant and supervisor-manager, to which a requirement of_ strict compliance with competitive bidding principles would not be applicable. The contract i_n Inglewood called f_or the contractor to be brought into the building project through competitive bid- dincT prior to the devel.opmc~nt ~f working drawincts . IIe is then 50