My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST COMPETITIVE BIDDER
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Legal Opinions
>
1972-2010 Opinions
>
AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST COMPETITIVE BIDDER
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:31:19 PM
Creation date
7/20/2010 1:59:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legal Opinions
Description
AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST COMPETITIVE BIDDER
Date
3/19/1973
Agency
City Attorney's Office
Notes
OPINION 73-26
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
furnish the evidence of non-responsibility <br />(non-"best") and give the contractor a brief <br />but adequate period in which to reply with <br />written evidence and to request, at his option, <br />a hearing, <br />(2) Since the City Council is the ultimate awarding <br />authority, that body should conduct the hearing. <br />(3) Due process requires that the aggrieved party <br />be given notice of_ the hearing and an opportunity <br />to be heard, to present witnesses and to cross <br />examine those who appear in support of the <br />decision to deny him the contract award. <br />(4) The strict rules of evidence d.o not apply. <br />(5) The specific requirements of_ the Administrative <br />Procedure Act do not apply. <br />(6) Formal pleadings are not required.. <br />~- (7) Formal findings are not required. <br />(8) While a verbatim transcript is not required, it <br />mi_aht be advisable in certain serious cases; in <br />any event, there should be a reasonably extensive <br />summary of testimony and an exact notation of any <br />documentary evidence received recorded in the min- <br />utes so that any court reviewing the council's find- <br />ings can determine whether there was substantial <br />evidence to support a finding of non-responsiblity. <br />(9) Since the purpose of the hearing is to determine the <br />correctness of_ the decision to refuse to award the <br />contract to the low bidder, the burden of proof rests <br />with the city to show non-responsiblity. <br />(Note: The decision in the Inglewood case was reached by a four <br />to three vote. However, the basis of_ the disser_tinq opinion was <br />that the specific contract in question was not a standard con- <br />struction contract, but rather a contract for services as a con- <br />sultant and supervisor-manager, to which a requirement of_ strict <br />compliance with competitive bidding principles would not be <br />applicable. The contract i_n Inglewood called f_or the contractor <br />to be brought into the building project through competitive bid- <br />dincT prior to the devel.opmc~nt ~f working drawincts . IIe is then <br />50 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.