HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTION 1986-99F'
administration
RESOLUTiuNflO. 86-99
~ RESOLUTIUNOF THE COUNCIL Or ThE CITY OF KEN~I, ALd~OM, ~I~RDINO A
CONTRACT FOR FLOOR COVERIN8 TO 8. RUTHERFORD FLOOR C~ERINO FOR THE
PROJECT ENTITLED 'KEN~I FIRE DEI~I~EHT FLOOR COUERIN8 1986' FOR ~ LUNP
SUld ~IHOUNT OF se,e00.00.
MHEREAS, the City of Ken~i received bids ~oP the &bore mentioned floor
covering fPQm the ~o110~Jino firmsl
Decor Industries
HixaoP Floor Center
4-0 Interiors
Peninsula Flooring
Peninsula Floorlno Alternate
8. Rutherford Floor Covering
411en & Paterson
t14,281.00
9,985.00
9,941,00
9o865.91
9o355.49
90800.00
7,490,00
WHEREAS, the bid o~ CammePcial Contractor's Inc. dba 411en and Paterson
Company his been determined to be non-responsive and Is fiD. declared m
non-responsive bidl
MHERLqS, The City o~ Kenai Fire Department recommends m&rdtno the bid
to E. Rutherford Floor Coulring fop the total bid mount o~ 08,800.00l
~HEREAS, the Council o~ the City o~ Kenai ~eels that it Is in the best
interest o~ the City o~ Ken&i to awird this project to 8, Rutherford
Floor Couerinol and
MHEREA80 ou~iclent ~unds are &vail&bio.
flOblo ?HEREFOREo BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEI~I,
ALASKA, that I contract be IN&rded ~or floor covering to S. Ruthherford
Floor CovePino ~oP the project entitled, 'Kenai Fire Department Floor
Covering 1966' ~or & lump sum mount of e8,800.00.
I~SSEDBY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KEI~I, ALASKi~, this loth diy el
October, 1986.
CITY OF KENAI
M£HORA~UH
TOt
FROHt
I)ATE t
AlFred lvanorr, Fire Chief
City oF KefleA
SutaAifre, Acting City Attorney~
3.
Ran
City of Keflai
October 8. 1986
Kenai rare Department rAoor Covering BAd
You have ~equeeted that ! review the Kenai HuniolpaA Code and
reAevent State etetuteo and eeeee to determine whether the City
of KeneA may reJeot a bad For fAoor ooverAng oubmAtted Octobe~ 8,
1986 by AAen& Petereen Company.
The facto that have been preeented to me indloete that on
September 22, 1986 the City of Kenei pubAAohed in the PeninouAe
CAaflon an advertisement for bide reacting to fAoor oovertng R
the KenaA rare Department. The bid opeeirioatione required that
the btdde~ lnolude a ~urrent Kenai PenAneuAe Borough Cetttfioete
of RegietrotAon (theae are apparently for tax purpoaeo).
At the bid opening, the apparent low bidder wee Alan & Petetoen
Company with a bid of $7,490.00. The next higher bad wee
Rutherfordo' rAoor Covering with e bad of $8,800.00. In reaponae
to the bid opeaAfioetiono, the AAen& Pete,eon Company did not
mt,aah a copy of the outran, KeneA Pen~neu~e 8orough Ce~tifioate
of fleg~etretAofl, but ~neteed, typed An the fo~owing warder
"Pending at KenoA Borough. PXeeee confirm with Dawn
Lehnum - 262-4441 at Borough. Copy to foAAow."
:~'.-:'.'.--'~,' '-~'.:: ',-!'" "'::-~i;
: .-',
'": -.:-?:~"':~:7 .... ~:- ~...
. ...... .....
~hen ~ met ~Jkh ~ou ~n 2ou~ o~oe on Ookobe~ 6, 1~6~ ak ;:., ...: ..~::::...:~,:...~:::.:~
oppfox~mokel~ }sJO p.m.~ [ telephoned the number ~eked on the .~--~--~-~:.-'~~'-F~"
b~d p~opoe~ and epoke ~Xkh Oewn Lehnum. At that
L"
~..,t,-, .. '; ,.,.', T
"~.: ',~'.:/~ ".';2/.
-. ..
': :' ',, ':' ,":~ "~2:'--
F
CertLrioete or Regietretlon r~om the Borough. Ha. Lehnum
inro~med mo that oho had onXy malXed the meterieX8 rot
appiXoetion rot tho Certirioate on Ootober 8, 1986 to Alan &
Pete~aen Company.
ThLa bid p~oblem lo very aimlZar, ir not ldentloal, to a probXem
whioh e~oae in He,oh, 1986 when the CLOy attempted to award a
oQnt~aot rot renoe repair. Zn that oboe, tho bid epeoirieationa
required that the oontractQr have and keep ourront, a
oont~aotor'a lioenae and buaineaa Xloenae rot the duration of the
p=oJeot. The lev bidder in that oboe, submitted his bid without
the QOntrootor'o Lioenae and BOoted that, it wee "applied rot.#
#hen 3aok LeShot lnveotigdted the matter, he round that the
8ppllQakiofl wee dated 8everel day8 error the bid opening. In
that 088e, the City Attorney edvAeed the City Counoi! to ~eJeot
tho bid or the 8pporent Iow bidder end ac,apt the next highe~ bid
baaed on the nofl-reeponeAveneo8 of the apparent low bidder.
! would oonour with the pr=oedent whtoh hoe already been eeo in
thio matter and oonolude that ~n thio oaae, you ahould re,eot the
eppa~en~ Zov bidder's bid~ baaed upon non-reeponaivene88. The
root that the bidder waa not entirely aoourate in their
ohareoterizat~on or the Certirioate aa "pending" might aZeo go to
their ~eapona~bllity. However, ~fl thi8 oaae~ Lt ia not neoeaaary
to go into the non-responsibility laoue.
He~ecting the bid in thio oaae a8 non-reeponaive would roZZov the
prevailing Alaska view that proposals for publlo oontreot8 muet
oubetentieliy oomply with e~! ~equiremente oonteined in the
AZeaka State
Znvitation rot Propoeal8. See, Kin~ v. ,, Housing
Authority, ~12 P.2d 887 (Alaeke~ 197~). 'A'a'pointed out in the
Ko_~edeeLaion, while 'm~nor" verianoea do not require reJeation
peopoaal, material variances generally wil! require e
zeJeot~on or a bid p~opoea! es non-responsive. At 892.
The Court generally ooneAder m~nor variances aa transposition or
numbers or minor errors in oeloulation whioh do not amount to a
large percentage aa oompazed to the entire pzoJeat. £roouree ore
onothe; example o~ a minor variation
Anothez rooter in the City's favor is the teat that the
determination by a pubZio egenoy or tho reeponeiveneae or a bid
Ae ueueZly within the agenoy'a dAea;etion, subject to Judia~oZ.
revAowt of an ascertainment that the~e was · reasonable bea&e rot
the agenoy'a aotAon. Kelly v. Za;a;ql~, GO P.2d 906 (AZeaket
1971). Again, I would oonolude that the bid ahouZd be rejected.
3RS/aZ r
.. ..... . . · '~¢~.'-'-. : .... .~,- ..~. : ...,..'. .. .. , - · ., .,,, .. :,~ ".'.
%',' .'. ~ ' · , ,, ~,' :-~ ~.~,:, "- .... °~' ~,. "at ,,..'~ ' '" '"' '"'" .... '-" :','~" ~¢ "'"' - .'"'.'-~' -"
.. "'~; "'~ 'i:~'": ~'" :-" :';:'i .... "' ' '""" ~" .... ' ....
"" · .... '. ~,'" .,~;::d.~'-":"
· ,~ i:', ....,'. ~ .~,. ,.- .'" : ~°'*'~' ' ....... ;~' '""~":
.,~:'..~..v :. ;. ' .... :." .~".:',!,.:'~' ';: .,:.. .... ' :.'.. ' ................ ,...'.' ..', ,..'?:~'. ",~-~,.; ............ ·
,, ...... L.~ '. . .~' .'~'-. ':.,..: ... ".. ': ...... -..' , ', ':?-. .............. ' ./,~ 2 '.:: .: .-. '"...' ;, ..'..-..-....,..,. :.:, .:.'.
.... ' - :'-'A~.--' -- :: _~_~.'.:.~ ';,.:. ..:~_ .,~_..¢. ..... ' ... -.. '. =:. . ....... ':..... . . ' ....... ...~ _..':..~: '~ , . '? . .,i/,~... '..,.~.~._' ' ,, '
· ' '.f ..... : .' o'., '~' /, ' ' ' ..... ' ! ' ~. ' ,,, ' :. "--'L"-,~ .............
"":'.'' ;" ' ' ..L""~"- ...... - '' ''? "- ',,:.'b., '_ ,' ~ · .... .' :'. . ~ ....... :_ .'.': : .; ....... ,"! -. ,." ". :' ,'..'..L.'.?:
..... .'.ri ~ ~"~.:' '~. ' '. ' ' :" ' '~ ' .- .'- · ' ' '~ ' ~' .~. ~" · ..... .'.":"" .~.
. '.. . . ~ ~-\. .~_.'