Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Bid Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies bid appeal after 3¢ bid-bond shortfall; members pledge code review
Summary
The council denied a bid appeal from Midwest Maintenance after the company submitted a bid-bond amount 3¢ short of the required 5% for an Omaha Public Libraries janitorial contract. The denial was unanimous; several councilmembers said they would seek changes to city procurement rules to allow more discretion for immaterial clerical errors.
The Omaha City Council unanimously denied a bid appeal from Midwest Maintenance Company after the city determined the firm's bid bond was three cents short of the required 5% security for a janitorial-services contract for Omaha Public Libraries.
Appellant Charles (Chuck) Acker told the council that Midwest Maintenance completed the required bid walk and submitted a bid bond that was short by $0.03 (reported bond check of $6,992.40 when the required amount should have been $6,992.43). Acker said the company discovered the clerical error promptly and reissued a corrected check but that the corrected payment arrived after bid-close. He asked the council to consider the small error and allow the bid for further consideration.
City attorneys responded that the city code and procurement ordinances set a clear threshold: bid security must be at least the stated percentage (5%) and that a deficient bid security requires rejection. Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey Bloom explained that while the numerical shortfall was immaterial in practical terms, the ordinances specifically exclude bid-security shortfalls from the class of minor defects the city may cure administratively.
Several councilmembers expressed sympathy for the contractor and frustration at the ordinance’s rigidity. Councilmember Melton said she would request a formal ordinance review to provide council discretion for “common-sense” corrections to immaterial clerical errors; Councilmember Rowe and Councilmember Johnson expressed similar support for pursuing code amendments. Nonetheless, in light of the current statutory and ordinance language and the city's legal-exposure risk, the council voted 7–0 to deny the appeal.
Why it matters: the decision enforces procurement rules strictly but highlighted council interest in revising the code to prevent future forfeitures of competitive bidders over trivial clerical mistakes.
What’s next: the denial stands for this procurement; councilmembers asked staff and the Law Department to draft recommended ordinance changes so future immaterial errors could be handled without risking bid disqualification.
