Bidder disputes city’s decision to reject all bids for Well No. 12 R project

During the second public comment period at the Dec. 2 meeting, a caller who identified himself as Chad said he was one of the bidders on the Well No. 12 R improvement project and disputed the city's decision to reject all bids.

Chad told council he received a letter from the city that "all bids are going to be rejected based on the qualifications," but he said he believed his bid met the specifications. He said the solicitation language referenced "municipal wells" (plural) and he provided two wells, while the letter indicated three were required. "I was one of the bidders on that project, and I received a letter saying that all bids are going to be rejected based on the qualifications, which I felt that we met," Chad said. "It said that we had to provide 3 municipal wells as qualifications where the qualifications only said a municipal well, quotation mark, with an s, like plural, and we provided 2." He added he had tried to contact city staff with no satisfactory response.

The item to "reject all bids for Well Number 12 R improvement project phase 1" was included on the consent agenda earlier in the meeting and the consent agenda was approved by the council. The council record in this transcript does not include a separate discussion or staff response to Chad’s remarks during the meeting; Chad said he sought reconsideration because he believed the city's notice was inconsistent with the solicitation language.

The comment is entered into the record by the city clerk; the transcript does not show a direct staff response or a follow‑up action recorded during the meeting. Council or staff may respond outside the meeting through procurement staff or the city clerk’s office to clarify the solicitation language and the rejection rationale.