Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates bid-opening irregularity and whether to rebid after envelope lacked required certificate
Summary
A bidder objected that an envelope lacked a required certificate of responsibility and had been opened; the board discussed legally permitted responses (set aside, accept qualified bids, or rebid) and deferred to the county attorney’s discretion while several supervisors urged rebidding to ensure fairness.
A public bidder raised an objection after a recent public bid opening when one envelope lacked a certificate of responsibility on the outer envelope but was opened and read aloud. The bidder (speaker 13) said the county’s process required the certificate be on the outside and objected when the envelope was opened. Several supervisors pressed for clarity about whether to accept the lowest qualified bid, set aside the noncompliant envelope, or reject and rebid the project.
The county attorney told the board this is a discretionary legal decision: the board may accept the currently lowest qualified bid, take bids under advisement, or reject and solicit new bids. Board members voiced competing concerns: some said rebidding might be the fair remedy because the public reading revealed price information, while others worried rebidding would’ve revealed competitors’ prices and could disadvantage the county schedule.
A motion to rebid was proposed and seconded for further action; the meeting record shows the issue will be handled as a discretionary procurement decision and that staff/legal will follow up. No final rebid resolution or contract award was made at the meeting.
Next steps: procurement and legal staff to review the record, confirm statutory requirements, and advise whether to reject and rebid or proceed with the compliant bidder(s).
