Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/15/2018 <br />Expenditures, Purchasing, and Contracts Chapter 22 | Page 22 <br /> C. Competitive bidding procedures <br />Griswold v. Ramsey County, <br />242 Minn. 529, 65 N.W.2d <br />647 (1954). <br /> <br />Coller v. City of St. Paul, <br />223 Minn. 376, 26 N.W.2d <br />835 1947); Interboro <br />Packaging Corp. v. City of <br />Minneapolis, No. A09-0189 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. September <br />15, 2009)(unpublished <br />decision). <br />Once the engineer or purchasing agent has prepared the necessary <br />specifications, the council should seek competitive bids if the law so <br />requires or if the council believes desirable. If the council chooses to seek <br />bids, the city most likely must still follow all competitive bidding <br />requirements. A bid constitutes a definite offer that a municipality may <br />accept without further negotiations but, in order for a bid to be valid, it <br />must substantially comply with the requirements of law and the call for <br />bids. <br /> 1. Specifications <br />Minn. Stat. §§ 471.35-.37. <br /> When a city calls for bids for the purchase of supplies or equipment that <br />are competitive in nature, it cannot prepare specifications to exclude all but <br />one type of supply or equipment. <br />Diamond v. City of Mankato, <br />89 Minn. 48, 93 N.W. 911 <br />(1903). Davies v. Village of <br />Madelia, 205 Minn. 526, <br />287 N.W. 1 (1939). <br />The proposals and specifications must allow for free and full competition <br />and may not give a prospective bidder an unfair advantage over other <br />prospective bidders. <br />Hendricks v. City of <br />Minneapolis, 207 Minn. 151, <br />290 N.W. 428 (1940). <br />A city can include reasonable specifications, even if it causes a reduction <br />in the number of people or companies able to bid. <br />Westra Constr., Inc. v. City <br />of Minnetonka, No. A03-50 <br />(Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 30, <br />2003) (unpublished <br />decision). <br />For example, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has approved a home rule <br />charter city’s use of specifications that included evaluation criteria. The <br />city used the criteria to evaluate bidders based on their experience and <br />history of completing projects on time, within budget, and in a satisfactory <br />manner. The city used the evaluation criteria to determine which bidders <br />had sufficient points to be considered eligible for the contract award. <br />Duffy v. Village of Princeton, <br />240 Minn. 9, 60 N.W.2d 27 <br />(1953). Otter Tail Power Co. <br />v. MacKichan, 270 Minn. <br />262, 133 N.W.2d 511 (1965). <br />Again, specifications must be sufficiently definite and precise to afford a <br />basis for comparable bids. If the city cannot determine in advance the <br />number of units it will need, it can ask for bids on a unit basis. The city <br />should, however, estimate the number of units since the number may affect <br />the unit price. <br /> 2. Advertising for bids <br /> a. General statutory requirements <br />Minn. Stat. § 412.311. <br /> <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. § 410.33. <br /> <br />Minn. Stat. § 429.041, subd. <br />1. <br />Except as noted below, statutory cities must publish all requests for <br />competitive bids in the city’s official newspaper at least 10 days before the <br />last day for submission of bids. A charter may provide other publishing <br />requirements for competitive bids. (If the charter is silent, a home rule <br />charter city may follow the statutory procedure as well).