04-10-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities 10/15/2018 Expenditures, Purchasing, and Contracts Chapter 22 | Page 27 Otter Tail Power Co. v. Village of Wheaton, 289 Minn. 118, 49 N.W.2d 804 (1951). Value does not always depend on price alone. The council also may consider the quality, suitability, and adaptability of the items. Where plans and specifications demand consideration of several factors and no single bid represents the lowest in light of all these factors, the council may decide what weight to give to the various factors and, considering all of them, accept what it considers the lowest responsible bid. 8. Variances in bids Diamond v. City of Mankato, 89 Minn. 48, 93 N.W. 911 (1903). Principles of competitive bidding require that the successful bid conform to the specifications. Coller v. City of St. Paul, 223 Minn. 376, 26 N.W.2d 835 (1947). If the final contract contains provisions that benefit the successful bidder but were not in the specifications, the contract may be voidable. Similarly, an award of a contract may be invalid if the selected bid varies materially from the specifications. A material variance arises when the variance gives one bidder a substantial advantage or benefit over other bidders. Coller v. City of St. Paul, 223 Minn. 376, 26 N.W.2d 835 (1947).Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul, 814 N.W.2d 365 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012). For example, a court has ruled that when a contract called for a company to install equipment according to its own specifications instead of those of the city, a material variance existed. Another court held that a modification to increase a bid after bids were opened represented a material change, even though the modification did not displace a lower bidder. Duininck Bros., Inc. v. State, No. C3-97-972 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 1997) (unpublished opinion). Lovering-Johnson, Inc. v. City of Prior Lake, 558 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). Neither a mistake in a price term nor an ambiguous contract-bid price can be waived as an irregularity. Once the designated official or agent opens the bid, a city has no authority to make any “material” change or modifications to the bid, even if the city bid instructions allow it to waive irregularities. If a problem or confusion arises, the city council can reject all bids and make a new request for bids. Sutton v. City of St. Paul, 234 Minn. 263, 48 N.W.2d 436 (1951). Whether a variance gives a bidder substantial advantage or benefit does not represent the only test for determining material variances. Unless the bid responds to the specifications in all material respects, that bid does not qualify as a bid, but rather represents a new proposition the city should reject. 9. Veteran-owned small business contracts Minn. Stat. § 471.3457. Cities may implement programs to provide veteran-owned businesses with a bid preference when awarding contracts for the sale, purchase, or rental of supplies, materials, or equipment or the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real or personal property or for services.