CC MINUTES 08231966 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- It is our opinion that the plans and specifications were not only in- complete, but misleading, and did not call for any bid to include mechanical and electrical work. This is confirmed by the fact that even bidders who had seen the published invitation for bids (which Olson S Anderson, Inc. had not) called the architects to inquire if this work was to be included. Any one call should have alerted the architects to the danger that bids would be submitted through mistake. The very substantial spread of $11,000 between this bid and the next two or three bids should have made it obvious to you and the architects that a mistake had been made. Under the circumstances, there has been no meeting of the minds and you cannot legally accept the bid which is hereby withdrawn for the reasons stated. Demand is also made that you return to Olson & Anderson, Inc. its bid bond. See St. Nicholas Church v.KKroPD135 Minn. 115, 160 N.W. 500, Independent School District v. Weeinmann, 248 Minn. 267, 68 N.W. 2d 248; Kra-in v. age of Almond, 290 N.W. 132. Notwithstanding the foregoing and for the purpose of settlement only, and with a full reservation of all its rights and defenses, Olson & Anderson, Inc. is willing to amend its bid so as to include the electrical and mechanical work for the additional amount of $11,365.00, which would bring its total bid- to $66065,00. This figure is submitted because our clients have been Inform- ed by another bidder that this is the amount at which he included this work • in his bid and he is willing to accept a subcontract at this figure. In making this offer, we call your attention to the fact that Olson & Anderson, Inc. is including nothing additional for overhead and profit on this extra work." Mr. David Bennett, architect for the liquor store addition asked that his state- ment be made a part of the record in opposition to certain portions of the letter from Mr. Thomas, esquire. His reply is as follows: "Itece exception to and disagree with the first sentence, third paragraph of above letter. Of the six bids accepted by the Village only this contractor failed to include mechanical and electrical work in his bid. Of the other five contractors only one found need to call (on the morning of the bid opening) to clarify this point. The responsibility to clarify such matters is, by specification, the responsibility of the contractor. Directions for the inclusion of mechanical b electrical equipment in the contract are made explicit by inclusion of drawings & specification for such work bound, indexed and referred to in the contract documents -- of which the drawings are an integral part." Mr. Anderson presented the method on which his bid was computed. The Mayor inform- ed Mr. Anderson that the method of arriving at a bid price was of no concern to the Council. After discussion, Councilman Sorenson moved and seconded by Councilman • Bailey that the low bid of Olson-Anderson Inc. be rejected on the basis of an error of omission as stated in the letter by Mr. Paul Thomas, esquire. Motion Carried. Councilman Sorenson introduced Resolution No. 66-067 and moved that it be adopted.