08/17/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Delay expressed feeling uncomfortable with the notion that Jarvis had been rejected, based on a feeling that there might be prejudice and he wanted more concrete evidence. He noted the firm's bid was less e expensive and it was an Oregon corporation. Mr. Baumgartner replied, the evaluation of the biddings had been based on responses for requested proposals sent out in April. Ten points had been requested on the RFP evaluation from each bidding firm. In some instances bidding firms added or deleted various points, noting the Jarvis Corporation had eliminated two of the ten points, while the ERA made additions which would be helpful to the development. The explanation satisfied Mr. Delay. Mr. Obie noted for Mr. Delay also that ERA's maximum cost was $45,000, while Jarvis' estimated cost was $40,000, and that the two costs might not be that far apart in actual outlay. Mr. Haws returned to EDCON, noting the $15,000 difference, and said per- haps the firm was younger and less experienced, but he wondered what ERA would provide for the extra $15,000 that EDCON would not. Mr. Baumgartner replied EDCON had been one of the three finalists. His final recommenda- tion was not EDCON because he was uncomfortable with with the bid. He noted the bid price was less than 50 percent of the closest bid and felt there might be a possibility of lacking experience in bidding or trying to buy the bid. When additional information was requested, the type of information given by EDCON was not sufficient. He felt EDCON would not provide the quality report needed. He said he lacked confidence in EDCON's bid. Also, Mr. Baumgartner noted when the time frame of 18 months was set up, the bidders were contacted to see if they could conform. He said EDCON replied it could conform but would have to rebid. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to authorize the City Manager to execute contract with Economic Research Associates of San Francisco for a feasibility study. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Hamel, Williams, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voting aye; Bradley, Haws, and Delay voting no. Mr. Bradley noted his reason for voting no was that he favored the Jarvis firm; Mr. Haws favored EDCON and the saving of $15,000. Mr. Williams wondered if he could change his vote. He personally felt great reservations about the City Council's actions, noting a number of years and the amount of money that had already been poured into this project. He said Council was getting ready to spend another $100,000 and felt, with a lack of unanimous decision, perhaps the Council should slow down and look more closely at the action it was taking. He was not sure that the lack of unanimity came from which consultant to choose or if the question was whether a consultant was needed at all. He felt the major decision of spending this money for such a long-standing project should be supported unanimously by Council. - 8/17/77--6 ~~