My imagination is not capable of dreaming up these things.
This post was about some at the city trying to disqualify a bidder because even though they were low bid, their mobilization cost was too high. The fact that the contractor is a friend of the city manager did not enter into the discussion at city council. As I recall the city manager stayed out of the discussion. Ultimately the old city council voted to give the contract to the low bidder and thus ignored the mobilization issue.
The backup material for this first round indicated that “On January 22, 2013 a letter was sent to Karlshruher informing them of the Engineering and Construction Management Department’s recommendation to City Council. The letter also, informed Karlshruher, Inc that the item was posting to the City Council meeting of January 29, 2013, should they wish to appear before City Council.”
We had a bidder who was low, but was going to be disqualified because of a problem with one line item, getting a friendly letter from the city telling them that they may want to appear before city council and object. Ultimately the bidder did appear before city council and was awarded the bid.
The result was good. The low bidder got the job.
Round two
The September 24, 2013 city council agenda has another bid award item on it. The same two bidders are contending for a different piece of business. This time the shoe is on the other foot.
The low bidder this time is the firm that lost the first round. City staff wants to disqualify them because their mobilization costs are too high.
The backup material makes no mention of sending a letter to them telling that they may want to appear before city council like their competitor received last time.
Stay tuned
This one will be interesting to watch.
Will the Karlshruher firm bow out knowing that their bid is higher, and that the technicality setting them up to get this business is one that they fought against and called wrong last time? Is fair for the goose fair for the gander?
Will the low bidder appear before council and argue that low is low, regardless of an individual line item?
Will the new city council be made aware of the complete situation? Will they give the business to the low bidder? Two of the city manager’s supporters are not on council this time.
City staff has been consistent here in recommending that a bidder with mobilization costs that are over 5% of the bid should be disqualified.
Have they been consistent in warning the low bidder about the problem? We know they did the first time. Did they the second time?
Will the city manager’s friend get the business again?
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
As usual you’ve got the facts wrong and you have no idea how this process works, the size of the two errors (the difference between $100 in one case an $10,000 in another). Defaming an honest family because you fail to do your research is dumb way to get sued. You’re really looking out for El Paso business!
Maybe it’s about time to let everyone know who the players on this blog are. Maybe YOUR stories should be told.
LikeLike
Help me with this. What exactly is “mobilization” cost?
LikeLike
One set of specifications classifies it this way:
The work consists of the mobilization and demobilization of the contractor’s forces and equipment necessary for performing the work required under the contract. It does not include mobilization and demobilization for specific items of work for which payment is provided elsewhere in the contract. Mobilization will not be considered as work in fulfilling the contract requirements for commencement of work.
Brutus
LikeLike
The point is not $100 or $10,000. The issue is that one firm was given a heads up to appear at council while another firm did not get the same consideration. There is no slander here. The letter dated 1-22-13 is in the backup material of record.
LikeLike
the other firm, by law, has to get a letter. The reason the item involving my parents has the letter as back-up is because we protested the bid. That forced city staff to produce all applicable documents to the process. No protest has been filed, so the city doesn’t have to provide that backup.
LikeLike
And I should add that Leeds dropped the lawsuit before it went to trail. I was ready to get a judgement and he backed out because the judge told him what the penalties would be if he kept playing his game. I’d say the guy who quit the lawsuit was the one peeing in his pants.
But hey – don’t let the facts get in the way of the story you are telling yourself.
LikeLike
If momma boy David K paid a buck for each time he threatened people with lawsuits and a sundry of other baseless accusations (not counting the time he was sued for being a baseless liar and he was forced to pee in his pants, while he hid behind his wife and then settled for eating crow), we could pay for the ballpark and all the extra bells and whistles!
(if ony using your real name on the internet is what made a man)
LikeLike
If the city had a dollar for every different name YOU use to wage some weird war against me on the internet – they’d buy the Yankees and play baseball on top of the mountain.
If you don’t change your schtick – it doesn’t matter if you change your name. Everybody knows who you are. It used to be funny, now it’s just weird. Get help.
LikeLike