Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
JOHN E. BUGO <br />EDWARD N. POLLARD <br />JAY M. WILECERSON <br />WILLIAM J. WOLF <br />R. ROY MITCHELL, JR. <br />OF COUA'SEL <br />Mr. Geoffrey E. Gledhill <br />Coleman, Gledhill & Hargrave <br />Post Office Drawer 1529 <br />Hillsborough, NC 27278 <br />Dear Geoff: <br />BUGG & WOLF, P. A. <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />CUITE 170, UNIVERSITY OFFICE PARE{ <br />411 ANDREWS ROAD <br />DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27705 <br />December 15, 1997 <br />. ~ ~: <br />. ,:~7, <br />PosT OFFICE Box 2917 <br />DUHHAM, NORTR CAROLINA 2771$ <br />-rELEPH ONE X919) 383.9431 <br />-rELECOPIER i919) 383-9771 <br />Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail <br />Re: Orange County Skills Development Center, <br />Chapel Hill, N.C. -Resolute Building Company's <br />Bid Protest <br />Resolute Building Company ("Resolute") requested that I, too, review this matter and afford <br />them a "second opinion" regarding the substantive merits of their bid protest. After having reviewed <br />the material documents including John Northen's letter of November 21, 1997 and your response of <br />December 5, 1997, I respectfully offer the following comments for your further consideration: <br />1. Proposals that do not meet the material requirements of the solicitation -that is, <br />nonres onsive proposals - must be rejected. This is necessary and appropriate, of course, to preserve <br />the integrity of the competitive bidding process. I believe we would all agree that both addenda were <br />material requirements of the solicitation and would be expected to have had considerable influence <br />on every bidders' pricing. <br />2. A usually safe and reliable standazd to apply in determining whether a nonconforming <br />or irregulaz bid is truly nonresponsive is whether or not the public owner could be legally justified in <br />awarding the contract to the low bidder who submitted an irregular bid even though the 1cL bidder <br />were to decide after bid opening that he did not want such an award. <br />As applicable to the case at hand, that would be to ask: If O.C. Mitchell had requested <br />that its bid n~.l be considered for an award after the bid opening and after it had become privy to all <br />other bidders' pricing, then could the County have nevertheless been legally justified in ignoring O.C. <br />Mitchell's request and forcing him to accept an award under such given circumstances or else forfeit <br />his bid bond? <br />If the County could not legally impose such an award under those given <br />circumstances, then O.C. Mitchell's low bid must be rejected as nonresponsive. Otherwise, O.C. <br />Mitchell would clearly have enjoyed a distinct competitive advantage over all the other conforming <br />bidders because he would have, in effect, been allowed to submit what, in effect, should be considered <br />as an "optional bid." <br />