Newburyport Daily News, Thursday, January 13, 2005

No need to accept lowest AHS bidder

To the editor:

The High School Building Committee did not have to accept the lowest bidder.

The High School Building Committee, mayor, School Committee and others are trying to dodge responsibility for the problems and delays at the high school project by claiming the law required "they had to take the lowest bidder." They are not being honest.

At the time they made their selection the law required that they take the "lowest responsible and eligible general bidder."

What does "lowest responsible and eligible" mean for the purposes of the state public construction law?

Responsible: "means demonstrably possessing the skill, ability and integrity necessary to faithfully perform the work called for by a particular contract ... ."

Eligible: "means able to meet all requirements for bidders or offerors ... ."

How do public sector building committees determine if a bidder is "responsible" and "eligible"? They research the bidders. They check references, they visit other projects, talk to other building committees. And if their research shows that a bidder is not "responsible," then they can reject that bidder, provided they document their information. As The Daily News has demonstrated, the record of the high school contractor is questionable. So why didn't the building committee reject them?

When the school building committee was conducting its review of the proposals submitted for the high school project, did they check that the bidders were all "responsible"? Did they check references? Did they research other projects undertaken by the bidders? Did they follow up on what they learned through their research by confronting the bidders and demanding explanations and guarantees that what had occurred on other projects would not be repeated? Did they check the safety records of the bidders?

The committee's research, etc. is subject to the public records and open meeting laws. Pursuant to the state's requirements to retain records, they should have records to prove that they took these steps. But when The Daily News started asking questions, nobody mentioned any research about the bidder. Instead, The Daily News was told that the town had to award the contract to Alexandra, because Alexandra was the lowest bidder.

Did anybody research the company, before the town awarded the contract to Alexandra?

TOM IACOBUCCI

Amesbury