HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - February 1, 1989 (49)REPORT EY CITY
ATTORNEY CONCERNING
THE LEGALITY OF
AWARDING A BID TO
A LOCAL BIDDER IN
THE EVENT OF A
TIE BID
The City Attorney presented the foilowing report concerning
she legality of awarding the bid to a local bidder i n the
CC -4(e)
event of a tie bid:
CC -6
m32`aj"
At the Cocncil meeting of January 18, 1989, questions were
raised concerning appropriate procedures in case of a tie
bid, and also whether a local bidder could be given
preference in such cases to break the tie. To rry surpi ;se,
I found no cases or statutes on the point. I n fact, .he
only case law I fcund at all on this topic came out of the
State of l%v York, and generally specified that in such
instances, the "commissioner" who was responsible for the
letting of such contracts could make the decision as long
as the basis of how the decision was made to award the
contract to a specific bidder was explained. This doesn't
help us much.
1 an aware that i n other jurisdictions, tie bids have been
broken by reference to either the postmarked date of the
bid, or (as vie have done here in Lodi) a coin toss
conducted in the presence of the affected bidders. Either
of these, or any other nondiscriminatory criteria, can
probably be used. Such practice should be uniformly
applied and probably should be spelled out in vur bidding
poiicies and requirements.
As to the question of whether the City could use the place
of business as a factor in determining who would win i n t i e
bid situations, 1 believe it would be inap ropriate. In
such cases as Cit of Inglewood, et al. v. Su erior 'Court
(197.2) 7 C.3d 61, localpreference was re ec,e,> y t e
California Supreme Court. The California Attorney General
has also issued an opinion stating that counties ,airy. not
establish bidding procedures under which a contractor is
entitled to preference solely on the ground that',.. the
bidder's place of business was within that county (64
Ops.A.G. 670 (1981)).
In this opinion, the Attorney General, referring to the
City of Inglewood case, supra, stated . (T)he purposes
of competitive bidding were confirmed by language of Cit
,)f Inglewood, to the effect that it was in the public
interest to have contracts awarded without favoritism and
at the lowest price consistent with reasonable quality".
(A.G.'s Opinion at 672) The Attorney General went on to
state Therefore, bidding procedures cannot be established
which qive preference to a contractor based on the location