HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 9446K��t������'����
To the ��ayoKanK���eK�bersOf the K�ityK�xJuklcil --'
Page of
SUBJECT: Bid Rejections
The purpose of this Informal Report is to respond to the request to evaluate the bid process and relevant
procurement policies in order ho reduce the number ofbid rejections. In May, anW1&Choauthorize
rejection of all bids for the Ryan Place Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Improvements caused
some concern regarding the City's rejections ofbids. Additionally, staff is currently recommending the
rejection of proposals \onutSnurCe the City's mailroom operations. This recommendation is based nnbest
value and low savings.
Rejection of all bids is an extreme measure rarely taken by the City and only when absolutely necessary
(See 2O10 table ba|ow). Rejecting all bids and rebidding causes additional expense for bidders and for
the Qty. Because of the public nature ofCity b{ds, prices and bidders' names are newo8|ed at bid
openings. This transparency and process repetition can cause problems during re-bidding such as a loss
o[ participating bidders and protests nfthe second bid process. For these reasons, rejecting all bids isa
strategy that is avoided unless it is the last best option.
The City uses m decentralized process for construction and professional services bids. Several
departments may issue their own bids for construction and environmental services and all departments
may issue their own requests for qualifications or proposals for professional services. The departments
authorized to issue bids are Aviation, Transportation and Public Works, and Water. The Planning and
Development Department also issues requests for bids on gas well leases.
The number nf bids the City rejects each year varies somewhat. The table below lists the bids rejected
since the beginning Of2OO7.
Bids Reiected
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 to Date
12 9 16* 12 5
°11 of these were gas lease bid rejections caused bv changes in the natural gas market
Department
Bids Issued and Reiected in 2010
Issued Reiected Reiect Rate
Aviation
4
O
0.00%
Financial Management Services/Purchasing
151
8
529Y6
Parks and Community Services
12
O
0D0Y6
Planning and Development
17
3
17.65%
Transportation and Public Works
51
1
).00%
VVahar
50
0
Totals
285
12
4.21%
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 944E
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council October 25, 2011
Page 2OY2
SUBJECT: Bid Rejections
A review Cf the 12KX&Csrecommending rejection Of all bids Or proposals in2O1O revealed the following
situations:
�
Project delayed and added Ln8 larger project
~
None of the bids met specifications or minimum requirements
w
All bids were over budgeted amount
�
Prices were unreasonably high
w
In the C\b/'S best interest to provide the services in-house
One Of the 2O1OM&Carequesting rejection nf all proposals for high prices also awarded the project usinq
a cooperative procurement contract at a much lower price.
Some Of the bid rejection situations like those listed above may be caused bv issues with the
specifications. For requests the Purchasing Division (Purchasing) handles, Purchasing depends on
engineering or technical resources in the requesting departments to provide adequate specifications to
describe the goods and/or services needed. Purchasing performs high level reviews of the bidders and
specifications prior torelease tO ensure competition nnrequests.
Some of the requests and construction projects reneivebidsUhsd8n8hi her than the budgeted amounts.
When this occurs, departments must either locate more funds 0r scale back the specifications h3receive
bids within the budgeted 8nnnun|S. Since actual bid prices are difficult to 8ncur8hS|y predict, this 3itu@dOn,
though rare, can occur. Before requests may be re-bid, the previous set nfbids must be rejected by City
Please contact Lena B|is, Financial Management Services Director/CFO, atO17-3S2-8517orJack Dale,
Purchasing Manager, ai817-3S2-0357if there are any questions.
Tom Higgin
City Manager
FORT WORTH, TEXAS