BOARD02191

• Board Meeting Date: 7/18/1964
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

HR. STAPLETON:

HR. JENNINGS:

l>IR. DUGAN:

I believe that is all, Ben, unless there
are some questions."

"Bob, I've got a question. When I make a
mistake I have to live with mine. How about
these bidders that have a second crack at it?
l1hat's the law and what's the rationale behind
it?1I

"Nell, Ben, I just don't know. I don't
know the details on the Ruedi bid. It's really
quite an unusual circumstance and I think,
from my own experience, I have only had direct
experience on one occasion like that. This
bidder, as soon as the bids were opened, said
he had made a mistake. We opened bids at 10
o'clock in the morning and within a half hour
he carne back with his papers and he had very
obviously made a mistake. I know that case
was allowed. But I don't know the details of
the Ruedi situation.

On the bid opening on Rifle Gap, the
previous week there had been this alleged error
at Ruedi, so we did have the contractor in and
went over with him, item by item, on his bid
and it was quite a surprise to me that he would
go back and allege error. However, I do think
that if there was an error made, a contractor
should be allowed to present his case, present
his information, and have it given proper
consideration.

Those are reviewed in the Department and
decision is made at that point. It is possible
that maybe Pat, who I see just carne in, might
have something more to add to that."

"I can't add much more to what Bob has said.
Ruedi was a similar situation as you all know.
The low bid was $8,675,000; the Engineer's
estimate was $9,400,000; the second low bidder
$10,400,000. We certainly were greatly dis-
appointed by the alleged errors that the low
bidder claimed. He placed his case before the
Secretary's office and Hr. Smith was apparently