HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter1
--------
/~DC>U.S~,
/ }:~--------.:-<i .""
(/ // ~;.":,~=--~~~,, "')
r:n~ fi FT':' ,I ~ \
- I b3!:! "
· t:';;r;~-r~J~ I
2~::-;HUH)~~ /
~~~;:-:::;:;:;:"""7 .,rH" i' ".;
1736
C,~ORG\~
~
AUGlJSTA-RrCHI\IOND COUNTY COMMISSION
J :\ .\ I E S B. \ \' "-\ L L
CITY /-\TTOR:\EY
LEE 11 L-\ H,I)
l'L.\rER BRIDGES
.JEHI~ y BRIG I L\\T
IIE','RY n. BR1GII.\,\T
;\\D\ Cf/EI::r..:
RIClI.\RO 1.. COLCLOr-GH
'YILl,!.-\\l B. hnILKE. JR.
STEPIIE,\ E. SI IEI',\HD
1\ L\ HIO\ \\ f L 1.1:\.\ IS
Bon \'Ot'"C
0. L1) ~) r
r.C), Bo.\ 2125
454 Cil\EENE STREI::T
,,\ U c; II S T ,\, (J A 3 090.3
\ \' ,'I. n \ V [ L L Il'~ ~ ~ II. i\ L\ y S , III
0. L 1)'(1 r Pr'(l Tc 111
81.'), (7{)h) X21-2-+S8
F.\\ ~(): nOh) 722-598"+
["'\[,\!I,:
rvlarc h 1
'Y.\LTEn S. IJOH;\'SBY~ III
Interim Administrator
1\'0'1 r. \\l a I t e r S. 1-10 r11 5 b y _ I I I
Interill1 i~dlllinistrator
ROOlll 801_ C"ity-County 131dg,
530 Greene Street
f\llgllsta_ Georgia 30911
RE:
Sherii1~s Office lJnifornls
t:~1. r 10 I t7
Dear \\r al ter:
F ollo\ving Friday~ S ll1eeting I have revie\ved the bid solicitations and
specifications for t11c llniforrns for the Sheriff~s Office~ as \veIl as the bid infornlation subnlitted
by C0111111and LTnifof111S and Sidney"s. In revie\ving the bid docll111ents" I 110ted tllat there \vas no
reqLlirenlcnt in the bid specifications" or in the bid sheet for uniforn1s fOf tIle )'ear 2001, for the
bid to be broke11 do\y'n into Section A (clothing itenls) and Section B (accessories) as \vas done
\vhen the unifornls \vere bid in 1999. Ho\vever, it has been Augusta's practice to divide the "bids
along these lines, and to a\vard separately those ite111S u11der Section i\ and those itenlS under
SectionS.
1-\J50, tIle bid slleets this :year for the first linle illcll1ded a qual1tlty 11lunber tor
itenlS in eaeh category'_ \vhieh I aSSU111e is an estinlated alllOllnt. I understand tllat a letter \vas
sellt fronl l)urchasing reqllesting that an estinlated nU111ber be give11.
Depending upon the approach used to evaluate the current bids~ )rOll \vould get a
different result. Tllere is 110 definitive 111ethod stated in the bid docunlents as to 110\V a bid vvould
be evaluated and a contract a\varded. Each bidder could~ ill t:1et, argue that its COl11pany shollld
be a\varcled tIle bid, depending upon \vhether or not the total indiviciual prices \vere C0111putecl,
the total after C0111putil1g the estinlatecl qualltity tinles the individual U11it price" and dependillg
llpon \vhether tIle itenlS \vere evaluated as bet\veen the clothing (Seetiol1 i\) and accessories
(Section B),
TherefLlre. it is In)' reC0l11111endation that Geri - s decision to rej eet all bids and to
rebid the uniforll1s be affirl11ecL
c;p-e~ ~ @,^d
() -I