Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1976 [PAGE 637]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

626

BOARD OF T R U S T E E S

[May 19

These contracts will be for work on projects estimated to cost less than $25,000. The several contractors bid on percentages to be added to an estimated volume of material, labor, and subcontracts, and the awards recommended are to the low bidders. A summary of the bids received on April 13, 1976, has been filed with the Secretary of the Board for record. President Neal acknowledged receipt of a May 13, 1976, communication from Harold W. Huff, attorney for Tal Rauhoff, Inc., copies of which had been given to each member of the Board (copies of the documents from Mr. Huff have been filed with the Secretary of the Board for record). In brief, M r . HufFs statement asked the Board to accept a performance and payment letter of credit in lieu of the surety bond required by the University bid documents for this project. At the request of President Neal, the University Counsel, M r . Gostello, reviewed in some detail the chronology of events and legal requirements associated with this transaction. H e reported that the bid documents (and State law) required all bidders to prequalify in advance of the April 13 bid opening. O n e of the prequalification requirements was the submission of an unqualified letter of commitment from a surety company of a specified rating to act as surety for the successful bidder's performance and payment. T a l Rauhoff, Inc., failed to submit any letter from a surety company prior to bid opening and, therefore, did not prequalify as required. Subsequent to bid opening T a l Rauhoff, Inc., forwarded a letter from a surety company which was conditioned on certain contingencies and was not a firm commitment. T h e University Counsel stated that, in effect, the proposal T a l Rauhoff, Inc., was submitting to the Board today was that the Board overlook the company's failure to prequalify, accept a letter of credit in lieu of the surety bond specified, and award a contract to it. H e pointed out that the company's proposal was not permitted by the bid documents, was directly in conflict with them, and would constitute a major deviation from the stated bidding requirements. H e stated he had been advised that the Physical Plant Department at the Chicago campuses had recommended that the Tal Rauhoff, Inc., proposal be rejected, and that he supported that recommendation. T h e student advisory vote was: Aye, Mr. Conlon, Mr. Summers, Mr. Szegho; no, none. O n motion of Mr. Howard, the recommendation from the President of the University was approved as presented by the following vote: Aye, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. H a h n , Mr. Howard, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Neal, Mrs. Rader, Mrs. Shepherd; no, none; absent, Mr. Lenz, M r . Velasquez, Governor Walker. Report of Rejection of Bids, Housing Division Storage Building, Urbana (16) The President of the University, with the concurrence of appropriate administrative officers and pursuant to the provisions of Section 15(e)(2) of the