Loading...
Min 12/19/1921 Court House Wichita Falls, Texas December 19th, 1921. The Board of Aldermen of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in joint session with the Commissioners Court of Wichita County Texas, at the Court House on the above date to open up bids, which had been made for the construction of additions to and extensions of the General Hospital, situated in the City of Wiohita Palls, and jointly owned and operated by the City and the County. The following were present:- J. P. Jones, County Judge J. P. Jackson L. L. Kuntz 4 H. H. Haynes f County Commissioners Lee Prescott J J. B. Fitts W. S. Codes 1 W. N. Bonner r Aldermen R. E. Shepherd] W. T. Harris, County Clerk Pat Murphy, County Auditor Geo W. Thorburn City Clerk Sanguinet, Staats & Pate, Hospital Architects, ###H################# Judge J. P. Jones was elected Chairman unanimously. ####,4###########40# The following were the bids opened. Electrical Work:- Conyers French Elect Co., $5300.00 Dosoh Electric Co., 8800.00 Eugene Ashe Electric Co., 5476.00 Heating:- Hoffman & Co., 8692.00 Kennison 8800.00 Plumbing:- HoffmanCo., 12981.00 Construction of Building:- D. H. Whitehill Construction Co., 96750.00 Chas M. Bialkowski 94975.00 J. C. Joplin & Co., 96700.00-1.1���k Reed & Costley 102000.00 Henger,Chambers 99900.00 Zimmerman & Co., 93000.00 Heating, Lighting & plumbing:- Zimmerman & Co., 24000.00 Elevators:- Otis Elevator Co., 5800.00 #-##############ff After a lengthy discussion Commissioners J. P. Jackson, moved that the contract for the construction of the building be let to D. G. Whitehill Construction Co., which motion was seconded by Alderman Fitts. Alderman Bonner then moved as an amendment that the contract for the construction of the building and all mechanical work be let to Zimmerman & Co., they being the lowest bidders, Motion seconded by Alderman Shepherd. The following was the vote on amendment. yeas: Bonner, Shepherd, Fitts. Naves: Jackson, Kuntz, Haynes, and vote for the original motion was Yeas: Jackson, Kuntz, Haynes, Prescott. Bayes: Bonner, Curlee, Shepherd, Fitts. As neither the Amendment nor the motion received a majority it was agreed to continue the discussion on the bids of Zimmerman & Co., and D. H. Whitehill Construction Co., and a representative of each was called in and questioned and Alderman Curlee moved that the contract be let to Zimmerman & Co., 3 4 O provided that they made satisfactory bond for the completion of the work and also for a penalty for each day over and above 125 days in which they were to complete the work. Motion seconded by Alderman Fitts, Vote was as follows:- Yeas: Curlee, Fitts, Bonner, Shepherd. Hayes: Prescott, Jaokson, Kuntz, Haynes. Judge Jones, Chairman then voted with the nayes. #################### Moved by Commissioner Haynes that the contract for the con- struction of the building be let to D. H. Whitehill Construction Co., Motion seconded by commissioner Prescott, vote as follows:- yeas: Prescott, Kuntz, Haynes, Jackson, Bonner & Fitts. Hayes: Shepherd, Curlee. # ###ff######ri Moved by Alderman Curlee that the contract for Electric work be let to Convers,French Electrical Co., Motion seconded by Alderman shepherd, vote as follows; Yeas: Shepherd, Curlee, Fitts, Bonner, Kuntz, prescott Jackson, Haynes. Hayes: Hone. ygg� Mit i-i## ############ Moved by Alderman shepherd that the contract for the plumb- ing and heating be let to Hoffman & Co., Motion seconded by Alderman Curlee, vote as follows: Yeas: Shepherd, Curlew, Fitts, Bonner, Kuntz, Prescott, Jackson, Haynes. Hayes: None. ########### ### # Moved by Alderman Shepherd that the contract for the elevators be let to the Otis Elevator Co., Motion seconded by Alderman Curlee,vote as follows;- Yeas: Shepherd, Curlee, Fitts, Bonner, Kuntz, Prescott, Jackson, Haynes. Hayes: None. ##################### The meeting then adjourned. Read and approved this day of 1921. ATTEST:- oountyr Judge County Clark Read and approved this day of 1921. mays` ATTEST:- City Clerk 1. The above m*nutes were read at the regular adjourned session of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas, and after a general discussion of the legality of the City assigning contracts on the Hospital to other than the lowest bidders and the following opinion by the City Attorney was then read by the Mayor to the Board. ########## ## December 20th, 1921. Mayor Wm. N. Bonner, City, Dear Sir:- In reply:to your request for an opinion with reference to the letting of the contract for the construction of a hospital to be paid for and operated jointly with the County of Wichita, I beg to advise you that there are several charter provisions, which I thinls it will be necessary for you to take into consideration before a binding contract can be entered into on behalf of the City. The most important of these charter provisions is that con- tained in Section 104, which provides, among other things, that "All contracts for more than one thousand dollars shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, after public advertisement and competition as may be prescribed by ordi- nance". At the outset I will assume that the charter provisions and ordinances with reference to advertising for bids, and all preliminary steps to the opening of bids, have been complied with and will not have occasion to fur- ther mention these in the course of this opinion. The words "to the lowest responsible bidder" have been con- strued by the courts of nearly every state in the union. In fact they have a well defined judicial meaning. The general rule, it seems as adduced from the cases is that, public a.ithorities in awarding contracts, when acting under char- ters containing these words, are vested with discretion in determining who is the lowest and best bidder, and their decision will not be interferred with by the courts, even if the lowest bid is rejedted, provided it is based on a sound and reasonable discretion founded on facts and exercised in good faith, in the int- erest of the public, without collusion or fraud, aor corruptly, nor from motives of personal favoritism or ill-will and when this discretion is not abused. The term "responsible" in this connection means something more than pecuniary ability; it includes also judgment, skill, ability, capacity and integrity and hence the officers in awarding the contract, must exercise official discretion in determ- ining who is the lowest responsible bidder, upon consideration of all these ele- ments of responsibility. Butler vs. Borst, reported in 70 S. E. page 119. Willams vs City of Topeka, reported in Vol. 118 pac. page 864; See also two exhaustive notes in L. R. A. (N.S.) Vol. 38 pages 653 and 672, The only Texas decision that I have been able to find in point is the case of Brown Vs. The City of Houston reported in vol. 48 of the S. W. R. page 760. This case supports the above principle. However, before any binding contract could be entered into for the construction of the hospital on the part of the City, the contract would have to be considered and acted upon by the Board of Aldermen at a regular meet- ing or a special meeting specially called according to law, at their usual place of meeting. In other words this discretionary power vested in the Board of Aldermen in making this contract would have to be exercised by the Board at a legal meeting at their usual place of meeting, and not elsewhere. The Charter and your Ordinances provide for this. yours very truly, Signed;- E. M. Mann, City Attorney. ##########M#14##### The Board *hen went into executive session to consider matters that may be considered in executive session. The Board then went out of executive session. t################# It was then moved by Alderman Fitts that the minutes of the joint meeting held at the Court House on December 19th 1921 be not approved and that that the Mayor request another meeting with the CommissithaZ Ts court. Motion seconded by Alderman Bonner and carried. 342