My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-06-19 School Committee Minutes
TownOfReading
>
Public Access
>
Minutes
>
School Committee
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
2000-06-19 School Committee Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2013 8:51:34 AM
Creation date
10/30/2013 8:51:33 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Session -2- June 19, 2000 <br /> In March 2000 a group of citizen's filed a bid protest with the Massachusetts Attorney <br /> General's office alleging the Reading School Committee and the School Building <br /> Committee had not followed the State Building Laws. On May 11, 2000 the Attorney <br /> General's Office denied the bid protest. Here is an excerpt from the decision. <br /> ANALYSIS <br /> The Supreme Judicial Court in LeClair v. Town of Norwell, 430 Mass. 238 <br /> (1999), concluded that pursuant to G.L. c. 7 38D, municipalities are required to <br /> advertise for the final design work. The Court noted that designers who do a feasibility <br /> study, subject to peer review, may be eligible to compete for the final design work. The <br /> Awarding Authority here did advertise for the final design work. <br /> The Group complains that the advertisements for the feasibility study that <br /> appeared in the Central Register and the Reading Chronicle did not contain language <br /> informing potential bidders that they could be eligible to compete for the final design <br /> work. We note, however that the RFQ did contain such language. <br /> In this manner, the Awarding Authority did advertise for the final design work. <br /> In the advertisement, the Awarding Authority informed potential bidders that <br /> Flansburgh, the design firm that did the feasibility study would also be eligible for the <br /> final design work,subject to peer review. Although such candor may have discouraged <br /> other design firms from submitting proposals, this was the result of business decisions <br /> by the design firms and not a violation of the law. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> For the reasons set forth, above, the protest is denied <br /> The Reading School Committee and its Administration firmly believe that the <br /> procedures required by the Supreme Judicial Court's decision have been followed. The <br /> Reading School Committee is confident that it will prevail on the merits of the lawsuit <br /> filed by the citizen group and, if it does, will seek to recover its attorney fees. We will <br /> proceed with both elementary building projects and will oppose any attempt to stop these <br /> projects, which have been approved by votes of Reading Town Meeting and the citizens <br /> of Reading. <br /> Chronology <br /> March, 1998 Funds for Elementary Feasibility Study approved by Town <br /> Meeting. <br /> March 27, 1998 Earl R. Flansburgh, Architect firm awarded contract to do the <br /> Elementary Feasibility Study <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.