Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1916-07-11

had right under the statute after
inviting sealed proposals for a pub
lie improvement which Is to be paid
for by special assessment against the
AUDITING property to enter into a
!. contract at variance with the sealed
proposals. The statute provides.
Code Supp. 1913, Sec. 813:
All contracts for making or re-
construction Of street improvements
and sewers shall BE let in the name
Of the city to the lowest bidder. by
sealed proposals, upon giving no
tice, etc.
1t will be noticed that under the
provisions of the statute the terms
ITO the lowest bidder" ''by sealed
proposals. and "upon giving no.
tice - ~, but all bids may be re-
jected and new bids ordered" ETC.,
are separated by, commas. It is
plain, We think, that a proper inter-
probation of these provisions is that
all contracts for the making of
street improvements shall be let ''to
the lowest bidder second, that all
contracts for the making of street
Improvements shall be let "by sealed
proposals." and third, that all con-
tracts for the making of street i'm
provements shall be upon giving
notice." etc.
II the city may not let contract
except to the lowest bidder, by sealed
proposals, we think the council has
no power to let the contract as was
done in this case by what is in eff
feet private negotiation between the
successful bidders and the city in
the absence of other bidders, and
without their knowledge, and after
the other bids have been opened. The
council had the right under the sta
tute to reject all the bids and order
new ones and in that way give the
other bidders the same opportunity
as the successful contractors in this
case had. and possibly to the benefit
of the city by reason of further COM
petition. The object of such pro-
visions is to prevent favoritism, cor
ruption, extravaganza and IMPROVE
dence in the awarding of municial
contracts, and they should be so ad-
ministered and construed as to fairly
and reasonably accomplish such pur
sc.
20 Am. & Ang. Enc, Sec. 1165
a Edo
ole also: Chippewa Bridge Co.
aDurand, 1O6 Am. st. Rep. 931,
a37.
p.irbanks vs.. North Bend, "a N.
1887; in the Chippewa Bridge
ncase, supra. it was said:
lit may be in this particular
githe method adopted by the city
nails to procure the bridge was
tlntageous to the public, but that
fl not help the matter. The char
Ihaving prescribed how such con-
cts must be made, having mapped
expressly or by implication a
ocular plan to be followed, and
order to prevent dickcring, which
allowed in such matters, is liable
result in favoritism, extrava-
nee and corruption the municipal
ficers were under an absolute dis
bility to proceed in any other way"
The city council in providing i'm
provements of this kind acts as an
agent of the taxpayer and AUDITING
owners. but without consulting
them, hence the necessity Of the rule
that the statute empowering them
must be strictly construed. The
council is not vested with an arbi-
trary and unlimited discretion, but
must exercise bona fide judgment.
Before letting contract to the low
est bidder, the members of the coun-
Gil should have believed that such
bid was the lowest reasonable bid
that could be obtained The diff
ference in the two classes of asphalt
amounted under the contract to al
most 100000, so that in this case
it appears that after the bids had all
been submitted. the members of the
council were advised that the lowest
bidder was willing to reduce his old
bid to that amount by furnishing
a higher grade of asphalt. 1t has
been held that the action of the
council in accepting the modified
proposal was in effect rejection of
all the proposals.
Attorney General VS.. Public Light
ing Commission. 11S N. W., 935 |
93S.
We are OF the opinion that the
council had no authority under this
record to let this contract.
We shall refer later to appellant's
claim that the contract was substan-
TALLY complied with. They con
tend that the improvement was of