- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Construction Question
Posted on 4/23/19 at 11:38 am to Clint Eastwood
Posted on 4/23/19 at 11:38 am to Clint Eastwood
Perhaps they submitted a product from an acceptable manufacturer that doesn't meet the specs? Maybe that manufacturer makes another product that is acceptable?
It's hard to really say without knowing more details, but obviously a manufacturer could have several product lines of differing quality.
It's hard to really say without knowing more details, but obviously a manufacturer could have several product lines of differing quality.
1
Posted on 4/23/19 at 9:09 pm to LSUBoo
The product was rejected with remarks “not basis of design”. When the basis of design is patented no other manufacturer can provide it.
Posted on 4/23/19 at 9:21 pm to Clint Eastwood
quote:
The specified basis of design is a proprietary system, but there are listed alternate manufacturers. The alternate manufacturer's product has been submitted and rejected based on not having the "basis of design".
Why would the Architect list an alternate manufacturer whose product could not pass?
Posted on 4/23/19 at 9:22 pm to Clint Eastwood
Not sure but it wouldn’t surprise me
Posted on 4/23/19 at 9:28 pm to chinquapin
As mentioned above usually alternate products need to be approved during the bid process and an addendum is issued approving or rejecting submitted product. If the manufacturer was approved in the specs but rejected the architect would have to state to you what item did not meet specs. Then said mfg would need to provide a product to meet that criteria. I have lost a lot of bids to contractors who used the low number on bid day but the product they bid was not specified. Some architects do the right thing and make them provide an approved product while others let it fly.
Posted on 4/24/19 at 12:36 pm to Hank R Hill
Normally, courts addressing this defer to the A/E in my experience. But there have been cases where reading between the lines they appear to "smell a rat". It usually all turns on the experts and technical specs.
Here's a few snippets from a case where the issue wasn't the A/E, but the fire chief apparently had some skin in the game:
"The city argues this addendum created the need for prior approval of Akers's bid, which listed a Ventaire system instead of the Nederman system named in the specs; Akers did not request prior approval; hence the city had "every right" to reject the equipment, "even if it was equal to Nederman." We reject this argument.
"The fire maintenance facility is a public work subject to the principles and restrictions of the public bid law, La. R.S. 38:2211, et seq. The law includes prohibitions on "closed specifications," also known as proprietary or brand-name specifications in public bidding. La. R.S. 38:2212(F), 38:2290. The purpose of the law is to secure free and unrestricted competition among bidders, to eliminate fraud and favoritism, and to avoid undue or excessive costs. Louisiana Assoc. Gen'l Contractors v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., 586 So. 2d 1354 (La. 1991). The owner may not reject a bid from a different supplier if the equipment is functionally equivalent and basically the same as the name-brand equipment in the specs. State Machinery & Equip. Sales v. Livingston Parish Gravity Drainage #5, 98-1207 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/25/99), 742 So. 2d 26.
The district court heard extensive testimony comparing the Ventaire and Nederman systems. We will not belabor this technical and somewhat cumulative evidence, but note that even from the impassive record, the alleged differences appear superficial. We find it particularly telling that the city's architect, _, approved Akers's submittal with only minor adjustments, and the city engineer, _, testified he was ready to "go with it" had the fire chiefs not raised petulant objections. On this record, we perceive no manifest error: the district court was not plainly wrong to find that Akers's bid, using the Ventaire product, was substantially the same as the Nederman product, and thus the city had no basis to require prior approval. The city's argument to the contrary lacks merit."
Akers v Bernhard Mechanical
Here's a few snippets from a case where the issue wasn't the A/E, but the fire chief apparently had some skin in the game:
"The city argues this addendum created the need for prior approval of Akers's bid, which listed a Ventaire system instead of the Nederman system named in the specs; Akers did not request prior approval; hence the city had "every right" to reject the equipment, "even if it was equal to Nederman." We reject this argument.
"The fire maintenance facility is a public work subject to the principles and restrictions of the public bid law, La. R.S. 38:2211, et seq. The law includes prohibitions on "closed specifications," also known as proprietary or brand-name specifications in public bidding. La. R.S. 38:2212(F), 38:2290. The purpose of the law is to secure free and unrestricted competition among bidders, to eliminate fraud and favoritism, and to avoid undue or excessive costs. Louisiana Assoc. Gen'l Contractors v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., 586 So. 2d 1354 (La. 1991). The owner may not reject a bid from a different supplier if the equipment is functionally equivalent and basically the same as the name-brand equipment in the specs. State Machinery & Equip. Sales v. Livingston Parish Gravity Drainage #5, 98-1207 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/25/99), 742 So. 2d 26.
The district court heard extensive testimony comparing the Ventaire and Nederman systems. We will not belabor this technical and somewhat cumulative evidence, but note that even from the impassive record, the alleged differences appear superficial. We find it particularly telling that the city's architect, _, approved Akers's submittal with only minor adjustments, and the city engineer, _, testified he was ready to "go with it" had the fire chiefs not raised petulant objections. On this record, we perceive no manifest error: the district court was not plainly wrong to find that Akers's bid, using the Ventaire product, was substantially the same as the Nederman product, and thus the city had no basis to require prior approval. The city's argument to the contrary lacks merit."
Akers v Bernhard Mechanical
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News