(a) Contracts exceeding the amount provided by § 45-55-9 shall be awarded by competitive bidding unless they are professional engineering/architectural
services pursuant to § 45-55-8.1 and it is determined in writing that this method is not practicable. Factors to be
considered in determining whether competitive sealed bidding is practicable shall
include whether:
(1) Specifications can be prepared that permit award on the basis of either the lowest
qualified bid price or the lowest qualified evaluated bid price; and
(2) The available sources, the time and place of performance, and other relevant circumstances
as are appropriate for the use of competitive sealed bidding.
(b) The invitation for bids shall state whether award shall be made on the basis of the
lowest bid price or the lowest evaluated or responsive bid price. If the latter basis
is used, the objective measurable criteria to be utilized shall be stated in the invitation
for bids, if available.
(c) Adequate public notice of the invitation for bids shall be given a sufficient time
prior to the date stated in the notice for the opening of bids. Notice may include
publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the state as determined by the
purchasing officer for the municipality not less than seven (7) days nor more than
twenty-one (21) days before the date set for opening of the bids. The purchasing officer
may make a written determination that the twenty-one (21) day limitation needs to
be waived. The written determination shall state the reason why the twenty-one (21)
day limitation is being waived and shall state the number of days, giving a minimum
and maximum, before the date set for the opening of bids when public notice is to
be given.
(d) Bids shall be opened publicly in full view of the public at the time and place designated
in the invitation for bids. Each bid, together with the name of the bidder, shall
be recorded and an abstract made available for public inspection. Subsequent to the
awarding of the bid, all documents pertinent to the awarding of the bid shall be made
available and open to public inspection and retained in the bid file.
(e) The contract shall be awarded with reasonable promptness by written notice to the
responsive and responsible bidder whose bid is either the lowest bid price, or lowest
evaluated or responsive bid price.
(f) Correction or withdrawal of bids may be allowed only to the extent permitted by regulations
issued by the purchasing officer.
Notes of Decisions
H. v. Collins Co. v. Tarro, 696 A.2d 298 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 8× “The defendants have appealed a declaratory judgment of the Superior Court, in which the trial justice declared that the award of a municipal contract by the school committee to Gil-bane violated G.L.1956 § 45-55-5 and the Barrington Town Charter, section 16-2-9.”
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island v. Najarian, 865 A.2d 1074 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 5× “2d at 300, 305 , this Court reversed a trial justice’s declaratory judgment finding that a municipal construction contract awarded by the Barrington School Committee violated G.L. 1956 § 45-55-5, the “Award of Municipal Contracts” statute.”
Coastal Recycling, Inc. v. Connors, 854 A.2d 711 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 6× “II Discussion It is well established that when reviewing the bidding process set forth in § 45-55-5, “the Judiciary will interfere with the award of a state or municipal contract only in the event that the awarding authority has ‘acted corruptly or in bad faith, or so…”
Peter Hajian Assocs. v. Bd. of Library Trs./Bldg. Comm. ex rel. Cross, 685 A.2d 283 (R.I. 1996).
“In rendering his opinion the trial justice noted that the published request for proposals cited six specific criteria that would be used by the proposal evaluation team, and that because each proposal was evaluated on the basis of these criteria, the invitation for bids…”
Mira Consulting, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 2017 NMCA 009 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016).
“” R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-55-5(e) (1998). Relying on this language and references to “purchases” and “procurement” in the statute, the Kayak Centre court held that “[t]he language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.”
Mira Consulting, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 2017 NMCA 9 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016).
“” R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-55-5(e) (1998). Relying on this language and references to “purchases” and “procurement” in the statute, the Kayak Centre court held that “[t]he language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-55-5(2) — 2 cases
H. v. Collins Co. v. Tarro, 696 A.2d 298 (R.I. 1997).
“The defendants have appealed a declaratory judgment of the Superior Court, in which the trial justice declared that the award of a municipal contract by the school committee to Gil-bane violated G.L.1956 § 45-55-5 and the Barrington Town Charter, section 16-2-9.”
Peter Hajian Assocs. v. Bd. of Library Trs./Bldg. Comm. ex rel. Cross, 685 A.2d 283 (R.I. 1996).
“In rendering his opinion the trial justice noted that the published request for proposals cited six specific criteria that would be used by the proposal evaluation team, and that because each proposal was evaluated on the basis of these criteria, the invitation for bids…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-55-5(e) — 3 cases
Mira Consulting, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 2017 NMCA 009 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016).
“” R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-55-5(e) (1998). Relying on this language and references to “purchases” and “procurement” in the statute, the Kayak Centre court held that “[t]he language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.”
Mira Consulting, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 2017 NMCA 9 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016).
“” R.I. Gen. Laws § 45-55-5(e) (1998). Relying on this language and references to “purchases” and “procurement” in the statute, the Kayak Centre court held that “[t]he language of the statute is clear and unambiguous.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.