Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
I would think that this is the reasoning. A ban may sound harsh, but the goal is to resolve disputes before they end up in court, as going to court costs the city (and in turn taxpayers) a lot of money.
A ban is a pretty good motivator for contractors to use other means of dispute resolution.
|
There are all sorts of ways to resolve disputes: negotiation, arbitration, mediation. However, the justice system, and in particular the courts, go to great lengths to serve as a fair and impartial dispute resolution mechanism. There is no good reason for the city to punish parties who ultimately, and at great risk and cost to themselves, choose to rely on that mechanism. They have every right to do so.
If the city is successful in defending the claim, it will be awarded costs to at least partially recover the costs of litigating the matter. However, at the end of the day, litigation is a cost of doing business when one is dealing with million dollar contracts. That is just the way it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
Even if the policy is written to be black and white, that wouldn't stop council from "breaking policy" if they thought it was reasonable to do so. If Graham did end up bringing a lawsuit, and in the future Graham bid on city projects, they city wouldn't not consider Graham for larger projects if their bid was the best. If the city was other wise going to use Graham in the future because they were $5 million cheaper than anyone else, and the city figured they were capable of doing the work, council would grant an exception if needed.
|
It seems strange to defend a policy by saying "don't worry, we can avoid the absurd consequences of the policy by not following it."