Box 21, Folder 43, Document 48

Box 21, Folder 43, Document 48

=—<K “FO EH Gd

JvuLius L. TUREK

ATTORNEY AT LAW

2934 REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANE TOWER Riversive 2-6217-18
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 Anes CopE 214

May 5, 1967

Mr. M. B. Satterfield
Executive Director
Atlanta Housing Authority
324 Hurt Building
Atlanta, Georgia

Re: University Center, Urban
Redevelopment Area, Parcel
733 Project Ga. R-ll, Bid
Proposal

Dear Mr. Satterfield:

I represent Mr. R. C. Cunningham II of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
who submitted a bid to the Atlanta Housing Authority in conform-
ity with the invitation for bid provided in connection with
Parcel 73, Project Georgia R-ll, styled University Center, Urban
Redevelopment Area. The bids were opened on April 12, 1967, at
which time Mr. Cunningham was present, together with a number of
his associates, and at that time no comment was made with respect
to the propriety of the bid insofar as it conformed, or did not
confirm, technically, to the invitation. In this connection may
I respectfully point out that paragraph 1 of the attachment to
the letter dated March 31, 1967 from Mr. John T. Hopkins, Real
Estate Officer, the attachment being a memo from Mr. Lester H.
Persells, Director of Redevelopment, providing in part that "...
proposals will be inspected for conformance with the terms of
the ‘Invitation for Proposals.’'“ May I further call to your at-
tention the provisions of paragraph 10, on page 3, of the invi-
tation for proposals which indicates, again in part, that "The
Agency reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals and to
waive any and all irregularities that appear in any Proposal."

Mr. Persells' letter of April 21, 1967 indicated that Mr. Cunning-
ham's proposal was rejected because of “non-conformance with the
terms and conditions as set out in the ‘Invitation for Proposals',
Paragraph 1 which states, ‘Three copies of each Proposal shall be
Page Two
Mr. M. B. Satterfield
May 5, 1967

submitted on the form of ‘Redeveloper's Proposal’ prepared by the
Agency and attached hereto.'"

Upon receipt of this letter, we contacted your office and subse~
guently spoke to Mr. Persells, and I spoke to Mr. Byron Attridge.
I was informed by Mr. Attridge. on May 4th that the Authority had
considered our request for reconsideration unfavorably. It would
then appear necessary that we inspect the reason for the rejection
as stated, and attempt to determine whether the indicated non-
conformance is of such substantial nature as to preclude consid-
eration of my clients proposal on its merits. The redevelopment
proposal referred to is contained in the package of Disposition
Documents which relates not only to the proposal stage, but ap-
parently to the entire transaction. Certain ambiguities are ap-
parent in the listing of requirements, starting on page 1, which
resulted in the actual form of proposal not being submitted with
the remaining documents. The documents actually submitted were:
(1) a proposal bid in the amount of $3,700; (2) a site plan, to-
gether with floor plans and elevations; (3) a narrative descrip-
tion of the development; (4) a rendering of the project; (5) the
redevelopers statement for public disclosure; and (6) the rede-
velopers statement of qualifications and financial responsibility.

The redevelopers proposal referred to in the first full paragraph
thereof states that the redeveloper “offers to purchase all that

tract or parcel of land lying and being in land lot 84 of the 14th
District of Fulton County, Georgia, being a part of the University

Center, Urban Redevelopment Area and being more particularly des~
LS MOG Al 2ADAL et! Ler OQ fie OF] YL AGLeenvelL ‘©, JL BDC =





ion of Las bmitted herewith, and by reference made & part
hereof..." Logic would seem to dictate that the wording contained
in the redevelopers proposal could be interpreted to mean that such
proposal is to be submitted only after the Authority had accepted

a particular bid, at which time the proposal would be attached to
the agreement for disposition of land and submitted as a package,
together with the remaining formal documents to the parties. A




Page Three
Mr. M. B. Satterfield

literal interpretation of the language in the redevelopers pro-
posal would seemingly preclude its submission at the time the
redeveloper transmitted his bid to the Authority.

May we then examine the remainder of the proposal to ascertain
whether, in fact, the redeveloper has complied with the substan-
tive portions of that document; paragraph 1, for example, that
a site plan and floor plans, together with type list, elevations,
and a narrative description, are to be submitted. This was done.

In the same paragraph 1, the redeveloper must set out the actual
cost of the improvements. This item was covered under part B, on
page 4, of the redevelopers statement for public disclosure.

Paragraph 2 requires the deposit of a proposal bond in the amount
ef $3,700. This was done.

Paragraph 3 requires the submission of the redevelopers statement
for public disclosure and the redevelopers statement of qualifi-
eations and financial responsibility. These items were submitted
with my client's bid.

In conclusion, I submit that my client substantially conformed
with all conditions precedent to the submission of his bid, and
I further submit that, with respect to the reason for rejection
set out in Mr. Persells' letter of April 21, 1967, that there was,

‘and is, a latent ambiguity in the bid documents which could reason-

ably be interpreted to mean that the actual proposal was not to be
submitted with the bid. I further submit for your consideration
that all bidding was done on the basis of developing the entire
txact of land, the purchase of which was established, not only in
the formal bid documents, but also in the brochure involving bids,
copy enclosed, and that no where in my client's submission is it
noted that his offer related to either a lesser price for the land,
or was to be deemed an offer to purchase anything but the full tract
of land involved.
Page Four
Mr. M. B. Satterfield
May 5, 1967

in general, may I say that my client is well known in the build-
ing ef projects insured by the Federal Housing Administration, and
has evidenced a desire and ability to provide the type of housing
which, as indicated in your brochure, is one of the great needs of
Atianta at this time. I trust you will see fit to favor us with
further consideration in this matter, and give us the opportunity
te present this case to you on its merits.

Your response to this letter at your earliest convenience would
be sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely,

Juliue L. Turek

JLT/dh

ccs Mr. Ivan Allen, Jr.

cc: Mr. Malcom D. Jones

ce: Mr. Byron Attridge

ce: Mr. James Redd

ece Mr. R. C. Cunningham II
ec: Mr. John Roper