Laserfiche WebLink
The evidence presented at the public hearing was as follows: <br />o Copies of the same unaudited financial statements <br />previously submitted, uncertified <br />o Letter from a patent attorney speaking principally to the <br />matter of injunction <br />o Letter from a Canadian Bond Broker stating they could <br />issue a bond on a Canadian contract for Whitewater and <br />suggesting that a Canadian contract be issued <br />o A revised indemnity clause specifying the laws of Texas <br />and listing settlement date of January 15, 1991 <br />o Deferred payment options <br />Staff and the City Attorney discussed the evidence presented by <br />Whitewater and arrived at the conclusion that regardless of the <br />several related issues surrounding the matter, Whitewater had not <br />provided evidence of ability to obtain the performance and payment <br />bonding as requested by the City. Since such bonding is required <br />by state law, it did not appear suitable to further evaluate the <br />remaining questions. <br />The Whitewater representative, Mr. Alan Heuss, was advised that, <br />based on the merits of the evidence presented, Staff intended to <br />recommend to the City Council that the contract be awarded to AAA. <br />-3- <br />