Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 22. Shiff also argues that its failure to take an exception to section 2.7 of the ITB,as to <br /> the maximum final completion project length allowed following the issuance of the Notice to <br /> Proceed was the equivalent of a project schedule. However, the mere acceptance of the project <br /> length does not constitute a project schedule as it fails to provide any information as to the various <br /> components om o sof the Project. The submission of a project schedule allows the Cityto evaluate a <br /> p <br /> bidder's understanding of the scope of the Project, sets forth the critical path for its completion, <br /> and establishes the approximate amount of time the bidder contemplates for the various <br /> components of the Project. It also protects the City by providing a timeline for anticipated <br /> progress should there be a delay in the completion of the Project. (Testimony of Christopher <br /> Russo). Though it criticizes the project schedule submitted by Nunez Construction,its submission <br /> •met the requirements of the ITB. <br /> 23. In any bid protest proceeding contesting an intended City or agency action the <br /> standard of review by an administrative law judge,hearing officer or special master,as applicable, <br /> iI <br /> is whether the City or agency's intended action is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, dishonest, did not <br /> afford due process,departed from the essential requirements of law,or is fraudulent.This standard <br /> has not been met in this instance.There is sufficient evidence to support the recommendation made <br /> by the City Manager for this contract award. <br /> Based.upon the evidence and testimony presented, it is determined that the protest of <br /> Shiff is without a sufficiently meritorious basis to uphold the protest,pursuant to the applicable <br /> standard of review, and is therefore denied. <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is <br /> 12 <br />