Reso 2019-2951 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a project schedule was contained in both sections 2.4 and 2.7 of the ITB, (Jt. Ex. 1, pages 10-11) and under section 3,paragraph 4 of the ITB,which sets forth the Bid Response Format,the specific requirement of the inclusion of the project schedule was set forth. (Jt. Ex. 1, page 31). Shiff's bid also failed to attach its "...financial statement including bidder's latest balance sheet and income statement." This requirement was set forth in section 3,Paragraph 9 of the ITB(Jt.Ex. 1, page 31). 6. On April 15, 2019, following the investigation and evaluation of the various bids, • a Notice of Recommendation of Award to Nunez Construction (Jt. Ex. 6) was issued. The Recommendation, which determined that Nunez Construction was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, was uploaded to Demandstar,the private posting service used by the City,on April 16,2019. (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas). On April 17,2019,Justen Shiff made an inquiry to Ms. Cuevas regarding the bid. (Jt.Ex. 10). In response Ms. Cuevas provided him with a copy of the posted Notice of Recommendation of Award and notified him that tSlniff's bid had been deemed unresponsive and the reason therefore: Primarily, amongst other itemized requirements, Shiff Construction failed td submit the mandatory proposed project schedule for construction (Section 2.7, Section 2.4, and Section 14 of the bid) and financial statements (Section 3.9), thus, resulting in an unresponsive bid. (Jt.Ex. 10) 7. On April 22, 2019, Shiff submitted its protest claiming that the "City waived its ability to declare the Contractor's bid as non-responsive due to the failure to attach a Financial StatementSchedule" or Project because the City did not immediately declare its bid unresponsive at the time of the opening of the bid or that the Cityshould have p g requested the documents from Shiff,which it is allowed to do. (Jt. Ex. 13). 4