My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reso 2019-2951
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
Regular
>
2019
>
Reso 2019-2951
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/27/2019 12:11:45 PM
Creation date
6/25/2019 11:26:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-Resolutions
Resolution Type
Resolution
Resolution Number
2019-2951
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
06/20/2019
Description
Adopt Proposed Recommended Order Relating to Bid Protest by Shiff Construct. For ITB 19-01-01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
8. In testimony provided by Justen Shiff, he agreed that the ITB required the <br /> submission of both a project schedule and a financial statement and admitted that they had failed <br /> to provide the requested documents in its response. (Testimony ofJusten Shiff). He also admitted <br /> that the failure to provide the documents was the result of an oversight by staff at Shiff(Testimony <br /> ofJusten Slriff). However,Shiff provide several reasons as to why its bid was not unresponsive or <br /> • that the omission of the material should be overlooked or waived. Initially, Shiff argued that City <br /> staff should have notified them of the deficiencies at the time of opening of the bids g and allowed <br /> them to supplement their bid as they had done with the request for references and that the failure <br /> of the City to do so constituted a waiver of that requirement. (Testimony ofJusten Shiff). They <br /> further provided testimony that in section 2.7 of the ITB it contained a limitation of three hundred <br /> and five (305) days for the project and that as they had not claimed any exception to that section, <br /> this was sufficient to meet the requirements of a project schedule. (Testimony of Justen Shift. <br /> Shiff also suggested that they had agreed to post the bid bond and as such that was sufficient <br /> demonstration of their financial capacity to perform the project. They also testified that they <br /> believed that the financial statement and project schedule of Nunez Construction submitted as part <br /> of its bid were inadequate. (Testimony of Justen Shiff). Finally, as its bid was approximately$1.1 <br /> million dollars lower than the bid of Nunez Construction,that the City had the ability under section <br /> 2.4 of the ITB (Jt. Ex. 1,page 10) and section 62-8 of the Purchasing Code (Jt. Ex. 14)to award <br /> the bid to that which, "...best serves the interests of and represents the best value to the City...," <br /> regardless of the specific requirements of the ITB. (Testimony of Justen Stiff). <br /> 9. The City presented testimony that the requirements of the ITB were to provide a <br /> fair and.even standard for all potential contractors to fairly compete for the contract on the project <br /> and that the standards must be applied in an even handed and non-arbitrary mariner. (Testimony <br /> 1 <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.