RECEIVED The Sawyers and Lerner Building ZBLEYAR 19. PM 3: 28 Protest of Louisville Metro's Failure to Adhere to KRS sti Ene? and Protest of Improper Award of REPH# 3268". March 19, 2025 Overview Louisville Metro ("Metro") released two Requests for Proposal ("RFPs") regarding a need for office space, The Metro procurement process is controlled by Louisville Metro Codes and Regulations Chapter 37 - Local Procurement Code, which incorporates portions of KRS 45A - Kentucky Model Procurement Code, RFP Release Date Requirements #3222 ("RFP") April 18, 2014 60,000sqft Office Space + 40,000sqift Option #3269 ("RFP2") August 6, 2014 131,000sqfft Office Space Both RFPs called for a ten year lease, with an option to renew for another ten years. Both RFPs, while not explicity laid out in RFP2, were to move agencies from the Barrett Avenue buildings, which have extensive mold and deferred maintenance issues. The Sawyers and Lerner Building, LLC ("SLB") and Fox Baser Managed Properties ("F8M") were responsive to both. City Properties Group ("CPG"), falled to submit a timely response to RFP1, missing by eight minutes, a fact lamented by Metro, however CPG did meet the deadline for RFP2. SLB proposed the Old Bank of Louisville Building at 510 West Broadway, 186,000sqft of finished office space, at roughly $10sqft F8M proposed a mix of spaces in several of its downtown buildings, mostly at a rate of $12.50saft. CPG proposed an abandoned warehouse at 7th and Oak of some 115,000sqft, at a rate of $14.80sqit, and a srialler space (16,000sqft) in the Glassworks building at 8th and Market, ata rate of $17sqft. Pictures of the Old Bank of Louisville Site, and the abandoned warehouse site, are attached hereto as Exhibit "A", It should be noted here that CPG |s owned and wholly controlled by C. William Weyland, an architect and longtime downtown Louisville developer, responsible for Slugger Museum, the restoration of the Henry Clay, the Glassworks, ZirMed Towers, and Whiskey Row, amongst others. We are certain that his son, Lee Weyland, missing a submission deadline by some eight minutes, was not taken well by him. While we do not intend to miscolor this narrative for the reader, we do believe that Weyland senior used considerable power and influence to reverse. the negative implications of that event, and achieve a successful result for himself,Specific Grounds for Protest SL8's specific and concise grounds for protest are listed below. RFP4- RFP# 3222 = RFP1 should have been awarded in late July, at the conclusion of competitive negotiations, according to statute. ‘Metro had no right to issue another RFP, to get a second bite at the apple, and furthermore, to allow CPG to submit, Without a compelling reason, such as a budget constraint, Metro was required to award RFP1 to the lowest bid price. Metro cannot now argue that the price of $10.06 was too high, when they have accepted a price of $1.50, from Bill Weyland's CPG RFP2 - RFP# 3269 = RFP2 should have never have been issued, and should be held for naught. = €PG should be disqualified from RFP2 as their response was incomplete. = The scoring in RFP2 was erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. KRSASA.345 - Definitions - Paragraph (15) states: "Objective measurable criteria’ means sufficient information in the invitation to bid as to weight and method of evaluation so that the evaluation may be determined with reasonable mathematical certainty. Criterta which are otherwise subjective, such as taste and appearance, may be established when appropriate." We are nat certain as to Metro's exact methods, as they have not provided us with a copy of the scorecards, as they indicated they would. What we have ‘to work with, is the four scoring items in RFP2, for a total of 1000 points, which ate discussed below: ‘Technical Approach (300 Points) = Parking is mentioned as a significant highlight of CPG's warehouse. CPG's surface parking is in no way more advantagedus to Metro than SLB's attached, secure, covered, direct building access parking garage, and surrounding surface spaces. A large surface lot is less appealing. = It is said by Metro that CPG's abandoned ‘warehouse will be renovated entirely to Metro's specifications. SLB indicated in their proposal that they would prepare space in their existing office building to Metro's specifications, Starting with existing infrastructure is more advantageous: than a concrete shell, especially when considering Metro's request to move as quickly as possible, - SLB's building is an existing office building, less than 50 years old. CPG's abandoned warehouse is over 100 years ago, has already been proven to have contaminants on site harmful to human health, and has Deed restrictions for such. Per the Deed the site must have warning signs posted and be surrounded bya chain link fence.Location (300 Points) ~ $LB's location is far superior to CP's. Our building is located in the Central Business District of downtown Louisville, on the only six lane, two way street in downtown, Itis surrounded by occupied commercial buildings including Kindred Healthcare, the Heyburn Bullding, the Courier-Journal, the Federal Courthouse, and the Brown Hotel. Our building is within walking distance of convenience stores, restaurants, banks and other services. CPG's building is located off a minor highway with only limited access, and is surrounded by low income housing and industrialbusinesses, The only services within walking distance are 3 24-Hour Beer, Liquor and convenience store. Schedule for Occupancy (200 Points) =SLB was prepared to move all Metro agencies within 120 days. CPG's initial proposal called for 12-15 months for their facility, after lease signing, which has yet to occur. Ifin later negotiations, they agreed to a six month schedule, as the CJatticle seems to indicate, and were scored as such, then that is not only erroneous, it's laughable. Price (200 Points) = SLB's space was priced to Metro at $9.36sqft, CPG's last letter to Metro indicated CPG's price was $12,50sqft. = Metro announced terms with CPG, most notably a 15 year lease, which was not included in RFP2, SLB was not afforded the opportunity to quote based on this change. = Metro indicated tliat “economic revitalization" was a significant part of the consideration for awerd. None of this was outlined in the RFP, nor were any additional “subrnissions requested. SLB was not afforded the opportunity to submit a response to this change. «In CPG'S response to RFP2, they included a proposed drawing of space for the Property Valuation Administrator. in describing it, CPG said that “after several meetings with the head of the PVA, we have designed a space that he says fits his needs perfectly." We are completely astounded that Metro allowed CPG to have private meetings with a Metro agency being moved as a result of RFP2. CPG gained an unfair advantage of having space planning meetings with that agency, when this was not publicly offered to other bidders. _ RFP2 was awarded, or is apparently preparing to be awarded, contrary to law, as all respondents were not kept on equal footing throughout the process. -REP2 was scored based on untimely, "late-filings” by CPG, which should not have been allowed._ aEP2, apparently as awarded, includes a significant amount of space for the Medical Examiner and Coroner ("MEC", whose space comes with bulld-out funds and utilty payments provided by the State of Kentucky, Ths was mentioned nowhere in RFP2, However, was mentioned extensively in RFPI. fs, CPG again had an unfair advantage in having specific knowledge of MEC, and the great financial advantage that thelr build- ut and utility funds provide an offeror. SLB was not afforded this opportunity. We belleve CPG has this knowledge. It seems highly unlikely that MEC could be Included In an eventual proposed lease, as evidenced by the C) article, without such knowledge being afforded CPG. Nor do we believe that the provisions, contained only in RFPA. regarding MEC build-out funds and utlty payments, could have changed to be included in the sqft price in RFP2. No additional requests were made by Metro under RFP2 to roflect this, and as such, SLB's bid was made without knowledge of this significant “piece of the puzzle". ‘This fact was well hidden in the C) article. The article announced $812,500, while the last communication from CPG to Metro was $2,250,000. This discrepancy is apparently due to the space being patd for by the State of Kentucky, while no mention was made of the build-out funds or utility payments. Nonetheless, this did not change the saftprice. ‘We question whether the State Auditor had a say In the RFP process. However, while we must protest at this time, and must include these potential significant factors, we cannot assert them with certainty, as after multiple requests Metro has yet to provide any specific documentation of the award. _ RFP2 was collusive, scored erroneously and arbitrarily in favor of CPG, and conducted in a manner contrary to law. We acknowledge that CPG essentially quoted a "brand-new" building to Metro. That Is selling slzzle, and shouldn't be relied upon glven Mr. Weyland's existing projects. they are very fanctlonal, almost spartan. He seems to take empty space, replaces the windows, and paints the bare concrete ceillngs and mechanicals black, hangs some pictures, hires an artist fo paint a wal, and done, Our buliding is existing finshed space built to high standard for banking and United States government use. However, he is certainly selling them on the sizle of newness, especialy, we acknowledge, the tmochanical systems. However, it should be noted that at $3 more per saft on # 200,000se #5 vyear lease is paying $4,500,000 more for "newer" space. This Is $25,000 more Per month. A £3,800,000 loan at 4% amortized over 15 years, costs $25,000 per month. With the additional Tent, Metro is essentially paying to renovate private property, and paying for CPS's entire salldout, while the RFP specifically sad that bull out was the responsibilty of the offeror. This significant point is getting lost in the scoring. SLB agreed to pay forthe entire bulld out required by Metro at $9.36sqf, nat ata higher rate that would support spending millions, on Metro's dime, to renovate the space.We have attempted to be as detailed as possible in this summary, however Metro has provided us with limited documentation concerning the final agreement, despite an open records request. They have only provided us with CPG's original proposal, and minutes from one ‘meeting with CPG and CPG's late response to that meeting. It is difficult if not impossible for us to believe that an e-mail from CPG indicating a price of 412.50saft for ten years, could result ina statement to the press alleging a 15 year, fixed price ease in two locations, without any further meetings, notes, e-mails, or offers or counter-offers being held or exchanged between Metro and CGP. However, Metro has provided none. Further indicating the collusive, unfair, and illegal nature of the conduct of RFP2. METCO Made a One Milllion Dollar Loan to CPG (On April 17, 2014, one day prior to the release date of RFP, Metropolitan Business Development Corporation loaned $988,000.00 of Metro Government Funds to CGP. CGP pledged the Edison Center Building and its future rents as collateral for the loan. The loan also included a $5,000.00 additional advance, which is the same amount Bill Weyland paid for the building in late 2013, With Lee Weyland missing the deadline for RFP1, this placed Metro in a dangerous position of not being able to recoup the $988,000.00 loan from CGP, With CPG being selected for award of RFP2, Metro now has a secure path for repayment of the loan, and as such had strong incentive to bypass the strict requirements of the Model Procurement Code. No other bidder in the RFP process owed Metro any money against the property being offered, let alone One Million dollars. Any bidder who is bidding on a public contract, to receive payments from Metro for a property that collateralizes a loan made by Metro, should not be allowed to bid on that REP. The possibllity of favoritism to the debtor bidder is impossible to ‘overcome, and the likelihood that the award is a "kickback", unavoidable. CPG Is conducting this entire transaction: the purchase, renovation, and lease of the bullding, all with Metro Government funds, or funds borrowed against a Metro contract. CPG has absolutely no “skin in the game". Effectively, now that the dust is settling, Metro loaned CPG the money to buy the building, renovate the building, and awarded them a profitable lease of the building for more than competitive bidding, Metro is giving CPG all the money and profit, and CPG retains ownership. It stirks. PG's Submission Was Incomplete and Erroneous CP6's response to RFP2 did not contain all of the required elements. CPG's response was just a long letter, with several attachments and drawings. It did riot fulfil all of the submission requirements outlined in the RFP, which included, but are not limited to: Including all pages of the RFP, and responding to Attachment ‘A’. CPG's response also contained numerous grammatical errors. SLB's response was well organized, and addressed and met every requirement of the RFP, including Attachment ‘A’, in great detail.CGP was incomplete in informing Metro of hazardous conditions at 1228 S. 7th Street, CPG only placed an asterisk saying the site was under "EPA Remediation" near a complete set of questions on a form required by the RFP regarding hazardous materials, CPG did not answer the ‘questions, thereby they were incomplete, and potentially misled Metro. CPG failed to respond timely to RFP1. In Novernber 2014, SLB was asked to extend the response deadline of RFP2 by one week. SLB agreed. At the same time, CPG was asked to respond toa Metro request by close of business on November 4, 2014, CPG did not respond until 10:04pm that evening. CPG was not disqualified for this late submission, while once again, SL8 met all the requirements and deadlines, yet still waited through another favor offered CPG. \We question how Metro can trust CPG with such a massive construction undertaking, in such a short amount of time, when CPG cannot submit a complete response that follows all instructions, remove grammatical errors, or respond timely, again and again. Metro's scoring of CGP on Schedule for Occupancy and Technical Approach, should have reflected these facts, More In-Depth Timeline and Summary of Additional Events ‘After the submission deadline for RFP1, which CPG missed, competitive negotiations ensued between SLB and Metro, and FBM and Metro, After several rounds, spanning four months, uring which some specifications changed, a final round regarding price alone was conducted. ‘The result of that was SLB offering 75,000sqft of space to Metro for $10.06 for a full service lease, which included build-out funds and alll required parking. Should Metro take the entire building, some 138,000sqi of "usable" space, the rate reduced to $9.56. Metro indicated that this was not good enough, Louisville CFO Steve Rowland having said in an earlier meeting that "there is a ceiling and a floor, and this must be ‘revenue neutral", Metro said that they would re-issue another RFP, and strongly encouraged us to participate, ‘Areading of KRS45A.370 indicates that at this point, the contract "shall be" awarded. This statute outlines a process of competitive bidding when contract requirements cannot be simply evaluated on price or initial submissions. However, it goes on to specify the manner in which. those negotiations may be conducted, which include, keeping all respondents informed of changes to specifications and quantities and giving them a chance to respond, and, when no material changes are made, that the award "shall be made to the lowest evaluated bid”. This is a well constructed statute in that it allows a public agency to negotiate for a particularly complex procurement, but prevents that public agency from using the negotiation process to take multiple "bites at the apple". Once all specifications and quantity changes have been mitered out, and a round of negotiations on those terms completed, the award “shall be made. Despite this mandatory language, RFP2 was issued, Subsequent to responsive submissions by SLB, FBM, and CPG and two other parties, only one round of negotiations were held, with only ‘SLB and CPG, according to Metro's records. A meeting with SLB regarding mostly clarification of some minor points, and 2 discussion of usable sqft. Metro indicated at that meeting that theyaccepted SL's pricing of $9.36saft, and SLB accepted Metro's calculation of 138,000 usable saft in our building, Another meeting occurred with CPG, that was similar in nature, except that Metro asked CPG to reduce their saft rate, and specifically identify their total sqft. CPG responded, untimely, to that request, with a new rate of $12.50, and a calculation of 100,000saft.Both meetings were held in the last week of October, 2014. on November 4, 2014, one day prior to the expiration of RFP2, Metro contacted SLB and asked for a one week extension, as the "other building owner" was making an additional submission, 618 granted the extension, and told Metro that if any adsitional submissions were made, then SLB should be afforded the opportunity to make additional submissions as well. Metro agreed, and said that is what probably would be done, additional submissions would be requested from all offerrors. one week later, Metro contacted SLB, and while then-Louisville CFO Steve Rowland had suggested a 30 day extension, the Metro representative instead asked for aright of first refusal. 1B said that was fine, but we would likely instead extend the RFP, which SLB did, repeatedly, culminating in a blanket extension until a decision was made, over the next few months, SLB contacted Metro several times, inquiring of the status, and if any additional submissions were required. During this ime, there was a shake-up of sorts in Metro leadership, as CFO Steve Rowland stepped down after a drunken fiasco, and long time Metro Councll President Jim King passed away. Each time SLB contacted Metro, they sald that no decision had been made, and no additional submissions.were required, and the Metro representative whom SLB contacted, who was directly responsible forthe release of both RFPS, and one of three "scorers', said twice that "this is now beyond my pay grade.” on February 4, 2014, Metro contacted SLB, out of a described desire to let SLB know first, as a courtesy, that there would be a pfess release awarding space to CPG, in thelr abandoned ‘warehouse, that the scoring was very close, but it came down to the parking that PG hed available, the fact that isit will be developed exactly to their specifications, and that it wil provide that area of Louisville (7th and Oak) with a great economic revitalization, n whichthe Mayor was very interested, Metro also said that the Mayor said that they "better be moved" by October. tis further discussed later, but should be noted here, that in RFP, and RFP2, 1) SLB agreed to provide and pay for any and al parking that Metro required, as we have a255 car, attached, enclosed, direct building access parking garage. Secure, covered, direct building access garaBe parking is far more desirable than a surface lt, Next, our building is surrounded by some 2,000 surface parklng spaces, Which are only 60% full, and we have already contacted those owners and discussed purchasing parking, 2) SLB agreed to provide any and all build-out requirements that Metro needed, at no additional cost, This could have included using existing fully finished spaces, of gutting flrs to mostly open space, and painting exposed celings and mechanicals black, which Is inexpensive, we think spartan, but, typical of Weyland buildings. Regardless, weresponded that we would finish spaces to whatever Metro's requirements were. 3) Economic impact and neighborhood revitalization were never mentioned at all in either RFP, nor any supplemental request for additional submissions. in fact, SLB told Metro, after the November 4th extension, that'SLB wanted to submit information on economic impact in the South Broadway area, SLB was told that was not necessary. Stiould SLB have been allowed to respond to such requirements, we would have had some significant points about the South of Broadway area, which has been the subject of numerous development and impact studies in recent years. However, this was neither included initially, nor requested in supplemental responses, therefore, in order to avoid being arbitrary, there can be no scoring based on these factors. 4) Even a look at the pictures of this abandoned warehouse, let alone an in person on site consideration, a review of the 25 page Deed, and its requirements and restrictions based on recorded, present environmental hazards, would lead a reasonable mind to consider a "six- month" move in requirement, completely, utterly, laughable. During this pre-announcement phone call, Metro went on say that they wanted to meet with SLB 2s soon as possible to share the scorecards in person, ahd that Metro still had additional space requirements that they hoped SL8 would participate in, in the hopes that those agencies could be moved "sooner rather than later." Two meetings were scheduled for this purpose, one February 10 and one February 13, Both were cancelled by Metro, first due to a "computer outage", the second due to the fact that SLB made an open records request ("ORR") for the very documents that were to be shared at the meeting. Metro said that due to the ORR, they could not meet until the ORR complete, The ORR was complete on February 19. Metro, as of now, has still not provided the scorecards, On February S in a Facebook post, and on February 6 in a Courier-Journal ("CJ") article, Metro ‘announced that they would be moving agencies from Barrett Avenue to "The Edison Center" (the abandoned warehouse at 7th and Oak), and that the PVA would be moving into 16,000sqft at the Glassworks. Metro did not inform SLB of the Glassworks space during the phone call. The CJ article went on to list agencies moving, and stated that the total lease price was $812,500, and went on to say that this was "about the same that they spend currently”. (Need we re- iterate that the last price from CPG was $12.50, SLB $9.36, and in RFP, Metro CFO stated that $10.06 could not be afforded due to "floors and ceilings", and the need for "revenue neutral’. The Glassworks price was not disclosed, nor did Metro respond to an ORR for such, nor was the sqft price for the abandoned warehouse released. ‘The Cl article went on to say that the lease term is to be for 15 years, at a fixed price. The RFP called for a ten year lease. SLB was never afforded the opportunity to quote its own price for a 15 year term. The eventual "award", was outside of the terms of the RFP, again, contrary to KRS45A.370. It is apparent that Metro conducted negotiations with CGP, during the interim months, outside of the requirements of statute, and without informing SLB. Furthermore, it requires a closer examination to understand, that the article reported a litany of agencies moving, for $812,500. CPG's last communication to Metro, according to the ORR,was for 100,000sqft at the abandoned warehouse, for $1,250,000. We are certain that CPG did not lower its price from $14,90, to $12.50, then to $8.12. Here is what we believe happened: RFPI called for moving the Medical Examiner and Coroner's Office ("EC"). This is a State agency. Metro is tasked with finding and providing space for MEC, while the State of Kentucky pays for such. RFP1 specifically outlined, in multiple addendums, that MEC would provide its own build out funds and also pay its own utilities and rent. In RFP2, none of this was mentioned, at all, ust six space totals that were required. The disparity between the reported $812,500 annual lease payment, and the likely actual annual lease payment of $1,250,000, can be most likely attributed to the amount of the lease payment being paid by the State of Kentucky for MEC, giving Metro a convenient "out" to miscolor the lease Payment in their communication with the CJ reporter. RFP1 had requested some 36,000sqft for IMEC, which at $12.50sqft, is almost the difference being pointed out here. its likely, that this was also used as a tool in suspected additional negotiations between Metro and CPG, prior to the announcement of the lease. Again, terms and conditions were discussed, outside of the tenants of the RFP, without all other respondents being afforded the same opportunity. RFP1, after which SLB was the likely "lowest evaluated bid price" offeror, and so should have been awarded the contract according to statute, did specifically outline the needs of MEC, and state that MEC would be paying for their entire build-out, rent, and utilities. This was a significant consideration in the offering of pricing and other terms. RFP2, did not, at all, mention anything at all on the subject of MEC, nor any agency paying for its build-out, or its utilities, n the reverse, REP? specifically and emphatically stated that “all build-out funds", and “all utilities" must be included in the offered price. Metro, by not disclosing this fact to anyone else, other than apparently CPG, provided CPG with a significant competitive advantage. This is, for now, loosely evidenced by the fact that Metro erroneously announced, through the CJ, that the total lease payment for all the. agencies listed was $812,500, when, it clearly cannot be. However, this is, for now, speculation at worst, an Informed opinion at best, as Metro has not provided a copy of the lease for the abandoned warehouse, even though it was requested in the ORR, Relief Sought Relief One: RFP2 should be set aside and held for naught, for all the reasons outlined above. RFP2 should be awarded tothe lowest evaluated bid-price, as of the conclusion of competitive negotiations in July, 2014. Regardless of any actual occupancy dates, full rent payments under the terms of RFP4, shall be paid to SLB, beginning retroactively to December 1, 2014, as that was the projected time that all agencies would be moved in,Relief Two: SLB should be awarded damages in the form of any and all lost profits it would have received had it been awarded REP, SLB should be awarded damages from the beginning of Metro's contact with SLB, in November of 2014, as the entire process was tilted against SLB. SLB should be awarded punitive damages from Metro, for unfair and collusive dealings in the procurement of public contracts, such as the trier of fact shall determine. Relief Three: Any award made to CPG should be set aside, and any contract entered into voided, Metro may void any contract with CPG upon determining that is was obtained in an unfair, arbitrary, or capricious manner, based on actions and submissions of CPG's, which are evident as outlined herein. Any and all other relief to which SLB may appear to be éntitled, Additional Submissions SLB reserves the right to make additional submissions of evidence and additional arguments, as Metro failed to provide the scorecards, scoring guidelines, nor any documentation whatsoever of their award decision to SLB at a meeting held on March 18, 2015. SLB should be allowed to amend, modify, and add to this protest document, within five days of receipt of the scorecards, scoring guidelines, and all other documentation supporting Metro's decision, that Metro has yet to provide. Due Process The process by which the award of a public contract may be protested, according to a Metro document obtained from the Purchasing Department, which Is attached hereto as Exhibit "8", is first, a meeting with Metro representatives responsible for scoring, then a formal written protest to the Director of Purchasing, then, a filing in Jefferson Circuit Court. SLB has met these requirements, On March 18, 2015, during a meeting with Metro representatives, SLB requested an additional meeting with Metro, during which documentation regarding scoring and the award decision could be produced and discussed SLB is filing this protest within five days of the posting of the award on Metro Government's website - Demandstar, evidence of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Protest Submitted By:Alan S. Rubin, Attorney 231 South Fifth Street, Suite 200 Louisville, KY 40202 (502) 587-1050Site View of Old LGE Warehouse at 1228 South Seventh Street View of East FacadeSite View of The Sawyers and Lerner Building at 510 West BroadwayLouisville-Jefferson County Metro Purchasing Bid / RFP Protest Procedure Any bidder or RFP respondent not selected for award shall haye the option to request a meeting with representatives of the Purchasing Department and the Metro Department that requested the Bid / RFP to discuss the selection process for the award, If the bidder / respondent still believes to be adversely affected by the decision for award on the grounds that the award was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law may file with the Purchasing Director a Formal Written Protest no later than five (5) business days (excluding Metro Government Holidays) after the award has been posted on the Metro Website. The Formal Written Protest shall include: o The Bid / RFP Number and Title © Name and address of the party filing the protest and the title and position of the person submitting the protest. The grounds for the protest. The only permissible grounds in which a protest may be filed are that the award was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or contrary to law. A statement of disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the protest must so indicate, A concise statement of the facts alleged and of the rules, regulations, statutes or constitutional provisions which entitle the effected party to relief. All information, documents, other materials, calculations and any other statutory or case law authorities in support of the grounds for the protest. A statement indicating the relief sought by the protest. Any other relevant information the affected party deems to be material to the protest. ° ° ° Ce)The Director of Purchasing shall issue a final decision regarding a Formal Written Protest in writing within five (5) business days (excluding Metro Holidays) of the date the protest was received to the bidder or respondent who made the protest, | | Any bidder / respondent that has submitted a Formal Written Protest and has received a decision on that protest and still believes to be adversely affected by the decision of the award may bring an action in Jefferson Circuit Court on the grounds that the award was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. This Protest Procedure was established by a Resolution of the Metro Council.Bids - Onvia DemandStar Page 1 of 1 User: Larner, Rose Orpanizations The Sawyers and Lomer Quilding, LL Logout | Help DEMANDSTAR Ss ONVIA, My Demandstar Suppliers —Accountinfo [View Bids} View Orders View Responses Bids oy Searen Bia ntiior Tageney Name bia Sats Sroadcestbate[oate Ove U Tame Tetons Tisai ee Goveranen! a | argo | woot [Usa0b al pivele onned ace [Dota OwisenafPucheang | Awaited | amie ond Jad watehouse space Plannoiors Faget ort Search Criteria Basie search Nove: Not alt feds ave necessary to cnet «search Show bids @ unde in oe sytor sis sans (Caza) i Mdentiter —)-[S) -)- E Fiscal Year “VE camp: a. s454-02000000) Ageney [Chose Ora) = Ie Someup ((n0086 Gay Dennis ipo Onl ne. (2) 201. AtaMareano | Tom fe | Piey hitp://www.demandstar.com/supplier/bids/Default.asp?F=search&Search=Advanced 3/13/2015(DIES © EVIE DEMANG star Page tof I User’ Lemar, Ross Otganeation; The Sawyers and Leener Building, LLC Logout |Help DEMANDSTAR ONVIA My DeomandStar Suppliers. Account info [View Bids] View Orders View Responses Bids Mody Search ti oun [Sis iaenior | Agency Name Bia Satie [Brandt Dat[Oate Ove V Tame Retone Sones” ‘Sone becleae | ewan | e720 | seco [ea err tce Pemilaae Page Tort Search Criteria Basie search Note: Not al fields ate necessary ta concluct a search Showbids Qk ive stern sid enter (EE) fe -)- a ‘sony [Game SH——— wou I ere (tons One) eeeeeeememneres same RFP-5454-0 200010140) Demonia ina pre of Oni ne. (9) 187208 rgeresed | Tmmeat Vos 1 Prwey ~search&Search=Advanced 3/12/2015