for City staff in scoring the SOQs unless — unlike here — Proposeis provided “specific information” justifying an adjustment. Finally, the Cit reserved its right to. among other things. reject any SOQ containing exceptions, additions. qualifications, or conditions it considered unacceptable.6 The City received three timely SOQs from Padel ford, Anderson. and Benchmark Contractors. Inc. (“Benchmark”). City staff conducted a thorouh analysis of the SOQs received to determine their relative streneths. eakncsses. merits, and benefits in accordance ith the criteria set tbrth in Section 7 of’ theRFQ. Cit stall’ also intervieed the Proposers twice to obtain clarifications of their SOQs. during the weeks of’ February 23 and March 9. 2026. (‘ily staff independently scored the Proposers and their SOQs against the Section 7 evaluation criteria and met on March 5. 2026 to discuss the SOQs and establ shedthe overall ranking of the Proposers. 1he Proposers then presented to the City Council their approach tothe Project. ith Padelford presenting on March 24. 2026. and Anderson and Benchmark presenting on March 3!. 2026. City staffs scores and ranking of the Proposers remained unchanged.
2. PADELFORIYS PROTEST.The R F’Q provided appeal procedures fhr Proposers to protest the contents of the RFQ and award of the contract to a Proposer. Importantly. any protest to the contents of the REQ needed to he submitted in writing by the last day lbr questions (no later than January 8. 2026). Padelfbrd (lid not timely protest the contents of the R1 Q. Any timei protest to the selection of the highest rank Proposer required a detailedexplanation for the legal and ltctual basis. \\ith supporting documentation, to establish the merits of the protest. Padelford’s Protest of’ the selection of Anderson alleges three diffi,rent grounds for their protest. mci iid i ng unequal treatment by the City during the intervie process. a l1a%ed evaluation, and unreasonable performance assessments.
As an initial matter. Padeiford’s disagreement ith the City’s intervie proc and the evaluation criteria is rejected. Any protest to the contents of’ the REQ needed to he submitted in writing by the last day fhr questions (no later than January 8. 2026).’ l failing to protest the contents of the Rl’Q by the last day forquestions. Padelf’ord’s protest of the contents the REQ is invalid. 0 Ihat is. Padelford aived its right to protest the contents of the REQ. including the City’s intervie process and tile evaluation criteria, and Padelford cannot no object to the (‘ity’s iocess in the REQ.
Not ithstanding Padelfbrd failing to protest the contents of’ tile REQ. tile City has elected, ill its solediscretion, to revie the entire substance of’ the Protest, including Padeif’ord’s allegations about the City’s intervie\\ pIss and e aluation criteria. Ihis revie does not waive tile protest deadlines or any otherprocedural requirements, nor does it create any right or expectation of consideration for untimely protestsin this proc urement.
Compois’ RFQ 6 (Proposal Requieinents) & 7.2 1 I.altiahon (riteria). with Id. 73 (In(cr ics). hi. 9.hi. 46(b).
hi. 4.6(c).hi. 4.6th).
hi.
6505k) 00011 4 950019 8
May 8. 2026
Pa,e S
3. PAI)ELFORI)’S PROTEST IS VITHOUT MERIT.
A presumption exists that a public agency contract award is supported by substantial evidence and theburden is on the proteStor to show there is no substantial evidence whatsoever to support the aard. “Substantial evidence” has been defined as rele ant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept asadequate support for a conclusion’ — even ii’ there is evidence in the record that ouId support a contrary conclusion. The court reviewing a city council’s decision may not reweigh the evidence.’3 A rit of mandate should not be issued unless under the facts, discretion can only he exercised in one way. and the city council acted to the contrary.
° The court will not overturn a cit’s decision unless “the action taken is fraudulent or so palpably unreasonable and arbitrary as to reveal an abuse of discretion as a matter of “‘F
(a) Padellord’s Allegation of Unequal Treatment by City is tJnfounded and Not Supported by 1Ev ide nec.
Padelford objects that the City did not disclose the possibility of additional. City Council interviews in the RFQ. I lovever. the (‘itv disclosed the possibility of panel interviews in Section 7 of the RFQ. 0) [here were no surprises that panel interviews could be conducted at Cit’ Hall and. as discussed herein, Padellhrd waived any objection to panel interviews by Ihiling to timely protest the contents of the RFQ.
Padelliird also objects that the timing of the City Council presentations provided the other Proposers anunfair competitive advantage since the other two Proposers gave their presentations a week afterPadelford. Padellbrd alleges this allowed the other Proposers to gain insight into Padelforci’s own strategy. talking points. pricing, and schedule as well as the questions the City Council would ask each Proposer. Padelfords arguments foil on the merits. Aside from its owi unsubstantiated assertion that Anderson somehow benefited from splitting the paiiel interviews across Iwo weeks. Padel ford has not shown any harm from being randomly selected to present first to the (‘it Council.
Padel ford speculates that h presenting a week later. Anderson made unspecified changes andimprovements to its own SOQ. I lowever. Proposers were not invited to modil . alter. or update their SOQs for their presentations before City Council and Padel kird does not identify any specific information in Anderson’s presentation diflbring from that in their S( )Q or submittals to (it’ stair In thct. the Anderson Protest Response makes clear that this was not the case and that nothing in their SOQ wasre ised or changed hets een its submittal and interviews w ith ( it staff and their high—level presetluhtion to Cit\ Council.’ Proposers did not introduce any new information that impacted (i1 stairs scoring ofthose SOQs under the evaluation criteria. That is. Cit statY scored and ranked the SOQs before the CityCouncil presentations were held, and the scores and rankings remained unchanged afler conclusion of theCity Council presentations. No ‘‘specific information was pros ided at the presentations that justified See ( ‘lpies .S’cmUt. LL( v. (iii nul (0100 of .Soi Frosiseo (2010) I 84 (‘aI.App.—iih 1003. 101—i: v.1 (ihiloli, (‘onsl,?,CIiol, C o. i. ( ‘in’ of RieI,pi,o,icl (1996) 45 (al. App. 4th 897. 903—04 ((‘iI oi’flcials actions are presumed to be supported b substantial c idence. anti it is the protestor’s burden to prove others se iai for Bus .Sc’ri i’. Scm Diego Bc!. of Ec/ut. (1987)105 (‘al.App.3d 1331. 1340.
Id.
‘- (tylie.vv.S’icIi’ifl. .sopio. 184 (‘aI.App.3th at 1010. ‘5 Los loge/v.’, ‘or Encp/oies (Job11 v. Los ,4,i vies (‘itt’ flu of Educ. (1974) I2 (‘ai.3d 851 . 856.
REQ § 7.3.
7 Set’ Anderson Protest Rcsp. at 1 -2.
65059 0o(Itt 4495109.8
May 8, 2026
adjusting the ScOring of any of the Proposers. Thus, no advantage whatsoever existed due to the order olthe presentations or the results of the presentations.
Put simply. Padel lord has not alleged any facts demonstrating that it was at a disadvantage b presenting first or that Anderson benelitted by presenting to the City a week alter Padelford. ‘l’he three Proposers were given the same notice. same instructions, and same opportunity to present their SOQs to the (‘ity Council. Padellord’s speculation to the contrary is neither factual evidence nor legal argument to establishthe merits of their protest. (b) Padelfbrd’s Allegation of Flawed Evaluations is Unfounded and Not Suppoed by Evidence.Padellord next objects that the evaluations were flawed because Padelthrd provided the loest prices lbr Phase I and Phase 2. As a threshold matter, this is a best value procurement, not a loest price technically acceptable procurement.
‘ i’he City clearly disclosed the seven evaluation criteria it considered significant in evaluating SOQs as el I as the eight that each factor ould be assigned in the REQ. While the Cit considered price, only to of’ seven evaluation criteria scored pricing and nothing in the RFQ required theCity to award the Project to the lowest responsible bidder.20 Rather, the RFQ required the City’ tonegotiate a contract with the highest ranked firm alter evaluating all criteria.2’Specifically’. pricing accounted for a maximum of only 35 out of’ a total 100 points, while the Proposers’understanding of the Project. project experience and references. priecl team and key personnel, andproject delivery, cost development, and management approach accounted for the remaining maximum 65points.22 lo be ranked highest in points for the lowest cost therefore does 1101 equate to being rankedhighest overall. California la for pI’og ‘ssive design—build projects requires the City to consider factors other than price.23 and eighting price above all other Etctors would rev rite the REQ. change the criteria for awarding the contract. and violate the California law.24 Again, there should have been no surprises that price was only one fhctor of many and not the determinative factor.
Padellorcl additionally objects that Anderson’s hid is ‘‘unattainable, unachievable and unrealistic” and emphasizes that Anderson has not worked on Santa Catalina Island. Padel ford’s subjective impressionand unsupported assumptions of Anderson’s SOQ is not evidence contradicting Anderson’s technicalexperience or prior experience in remote locations. Padellbrd must sho there is no relevant evidence whatsoever that a reasonable mind ould accept as adequate to support awarding the contract toAnderson. l’hey have not done so. Instead. Paclelford copied and pasted dollar values and opined that their O\\fl bid as better. Padelfbrd’s unsubstantiated opinion that their on hid sas better based solel on costdoes not demonstrate that the (‘ity abused its discretion in ranking Anderson higher. j: REQ 4.6(c).
See Pub. (‘ontract Code 22 185 c, seq.
2’ See REQ § 7.2. Public agencies rna evaluate arious %ictois aside from cost in e aluating qualilication tbr progressivedesign—build prolects. such as proposers “technical design and construction expertise. and all other non—price—i’clatcd factors. (‘a!. Pub. (‘ontract (‘ode § 221 85.3(a)(2).
21 REQ 7.2 & 8.1:se’ gt’iic’rallv (‘a!. Pub. Contract (‘ode § 22185.3(c).21 REQ § 7.2 (‘al. Pub. Contract (ode § 22! 85.3(a)(2).
11 See C lpIc’ss .Seeionv. .siip’u. I 84 (‘iI ..‘\pp.—lth at 0!!). (,sni’) ((nOt t 4O)5(sit ) (I
May 8. 2026
not provide their definition of “leveled bids” or ho that ouId be an abuse of discretion by the CityAssuming they are contending that the City somehow erroneously compared the three SOQs in its evaluation. Padel ford does not explain how they were prej udiced by any side—by—side comparison of pricing necessary to objectively evaluate the SOQs.2 Padelfbrd’s unsupported allegations that the evaluation \\ere somehow flawed despite following the pmcess disclosed in the Rl’Q fails to establish the merits of their protest.
(c) Padellbrd’s Allegation of Unreasonable Performance Assessments is Unfounded and Not Supported by Evidence,
Padelford last objects that the City unreasonably evaluated its performance and experience as a design— builder. While Padelford argues that they have experience building projects on the “island” whileAnderson (toes not and that Anderson’s did not realistically account for the “learning curve” specific to construction on Santa Catalina Island. these arguments are conclusory. speculative, and unsupported by anything hut Padelt’ord’s mere surmise.Padelford also contends that their experience as someho simultaneously “counted against” them. but does not provide any evidence supporting this assertion or an explanation of how they believe they were penaliied 11w their public works history. They also argue that the award erroneously “focused on thewords ‘design build’ and ‘government work as the two deciding factors again without evidence andrather conllisinglv as this is. in fact. a public agency best value procurement for progressive design—build.
Mere conjecture is not enough to sho that the City stalierred in is evaluation of the SOQs.27Padel ford’s Protest liii Is to provide any facts or legal argumenis to establish the merits of’ its protest and demonstrate any error in the City’s evaluation of’ their SOQ or City staff ranking Anderson as the highest ranked proposer. Padelford’s Protest is ithout merit. Ilie City v ill consider aard of this contract at its meeting on May 19. 2026. It is the City’s intention to reconiniend to the City Council that it aive anyminor irregularities and award the contract to the highest ranked proposer. Anderson.
Sincerely.
1)avid M. \‘laistros
(liv Manager
cc: Scott (‘am pbell. Cit Attorne
(‘iLy of’ Avalon (‘ity Council(‘abrillo Mole learn
(omparatR e anaksis. partcularIy a wieInng otcost sas ings against benelits. is a normal pail ol a best alue procurement esaluation Scc’ Id. at 1014.
2(/ RIQ
:iirL’,c ,SLvi/,ni’. slqnu. 84 (aI.App.4tli at 1014.
65ii5) 11)1)1 •il’)5i)(i I S
Devin Elise Hart
From: Jacob Young <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 4:16 PM
To: Devin Elise Hart; Cabrillo Mole
Cc: David Maistros; Anni Marshall; Yesenia S. De La Rosa; Lisa Lavelle; Michael Ponce; Mary Schickling
Subject: Cabrillo Mole RFQ Project #180005 April 21st 2026 Attachments: Avalon Response to Padelford Protest 5082026 (1).pdf Good Afternoon,
Letter was received. It was your typical lawyer speak that was vague and missed the majority of the main points, disagree with the time line among other things in the response to our dispute and have added additional response below:
This project was something we’ve been helping the city with for 5+ years now. Apparently good enough for FREE advice and updated budgets to secure your funding (you’re welcome Mark) but thrown to the curb when it came to actually building. It’s truly sad... so much time and energy went into this. That will never happen now because you’ve chosen a firm that wasn’t just second on design cost. No no no they were the HIGHEST PHASE 1 cost. Almost one million dollars higher... let me reemphasize $974,244.00 HIGHER. That’s complete and utter misuse of your tax payer dollars and grant money. There’s not a single design team on this planet that’s worth that much more in public fund expenditure.
Special committee for this project kept saying it was about the team and not the money. First interviewwe had you all kept saying was WE CANT GO OVER BUDGET. But yet you some how managed to go over by $974,244.00 on the initial phase. Absolutely blows my mind that even at this lower level ofgovernment you can still find ways to overspend your constituents tax dollars. One of my mainquestions which has never been answered is how are they that much better to justify that amount of extra spending? We were the low qualified bid with years of experience on the island as a collectivegroup. You’re gambling with a new team with zero experience that COSTS MORE just to go through the trial and error on an inexperienced team. Chasing a fictional phase 2 budget from a team that’s never built there. You’re setting yourself up for the same disaster as your failed fuel dock project which makes no sense because the most savings possible was with your low qualified bidder. • The way this job was laid out was a hard bid for phase 1 which is purely just creating a roll of paper plans. Paper plans. You are going to line the pockets of a GC and Architect with $974,244.00 more than you could have paid the qualified low design bidder where the savings was going towards the actual construction costs. Heck you could have had low qualified design it and they would have gladly hard bid against Anderson just to prove the point that he’s +1- 2 million under real budget on phase 2. I hope you all realize before you vote this company in that he can walk away before construction as there’s nothing tying him to his fictitious budget if he goes over it. Hence putting council in a$974,244.00 deficit before even putting a spade in the ground and having to hard bid the job on public purchase.
• Proposed awarded contractor said he reached out to Jordahl during his interview. Call Jim. That’s a lie.
He’s never heard of them or had any conversations about the project with them. I have a budget proposal from Jim for the project on what he was going to charge for demo, grading, utilities and concrete. If Anderson had made a simple call he would have that same supporting document to show you as well as a more inline budget but he does not.
• Your lawyer/David states Anderson never changed a thing from their presentation to special committee to their presentation to council after seeing us a week in advance. Your special PM Mr.
Pasveer stated in a call and in person we were the only firm to have a digital presentation during the first interview of contractors with multiple team members from our group as witness. So the addedtime did in fact give them additional time to improve to a digital presentation with improved graphics to present in council meeting. On top of the additional time to study our presentation to gain talking points. Your Lawyers point of lacking merit is not accurate on this issue. • Your lawyer/David states we should have disputed the interview process by the 1/8/26 date stated in REQ. REQ states “a panel interview” in 7.3 which is “singular” the last time I checked, not multiple nor does it mention anywhere of a presentation in front of council the would be broadcast a memorializedon youtube, so your letter response about this area missing deadlines lacks merit as your lawyer would say.
o The City changed the finish line on multiple occasions along with adding more hoops to jump through such as the creation of renderings for our initial interview with just a few days advanced notice for our 2/27 meeting which was never apart of the initial RFQ verbiage.
The addition of rushed elevations and project depictions was a slippery slope thatturned this from a team and experience REQ into a design competition by requesting those renderings we had to come up with a design style and look for the structure which was never apart of the initial request and essentially locked teams into a specificdirection that may not have been the final project during actual design phase. This type of work should have been left for only the awarded Architect after citing in further meetings to create an image of what the city wanted.
• You may say that scores were locked in prior to presentations but those images get engrained into peoples minds and become apart of the selection process and based on the comments from council to each contractor specific comments were made by council members discussing the specific images.
• The city then added an additional zoom call on March 5th not part of REQ• The city added a presentation in front of city council which was again not described or apart of the original REQ requirements.
2 • Sorry for not having a crystal ball to dispute the items above as it was being serviced so we did not get a chance to read it to know about future events back before the January 8th RFI deadline.
Based on your lawyer/David’s letter the council presentations were apparently not required as their decision was already made. So the committee and council lead us on under false pretense that the decision process was still ongoing and that voting was to occur after presentations. Since your scoring was apparently complete you wasted our time, money, and energy traveling to the island for a second time just to talk in front of council which was nothing more than a song and dance for no apparent reason.
o I’d love to hear that explanation.... or your certified letter stating locked in scores was a false statement on a certified document to get around the fact that your week of extra time for Anderson was in fact an unfair advantage.., which is it? • As someone who has a legally recognized mental health condition which falls under the American Disabilities Act that decision to make us present for no apparent reason was just cruel and unusual punishment. i don’t take kindly to being messed with like that.
We were under the impression that there was a purpose for that presentation when it no was stated that there wasn’t one. Honestly if that was mentioned in the REQ as well I think we would have passed on the project completely due to my condition, but our team put so much time and effort into this project that I could not let the team down and had to speak.
I look forward to following along on the status of this project as 1 of the following 3 outcomes are onlypossible with your chosen route:
o 1) He backs out of the job with an extra $974,244.00 of your construction funds in his pocket just to hand you a roll of paper plans and say he cant do the job and it gets put on public purchase.
o 2) The city does not want to pay his increased phase 2 hard cost once he learns what it really takes and the job goes back out on public purchase for bid. o 3) You negotiate and VE a smaller structure with less functionality to save face just to keep them on board.
As someone who is a firm believer in small government and responsible spending I have a huge issue with your current project decision and direction. It’s the simple fact that you’re spending so much more additional tax payer dollars on a project when you had a low qualified bid. I’m sure your constituents and grant funding partners would agree that your decision to spend their dollars in this fashion is not fiscally responsible or in their best interests.
Thank you,
JaC:)b “roungA. .1. Padellord & Son Inc.
OIThe: (562) 924-3364 Fax: (562) 924-0521 Cell: (562> 441-9503 1mail: jacobpadeIford.com Website: www.padeIItrd.com
CA B222840 : AZ ROC34O549 : NV B0088095
3 Devin Elise Hart
From: David Maistros
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 2:39 PM
To: Jacob Young; Devin Elise Hart
Subject: RE: Cabrillo Mole RFQ Project #180005 April 21st 2026 Jacob Young:
Please allow this correspondence to serve as acknowledgement of receipt of your email dated May 12, 2026, setting forth Paddleford’s reply to the city’s protest response associated with your participation and interest inthe City of Avalon’s Cabrillo Mole progressive-design build, best value procurement. We have received your message and concerns about the Project and process. As reflected in the City’s response to your protest, the full interview process and evaluation criteria for ranking Proposers was disclosed in the Request for Qualifications. We note that while the presentations before the City Council did not alter the scoring, those presentations did provide information to the City Council which will assist them in their decision on the award of the Project. We appreciate the time you spent preparing for and presenting your proposal.
Be further advised that City staff plans to bring their recommendation for contract award to the City Council on May 19, 2026, and your email will be included in the materials provided Dave Maistros
City Manaqer. City of vaIon
4) : r Corwcn Ro
3iO:C22O 22 I
I
TEeE.E :ncudncen ycor1en c:dee, rcpreter,
;riv eed End or nomaoo The- 1 neor .r:eded :o be the .se er’lir’ de;nLed above ere no[ the intended recoier[
Cr— —s j’rr — trr ic rCrrr et’ rid ft-th r—
e:hrents. ny drc:DE,e. reprodoicrr. dtitheon or othe ue :1 o eooooe or rr eO-atwr.ri:o by ar nd;idua or erit’eothe than the irteridO e’:-err:r hibrted I
David Maistros I City Mntgei
City of A va/on
hj(°) 510-0220 xt27
F/wwwcityofr:iv
1