that threshold may require, we think it clear that DRPA’s guidelines do not vest any property right in a DRPA awardee. DRPA’s Board’s resolution merely “authorizefed] [DRPA’s] staff to negotiate a construction contract with ... Cor-con.” Supp. App. A.5. It did not create any contract rights. Moreover, the guidelines accord significant discretion to DRPA to negotiate with and even reject the eventual awardee specified in that resolution. For example, DRPA may seek to negotiate discounts with the awardee, see A.495, or may even reject the awardee as not responsible “later in the process and until the contract is fully executed,” A.524 (emphasis added). DRPA has not “fully executed” a contract with Corcon and thus it had no protectable property right. Cf. Coco Bros., 741 F.2d at 677 (<HOLDING>). Even if it did have a property right, Alpha
holding that arbitration award of postaward interest at 8 accruing from the 31st day after service of this award  until final payment of the award  was insufficient to displace federal rate recognizing that negotiations after initial acceptance of a bid postponed the date of the final award  holding because an initial order contemplated the subsequent entry of a judgment the initial order was not considered a final adjudication holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that bankruptcy court properly considered competing bid that topped initial offer by less than 5 even though the topping bid did not comply with bid procedures order requiring counteroffers to exceed the initial offer by at least 10