STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWN'S REFRIGERATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-6143BID

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, )

)

Respondent, )

and )

)

GULF ICE SYSTEMS, INC., )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on November 16, 1994, a formal hearing was held in this case. The hearing location was the Office of the Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael P. Bist, Esquire

Gardner, Shelfer, Duggar and Bist, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

For Respondent: Cindy Horne, Esquire

Department of Management Services

312 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950

For Intervenor: Mark Howell, Qualified Representative

Gulf Ice Systems, Inc. Post Office Box 15151

Pensacola, Florida 32514-0151 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

Was the bid submitted by the Intervenor to Respondent's Invitation to Bid No. 147-740-650-M in categories 2 and 4 responsive to the invitation to bid? If not, is Petitioner entitled to contract awards for those categories as the best and lowest responsive bidder or should Respondent readvertise the invitation to bid in categories 2 and 4?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner protested Respondent's preliminary decision to award the contract to the Intervenor in categories 2, 3 and 4 in the subject invitation to bid. At hearing, Petitioner abandoned its challenge to the preliminary decision to award in category 3.

When the parties were unable to resolve their dispute by informal means, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing.

Petitioner presented Gary Brown and Pete Radtke as witnesses. Petitioner offered 15 exhibits and they were admitted. Respondent presented the witnesses Richard Roundtree and H. P. Barker, Jr. Respondent offered 1 exhibit and it was admitted. Intervenor did not present any witnesses or exhibits.

A transcript was prepared and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 16, 1994. Petitioner and Respondent timely filed proposed recommended orders on December 27, 1994. Intervenor did not submit a proposed recommended order. The fact finding suggested in the proposed recommended orders is addressed in an appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Section 287.042(2), Florida Statutes, establishes a process by which Respondent conducts competitive bidding in the purchase of goods and services for state agencies, cities, counties and other local governmental agencies.

   
   

2. Consistent with its charge, Respondent issued ITB 147-740-650-M on July 12, 1994. As the title suggests this invitation was for quotations on various categories of ice making machines.

   
   

3. Substantiative terms of the invitation to bid include a statement of the purpose for sending out the invitation. Generally stated, Respondent intends by this process to establish a 26-month contract to run from November 15, 1994 through January 14, 1997, which would allow agencies of the State of Florida and other eligible users to purchase ice making machines that comply with the specifications set forth in the various categories of machines and other related products to include categories 2 and 4.

   
   

4. On August 22, 1994, the responses to the invitation to bid were opened. Responses were received from Petitioner and Intervenor. Intervenor was preliminarily determined to be the lowest bidder in categories 2 and 4. Petitioner was the next lowest bidder in categories 2 and 4.

   
   

5. Among the machines to be purchased was a machine identified in the invitation as No. 740-650-100-0100. At hearing this machine was referred to as category 2. The invitation to bid established that that machine should have the following specifications:

   
   

   Automatic ice making machine, batch-type, modular or self-contained to produce the 90 minimum to

   130 maximum pounds of cube ice each 24-hour period. To be complete with storage bin with a 60-pound minimum capacity. To have air-cooled compressor, painted exterior finish and adjustable legs.

6. Another ice making machine which was being contemplated for purchase under the invitation to bid was the machine described in the invitation as No. 740-650-100-0300. This machine was referred to in the hearing as category 4. Specifications for this machine were as follows:

   
   

   Automatic ice making machine, batch-type, modular or self-contained, to produce 225 minimum to 320 maximum pounds of cube ice each 24-hour period.

   To be complete with storage bid with a 250-pound minimum capacity. To have air-cooled compressor, painted exterior finish and adjustable legs.

   
   

7. Petitioner disputes the preliminary decision by Respondent to award a contract to Intervenor to provide the category 2 and 4 machines.

   
   

8. Within the invitation to bid are set forth general conditions for conducting the bid process.

   
   

9. In the general conditions, paragraph 7, the bidders are instructed concerning the appropriate means for questioning the Respondent about conditions and specifications set forth in the invitation to bid. That paragraph states:

   
   

   INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full comp- liance with this provision. . . .

   
   

10. Within the requirements set forth in the invitation to bid is a section referred to as "Independent Laboratory Reports." It states:

    
    

    Each bidder shall include with bid the kilowatts required to produce rated ice capacity delivered per 24 hours, using an integrating watt hour

    meter (graduated to .01 KWH), and power consumption test in accordance with ASHRAE Standard 29 (Latest Edition), ambient air temperature 90 F, portable

    70 F, accompanied by Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) certification with copy of directory of certified automatic commercial ice cube machines and storage bins

    or independent laboratory reports substantiating power consumption and ice capacity for each of the models offered on Table I specifications summary and price sheet. The ice capacity of all machines shall be corrected to 144 BTU per lb. of ice in accordance with the calorimetry method as described in the appendix of ASHRAE Standard 29 and adjustment calculations shall

    be included in the independent laboratory reports.

    The test may be conducted in the manufacturer's facilities supervised and certified by the independent laboratory. The machines tested shall be new current models and will not be

    considered for this bid if tested prior to January 1, 1993.

    
    

    Model numbers entered on price sheet shall be identical to model numbers on independent laboratory reports.

    
    

    Failure to comply with these requirements will result in disqualification of bid.

    
    

11. ARI certification speaks to the energy rating of products certified.

    
    

12. Contrary to the instructions in paragraph 7 to the general conditions, Gary Brown as a principal for the Petitioner sought advice from Respondent's employee Glen Baker, a purchasing agent, about the meaning of the language which said that the response to the invitation to bid should be accompanied by ARI certification with a copy of the directory of certified automatic commercial ice cube machines and storage bins. In conversation between Brown and Baker, Brown asked Baker which edition of the ARI certification directory could be used in preparing the response. Baker's reply was that it would be the book in effect at the time of the bid.

    
    

13. It was inappropriate for Brown to solicit advice from the Respondent other that in writing. Any advice he received from Ms. Baker is not binding on the Respondent or other participants to the invitation to bid. Therefore proper interpretation of the language set forth in the section on independent laboratory reports must be premised upon a reading of that language in the context of the other information set forth in the invitation to bid.

    
    

14. For the convenience of the bidders, the invitation to bid includes a checklist. As the checklist indicates it is only provided to assist the vendors in the preparation of their bid responses. The checklist is only a guideline. It does not establish substantive requirements. Moreover, the checklist instructions remind the bidder that the bid instrument must be read in its entirety. The failure to include items set forth in the checklist does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a vendors bid is unresponsive.

    
    

15. In the event that the invitation to bid had referred to a manufacturer's names, trade names, brand names, information and/or catalog numbers, then the terms set forth in paragraph 6 to the general conditions would pertain. Respondent did not make those references. Respondent referred to the subject ice-making machines by number codes unrelated to product identification associated with manufacturer's names and catalog numbers. Therefore, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 6 to the general conditions calling for submission of cuts, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications for equivalent products in substitution for manufacturer's name products etc. does not pertain in resolving the dispute concerning the ice- making machines in categories 2 and 4.

    
    

16. However, within the invitation to bid is a section entitled "Technical Documentation." It states:

    
    

    All products bid must meet or exceed all

    conditions and specifications of the Invitation to Bid (ITB). When technical documentation is

    required by this ITB, its purpose is to demonstrate compliance of the product bid with evaluation of the product. Failure to provide the required technical documentation with the bid submittal shall make the bidder nonresponsive, unless the Division of Purchasing, in its sole discretion

    and in the best interest of the State, determines the acceptability of the products offered through technical documentation available within the Division as of the date and time of bid opening. Such authority of the Division shall in no way relieve the bidder from the ultimate responsibility to submit the required technical documentation,

    nor shall any bidder assume that such documentation is otherwise available to the Division. The State shall not be responsible for the accuracy of the technical documentation in its possession.

    
    

17. In this instance technical documentation is required in accordance with Paragraph 3.16 under the statement of specifications for the various categories of equipment advertised for bid. Section 3.16 states:

    
    

    Technical Documentation shall be provided to demonstrate compliance with the following requirements: Type, storage bin, capacity, UL labeled, NSF approved, finish, motor HP, and electrical requirements. Manufacturer specifi- cation sheet(s) or technical publication(s) are acceptable to demonstrate compliance with the above requirements. Individual specifications and requirements must be addressed; a general

    statement such as "complies with all requirements" is not acceptable. Products bid must meet or exceed all specifications.

    
    

18. Intervenor in responding to category 2 described the model that it was bidding as an EUC 200 JAP. This information was set forth on the specification summary and price sheet attached to the response to the invitation to bid. The information on that sheet further referred to the capacity of the air cooled compressor as 1/3 horse power and the bin capacity as 74 pounds, with a capacity of the machine for production of ice in the 24-hour period as 118 pounds. It described that the kilowatts required to produce rated ice capacity delivered in a 24-hour period was 12.98 KW.

    
    

19. In its bid Intervenor provided excerpts from the upcoming September 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995 ARI certification directory which referred to the Mile High Equipment (Ice-O-Matic) EUC 200 JAP ratings.

    
    

20. Also included with the submission by the Intervenor was a facsimile transmission cover sheet from ARI to Mile High Equipment dated August 17, 1994 in which the message associated with that transmission indicated to the person at Mile High Equipment Company that, "All models shown on the September 21, 1994 through February 28, 1995 directory are ARI certified. Please let me know if you need additional information."

21. This meant that the model EUC 200 JAP had not been officially recognized by the ARI certification process at the time the bids were opened.

    
    

22. The information contained in the facsimile transmission cover sheet is taken to mean that the upcoming September 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995 ARI certification directory included various models shown in the excerpts from the upcoming directory. Among those models was the EUC 200 JAP.

    
    

23. The suggested list price schedule for the Ice-O-Matic machines effective June 1, 1994 was provided with the Intervenor's bid. With that schedule in the provisions related to cube ice makers with built in storage bins, no reference is made to the EUC 200 JAP.

    
    

24. The June 1, 1994 price list generally indicates that the letter "J" stands for jumbo cube ice size, that the letter "P" refers to painted exterior and the letter "A" refers to an air condenser. Information in that price schedule identified that all models EUC use an HFC refrigerant to provide ice production without problems with CFCs.

    
    

25. Intervenor also provided a supplemental list price schedule from Ice- O-Matic effective August 1, 1994. This information did refer to an EUC 200 JAP B in the category of cube ice makers with built in storage bins. The information in the August 1, 1994 supplemental list price schedule made reference back to information from the June 1, 1994 price schedule, as to cabinet finish and control type.

    
    

26. Another supplemental information sheet from Ice-O-Matic dated August 15, 1994 was provided with Intervenor's response to the invitation to bid. It noted that suffixes after model numbers on Ice-O-Matic equipment indicate cabinet finish and control type as either electromechanical or computer controlled and referred back to the previous price list of June 1, 1994.

    
    

27. When Richard Roundtree, Respondent's employee, evaluated Intervenor's response to category 2, he had available and used the information referred to in the prior paragraphs that was contained in the Intervenor's response to the invitation to bid.

    
    

28. When Roundtree evaluated Intervenor's response in category 2, he also utilized specifications for Ice-O-Matic 200 series under-counter cube ice makers which he had available separate and apart from the Intervenor's response. That information that he had did not specifically reference the EUC 200 JAP. Rather it corresponded to the cube ice makers with built-in storage bin information set forth in the June 1, 1994 list price schedule by Ice-O-Matic pertaining to 200 series under-counter cube ice makers other than the EUC 200 JAP. Exclusive of the EUC 200 JAP, the information which Roundtree had separately available to him concerning other models within the 200 series under-counter cube ice makers by Ice-O-Matic bid constituted a specification sheet for the other models.

    
    

29. Notwithstanding the lack of a separate specification sheet to describe the model EUC 200 JAP in a manner comparable to the description of other models in the 200 series, which Roundtree had available to him separate from the submission by the Intervenor, at bid opening some details were established about the specifications of the EUC 200 JAP model bid by the Intervenor in category 2. Those details are set forth in the supplemental list price schedule effective August 1, 1994 wherein the type of cube maker, storage bin capacity, ice production capacity, finish on the exterior surface of the ice machine, motor horsepower and electrical requirements are set forth. The supplemental list

    price schedule does not indicate that the model EUC 200 JAP is UL labeled or NSF approved as required by paragraph 3.16 to the specifications.

    
    

30. Further reference is made in Paragraph 3.6 to the Specifications to the need to have the ice-making machines bid, to include category 2, listed by the Underwriters' Laboratory (UL) and labeled by that organization and to have approval by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF).

    
    

31. As described, on August 22, 1994 when the bids were opened Intervenor had provided a statement of ARI certification but that statement was for an effective date beyond the bid opening. The effective date for ARI certification was September 1, 1994. Therefore, the ARI certification for the EUC 200 JAP had not commenced.

    
    

32. In lieu of ARI certification the Intervenor did not provide independent laboratory reports substantiating power consumption and ice capacity for the EUC 200 JAP bid in category 2.

    
    

33. The failure to provide ARI certification for the EUC 200 JAP that was in effect at the time the bids were opened on August 22, 1994, and to offer technical documentation to demonstrate that that model was UL labeled and NSF approved constitute material deviations from the requirements set forth in the invitation to bid. These oversights compromise the Respondent's ability to fairly compare the Intervenor's bid response to that of other vendors under consideration in the competitive bidding process. These irregularities are not minor and may not be waived in a setting in which the Intervenor would be allowed at some date subsequent to the bid opening to clarify its bid response. For Respondent to allow that outcome would constitute an arbitrary act by the Respondent.

    
    

34. For category 4 the Intervenor bid a machine identified as a EC 400 JAP B1. In the specification summary and price sheet quotation it noted a description of a model storage bid only, as a B40 PB. The compressor was identified as an air-cooled compressor with 1/2 horse power. The refrigerant was identified a R-404a. The bin capacity was described as 270 pounds. The capacity of the machine in a 24-hour period for production of cubed ice was identified as 278.77 pounds. The kilowatts required to produce rated ice capacity delivered in a 24-hour period was identified as 22.667 KW. Additional information was provided on bin sizes and model numbers available with this machine.

    
    

35. No ARI certification was offered concerning the EC 400 JAP B1 when Intervenor submitted its proposal. An independent laboratory report rendered on August 17, 1994 was included with the response to the invitation to bid. That report presented the outcome of tests performed on the EC 400 JAP B1 by the Mauser Company. Those tests substantiated the power consumption and ice-making capacity for that model in conformance with the alternative opportunity to use independent laboratory reports to meet the requirements set forth in the invitation to bid.

    
    

36. The EC 400 JAP B is described in the Ice-O-Matic supplemental list price schedule effective August 1, 1994, in which technical information is offered concerning the type of machine, storage bin capacity, ice-making capacity, finish, motor horsepower and electrical requirements. This supplemental price schedule did not indicate that the model EC 400 JAP B is UL labeled and NSF approved. Nor was the information in the marketing brochure by Ice-O-Matic which was separately available to Roundtree when assessing the

    Intervenor's response to category 4 shown to be related to the EC 400 JAP B. Consequently, that information set forth in that marketing document could not be relied upon in determining whether Intervenor has provided the missing technical documentation necessary for the bid evaluation process contemplated by Paragraph

    3.16 to the specifications.

    
    

37. The failure to provide the needed technical documentation for the EC

    400 JAP B is a substantial deviation from the requirements in the invitation to bid. The unavailability of that information compromises the Respondent's ability to make a fair comparison between the Intervenor's response to category

    4 and that response made by other vendors. This oversight is not a minor irregularity that may be waived, thus allowing the Intervenor to submit the additional information subsequent to the bid opening. That choice would constitute an arbitrary act by the Respondent.

    
    

38. Respondent has preliminarily determined that the Petitioner was responsive to the requirements in the invitation to bid in the categories 2 and

1. No one has challenged that preliminary determination.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

   1. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

      
      

   2. Petitioner claims that the Intervenor has substantially departed from the requirements set forth in the invitation to bid related to category 2, the 740-650-100-0100 specification and category 4, the 740-650-100-0300 specification.

      
      

   3. In response to the invitation to bid Intervenor offered the Ice-O- Matic EUC 200 JAP for category 2 and the Ice-O-Matic EC 400 JAP B1 for category

1. By its response Intervenor failed to provide material information concerning those products. The oversight did not constitute a minor irregularity as defined in Rule 60A-1.002(13), Florida Administrative Code, and as identified in paragraph 6 to the general conditions in the invitation to bid.

   
   

   1. In the invitation to bid ARI certification or independent laboratory reports are required to substantiate power consumption and ice capacity for the models offered. The vendor is reminded that the failure to comply with that requirement will result in disqualification of the bid.

      
      

   2. In category 2, the Intervenor failed to provide ARI certification that was in effect at the time the bids were opened on August 22, 1994 or to provide independent laboratory reports for the Ice-O-Matic EUC 200 JAP. This constituted a material deviation from the bid requirements making Intervenor's bid offering for category 2 nonresponsive.

      
      

   3. In addition, Intervenor failed to provide required technical documentation for the EUC 200 JAP machine bid in category 2. Thus, the machine bid for category 2 is nonresponsive for that reason. Respondent's attempt to utilize specification sheet information available to it in determining the acceptability of that offering was unavailing. The information which the Respondent had on hand was unrelated to the EUC 200 JAP machine. This left the Intervenor responsible for providing its own information concerning the requirements for technical documentation, which it failed to do. The failure

      was related to the lack of UL labeling and a statement of NSF approval as required by paragraph 3.16 to the invitation to bid.

      
      

   4. Likewise, the required technical information specified in paragraph

      3.16 to the invitation to bid was not provided for the category 4, EC 400 JAP B1 machine. Again, the technical documentation that was missing was the UL labeling and NSF approval. The Ice-O-Matic catalogue which was separately available to and used by the Respondent to verify compliance with the technical specifications did not pertain to the EC 400 JAP B1. As with the EUC 200 JAP, the supplemental list price schedule effective August 1, 1994, did not set forth information concerning UL labeling and NSF approval for the EC 400 JAP B1.

      
      

   5. By not complying with the need to provide technical documentation for the EC 400 JAP B1, the Intervenor's offer for category 4 was nonresponsive.

      
      

   6. In contrast to the circumstances existing in the cases Robinson Electrical Company, Inc. v. Dade County, 417 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982) and Overstreet Paving v. Department of Transportation, 608 So.2d 851 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1992), the problems described with the Intervenor's responses to categories 2 and 4 are not minor oversights. It is unknown whether the machines that were bid met the UL and NSF requirements. If they did not this could possibly give the Intervenor an unfair competitive advantage over other vendors. Likewise vital information as to ARI certification for Intervenor's category 2 response was missing. These deficiencies undermine Respondent's ability to impose necessary common standards of competition between the Intervenor and the other vendors in reviewing products leading to the selection of a vendor for contract award.

      
      

   7. Paragraph 3.16 to the specifications and the invitation to bid is entitled "technical documentation for bid evaluation." This signifies that the Respondent intended that the determination as to compliance with technical documentation be made when the bids were evaluated, not at some subsequent date before entering into a contract with the selected vendor. Intervenor's failure to include requisite information deprived the Respondent of the assurance that the contract could be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specifications in the invitation to bid. See also Harry Pepper and Son Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

      
      

   8. The failure to provide the required technical information and ARI certification adversely impacts the interests of the Respondent as described in Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

      
      

   9. To act upon the basis of information separately available to the Respondent that is not related to the ice machines bid by the Intervenor in categories 2 and 4 and to overlook the deficiencies found within the Intervenor's response to the invitation to bid, as discussed, would constitute arbitrary action on the part of the Respondent. See Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988).

      
      

   10. Petitioner is responsive to the requirements for categories 2 and 4 in the invitation to bid.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is,

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered which concludes that Intervenor was not responsive to categories 2 and 4 to Bid No. 147740-650-M, that Petitioner was responsive to categories 2 and 4, and that awards a contract to the Petitioner for categories 2 and 4 or alternatively readvertises for offers in categories 2 and 4.

DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1995.

APPENDIX

The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the Petitioner and Respondent:

Petitioner's Facts:

Paragraphs 1 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Paragraph 7 is rejected to the extent that it suggests that Respondent was bound by the representations made by its employee by telephone.

Paragraph 8 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is rejected.

Paragraph 10 is subordinate to facts found.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 13 through 15 are rejected.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 through 20 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 21 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 22 through 24 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 25 is rejected.

Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that there was some technical documentation provided for the category 2 and 4 machines but it was incomplete.

Paragraphs 28 and 29 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 30 accurately states the use of the sales catalogue; however, the problem was not the accuracy of the statement that products in the catalog met required ratings by rating organizations. The problem was that the sales brochure did not pertain to the category 4 machine.

Paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that Respondent did not use a sales brochure to evaluate the EUC 200 JAP.

Paragraph 32 is rejected.

Paragraph 33 is subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts:

Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found with the exception that the certification by the Intervenor for category 2 through ARI was inadequate in that the ARI publication was not in effect at the time the bids were opened.

Paragraph 10 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is rejected.

Paragraph 12 is contrary to facts found in that the use of the September 1, 1994 certification was unacceptable in that it was not in effect at the time the bids were opened and did not constitute a minor irregularity.

Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 14 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 15 is rejected.

Paragraph 16 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 17 through 19 are rejected.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Michael P. Bist, Esquire

Gardner, Shelfer, Duggar and Bist, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32314

Cindy Horne, Esquire

Department of Management Services

312 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

Mark Howell

Qualified Representative Gulf Ice Systems, Inc.

Post Office Box 15151 Pensacola, FL 32514-0151

William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services

307 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950

INFORMATIONAL COPIES:

Bambi International, Inc. Suite 607

9531 Fountainbleu Boulevard

Miami, FL 33172

Gulf Coast Distributors 610-4 North Lane Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32254

IMI Cornelius, Inc. One Cornelius Place Anoka, MN 55305-1592

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 94-006143BID

Orders for Case No: 94-006143BID