STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NATKIN SERVICE COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-5073BID
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Notice was provided and on November 1, 1995, a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing location was the Offices of the Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. Charles C. Adams was the hearing officer.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Thomas McAuley
Natkin Service Company 3428 A. Garber Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (Personal Representative)
For Respondent: Sam Chavers, Esquire
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
1323 Winewood Boulevard
Building 1, Suite 200
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Did Respondent act fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in declaring Petitioner's response to request for bids in project no. HRS-95203000 unresponsive and declaring Neel Mechanical Contractors (Neel) as the lowest and best responsive bidder for the project; (or alternatively declaring Petitioner to be responsive, but with a bid amount which exceeds the quotation received from Neel?)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On September 29, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that the bid Petitioner submitted to contract for project no. HRS-95203000 was unresponsive to the bid solicitation requirements or alternatively was a bid that exceeded the quotation by Neel.
On October 3, 1995, Petitioner filed a formal written protest contesting Respondent's decisions finding Petitioner's bid to be unresponsive or alternatively to exceed the bid by Neel, and Respondent's intent to award the project to Neel.
On October 17, 1995, the Division of Administrative Hearings received a request from Respondent to conduct a formal hearing to resolve Petitioner's claims. In turn, the case was heard on the aforementioned date.
At hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of Thomas McAuley, Account Manager for Petitioner in its office in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner's exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted as evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Glenn Jenkins, Professional Engineer III, and Project Manager for HRS project no. HRS-95203000. Respondent's exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted.
During the hearing official recognition was given to Rule 10-13.012, Florida Administrative Code.
The parties were given the opportunity to submit proposed recommended orders. The parties have submitted those proposals. The proposals have been considered. The fact finding in the proposed recommended orders is discussed in an appendix to the recommended order in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent solicited contractors to replace a chiller in Building #45 at its Sunland facility located in Marianna, Florida. The project number for the replacement was HRS-95203000. The vendors were allowed until 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, August 24, 1995, to submit responses to the request for bids.
On August 24, 1995, Respondent received four responses. The responses were from Petitioner, Neel, JLS International and Smiths, Inc.
On August 24, 1995, when the bids were opened JLS International and Smiths, Inc. were disqualified as nonresponsive bidders.
On August 24, 1995, Respondent determined that Petitioner had submitted a base bid in the amount of $141,185.00 and as described on the tabulation form, an alternate bid in the amount of $14,750.00 for confined space compliance. The Neel bid as reflected on the tabulation was a base bid for $142,000.00.
The forms upon which Petitioner and Neel had submitted their bid prices were forms identical in their format. The format was required by the Respondent.
The Petitioner's bid stated: Base Bid: $141,185.00
With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations.
Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ N/A Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $
Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $
If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable.
*If Required (not included in base bid) ITEM UNIT PRICE
Compliance for confined space for refrigerants & equipment
*Note: Base bid price is compiled costs for construction duration & equipment delivery of 18 weeks.
When Petitioner submitted its response to the request for bids, it offered no further explanation concerning the $14,750.00 price for "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" than has already been described.
The Neel bid stated:
Base Bid: $142,000.00
With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in
accordance with the drawings and specifications.
Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $
If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable.
ITEM UNIT PRICE
Respondent had provided written instructions to the bidders concerning execution of the bid proposal form to the effect:
Omit mention of alternates entirely, if there are none. Unit prices are to
be used only if unit prices are applicable and approved by the Project Director.
This project did not call for alternate bids or unit prices. The request for bids did not contemplate a quotation other than the base bid for all items, to include any costs associated with implementation of a design that complies with all applicable codes associated with the installation and with any laws pertaining to refrigerant handling.
Posting of the bid evaluation/tabulation and notice of contract award recommendation was given on September 8, 1995, indicating Respondent's intent to
award to Petitioner in the amount of $141,185.00 as the base bid for the project.
Prior to the posting of the bids on September 8, 1995, as was customary, Thomas McAuley, an account representative for Petitioner, who had submitted Petitioner's bid response had met with Respondent's project manager Glen Jenkins, a Professional Engineer III. The meeting was held to discuss Petitioner's bid response as the apparent responsive lowest and best bidder.
In the conversation held between Messrs. McAuley and Jenkins, they did not discuss the $14,750.00 separate price quotation in the Petitioner's bid. They did discuss compliance with the codes that were going to be applicable to the project and whether the base price quotation took into account the code requirements. McAuley indicated his opinion that the base price quotation did account for compliance with code requirements contemplated by the terms in the request for bids. McAuley was specifically asked whether Petitioner was complete and thorough in its compliance with the bid specifications and in its prices, inclusive of all the items that were going to be mandated by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services. McAuley answered that question in the affirmative.
In the specifications, under Article 7, Miscellaneous Provisions, within the request for bids is set forth Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 related to permit and code compliance issues, which state as follows:
State Building Permit. Current DMS requirements for state building permit applications and for permit inspections are attached. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to apply for and pay all costs associated with the state building permit (including the cost of preparing any permit documents on which the state building official may require the seal of a registered engineer). It shall further be the Contractor's responsi- bility to comply fully with all permit inspection requirements.
Code Compliance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement a design complying with all codes applicable to this installation, and with all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall be held responsible for stating or setting forth (in this or any other document, or verbally) any code requirement which may be applicable to this project. By disseminating this "Statement of Work Scope
and Contractual Conditions", the Owner merely sets forth minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, and neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall thereby be held liable, in full or in part, for the Contractor's adherence or non-adherence to any governing code and/or legal requirement.
Special Terms and Conditions for Cont- racts Under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Due to partial project funding
under a federal NECPA grant, Contractor compliance with federal laws and regulations are a special requirement of this project.
Special terms and conditions pertaining to wages and payrolls, records retention and access, apprenticeship and training, equal opportunity access, are set forth in the attached "Special Terms and Conditions for Contracts Under the National Energy Conserva- tion Policy Act". The contractor shall responsible for full compliance with the attached special terms and conditions.
In the meeting between McAuley and Jenkins discussion was made concerning compliance with pertinent electrical codes. One question was asked about pipes in the system being installed in a manner to allow variable speed drives to be placed above the pipes. Jenkins considered that speed drive placement underneath the pipes would be contrary to code requirements. Related to the mechanical features in the project there was discussion about the provision of refrigerants in compliance with the mechanical code that pertained.
In the meeting there was little discussion about code compliance within confined spaces, because the two individuals did not perceive that there would likely be a code requirement concerning confined spaces. Mention was made that some code inspector or code official who came to the job site might require attention to the confined spaces, even though that requirement was not found in the code.
According to Jenkins, in his recount of the meeting with McAuley, if a code official required compliance for an item in the confined spaces that was not set forth in the code, that would constitute an item about which the Respondent had not requested information to be included in the base price quotation offered by the Petitioner. Further, Jenkins stated there would not be a problem for failing to offer a quotation for the features required by the inspector, because it was not sought by the Respondent in designing the bid requirements. As Jenkins describes, Petitioner's unit price for that work had been made known. This is taken to refer to the $14,750.00 quote for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. In that circumstance, Mr. Jenkins told Mr. McAuley that if a code official required something that was not contemplated by the code and the Respondent did not consider it worth fighting over, then Respondent would have to process a change order to install that equipment. This is taken to mean that Petitioner would be paid additional money under a change order for installing the equipment in the event that the Respondent did not choose to contest the decision of the code official.
At the time that McAuley and Jenkins had the meeting, counsel for Neel had contacted Jenkins about protesting the decision to award the contract to Petitioner. That individual had stated the opinion to Respondent that Petitioner's discussion of confined space for refrigerants and the equipment at the additional cost of $14,750.00 might be perceived as potentially a code exclusion in violation of the requirements of Section 7.3 to the request for bids. Neel's counsel stated his belief that the vendors were expected to be in compliance with all codes and laws, even if it was not known to be a code requirement at the time the bid was submitted. He was concerned that someone might try and make it a requirement in the future. The Neel attorney explained that the reference to compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment set forth in Petitioner's bid response might be construed as a comment
on code requirements through the contingency of someone's interpretation of the code. He believed that the responses to the request for bids needed to address that contingency as part of the basic quotation, not as a separate quotation.
At the time McAuley and Jenkins had their meeting, Jenkins did not know of any requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment based upon his experience, but he had not researched the issue.
Through information which Neel imparted to Mr. Jenkins before the meeting was held between Jenkins and McAuley, the Neel attorney expressed the opinion that there was not a present code requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, a view held by McAuley and Jenkins.
At the time the meeting was held between McAuley and Jenkins, Jenkins was of the opinion that the requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment was not foreseen to be a likely code requirement.
As contrasted with Neel's view, as explained to Jenkins, that its base bid was intended to cover the eventuality that there might become a requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, Neel's representative stated that Petitioner's bid had segregated that contingency for consideration by quoting the price of $14,750.00 separately.
Neel did not appear at the hearing and there was no direct proof that the $142,000.00 base bid by Neel addressed the contingency that a future requirement might be imposed for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. However, it may properly be assumed the Neel bid met the requirement for a base bid quotation to cover all costs to Respondent absent proof to the contrary.
Later, when Respondent decided to award the contract to Neel, Respondent implied that the $142,000.00 base bid would meet code requirements contemplated by Section 7.3.
Concerning the responsibility to determine which code requirements pertained and when, Respondent expected the vendors to derive that answer. This case was unlike most projects by the Respondent in which design professionals, engineers or architects create design documents that are completed in view of code requirements and the vendors assume that the bid documents prepared would be in conformance with code requirements.
At hearing Mr. Jenkins, as project manager, opined that Section 7.3 obligated the contractor to meet existing requirements of the permitting authorities, and if during the pendency of the contract there was some change to the codes or code requirements set forth by code inspectors, then the contractor must assume the risk.
Moreover, when the bids were opened and tabulated initially and the preliminary decision was made to award the contract to Petitioner, Mr. Jenkins perceived the quotation of $14,750.00 set forth in the Petitioner's bid to be a unit price for a scope of work that was not expected to be required at any point and was not been asked for by Respondent. Jenkins considered this quote as an alternate that was being proffered, something that Respondent might opt for in the future. Although not set forth in exact terms, Mr. Jenkins perceived this information in the Petitioner's bid response to be related to an alarm system and breathing apparatuses. He held this belief based upon his experience in
association with compliance for confined spaces. Mr. Jenkins surmised that what was being described by the Petitioner was the type of installation that you would put into a closed mechanical room where a refrigeration machine was located that contained toxic refrigerant, which if released might kill a serviceman. In that connection when discussing refrigerant compliance with Mr. McAuley in their meeting, Mr. Jenkins indicated that the discussion had been limited because the type of machine proposed by the Petitioner was a 134A machine which is "ozone friendly" and not restricted by clean air amendment regulations.
Following the posting on September 8, 1995, which recommended that the contract be awarded to Petitioner, Neel had 72 hours to file a protest. That protest was filed.
Having considered the remarks by Neel's attorney in support of that protest, Mr. Jenkins became persuaded that Petitioner might not have intended to describe an alternate (unsolicited) purchase when discussing the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment for a price of $14,750.00; instead, Petitioner may have been describing how to comply with future code requirements. Consequently, Mr. Jenkins attempted to settle the issue by presenting the opportunity for the Petitioner to obtain a letter from the Department of Management Services permitting office establishing that the equipment described in the bid by Petitioner for compliance for confined space refrigerants and equipment was not then a code requirement. Mr. Jenkins wanted that information to be in writing. This opportunity to submit information was imparted to Stuart Zaritsky, Branch Manager for Petitioner in its Tallahassee office.
Petitioner did not take the opportunity to send written information concerning the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as not being required by applicable codes. Instead, Mr. Zaritsky called Mr. Jenkins and told him that Petitioner had placed calls to the Department of Management Services permitting office and was unable to get a definitive response at that time.
On September 26, 1995, Mr. Zaritsky wrote to Mr. Jenkins and stated:
The confined space for refrigerants and equipment compliance is based on ASHRAE recommendations only. If any of these items are required by code, then we will install it at no cost. Our base bid of $141,185 is based on the specifications, including paragraph
7.3 on page 13 and all other portions of the contract documents without any qualifications.
If it is determined by the owner, that they wish to upgrade the machine room to ASHRAE 15 standards, and it is not required by code, the $14,750 would be the price to add refrigerant monitors, refrigerant purge fans and self-contained breathing apparatus.
Should the jurisdictional authority of code compliance determine that these items are required by code, they will be installed as part of our base bid of $141,185.
On September 29, 1995, Respondent gave notice of an amended bid tabulation finding Neel to be the responsive lowest and best bidder for the project in its quotation of $142,000.00.
The September 29, 1995 correspondence notified the Petitioner that:
After further review of issues raised by responsive bidders on the above project, the Department has determined that the bid sub- mitted by Natkin Service Co. on the above referenced project either:
is nonresponsive, because the bid was not in compliance with Section 7.3 of the Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions, since it exempted its bid from certain refrigerant handling requirements; or
if responsive, is in the amount of
$155,935.00.
In either case, the bid submitted by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of
$142,000.00 is the lowest responsive bid.
The September 29, 1995 determination that Petitioner was not responsive led to Petitioner's present protest.
Sometime shortly before the amended posting of the bid tabulation on September 29, 1995, Mr. Jenkins spoke to Mr. McAuley concerning the opportunity to present information to address the question concerning whether compliance for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment was a code requirement. To assist the Petitioner Mr. Jenkins provided information which had been received from the Department of Community Affairs related to code provisions under enforcement by the Department of Management Services. This information was not provided by Mr. Jenkins as a determination of code requirements; it was provided to inform Petitioner concerning what Mr. Jenkins understood to be the latest code requirements. The expectation was still held that Petitioner would submit separate information from the Department of Management Services that would settle the issue concerning the possible need to comply with code requirements for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment.
As Mr. Jenkins described at hearing, the basis for finding the Petitioner's bid unresponsive was alternatively stated. First, the Respondent believes that Petitioner tried to avoid the responsibility for complying with code requirements, whatever they may be during the contract pendency; or second, Petitioner split its bid into two parts. One in the amount of $141,185.00 for matters unrelated to code compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment and the second in an amount of $14,750.00 for such compliance. If the former view is taken, Petitioner's bid is unresponsive. If the latter view is taken Petitioner's bid is responsive but exceeds the quotation by the responsive bidder Neel.
At hearing it was not proven by competent evidence whether there was any necessity to meet code requirements for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as described in Petitioner's bid response at any point in time.
Other provisions within the request for bids that pertain to the manner in which the vender would address its price quotation are as follows:
1.5 The Contract Sum shall initially be that lump-sum amount which the Contractor shall have enclosed in his sealed bid proposal. Subject to additions and deduc- tions by Change Order, the Contract Sum shall be the amount which the Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work, subject to the terms and conditions as provided in the Contract Documents.
2.6 The Contractor shall apply for, and pay all costs associated with, any permit which
may be required by the Department of Management Services. Such permitting costs for which the Contractor shall be responsible shall include the preparation of any permit documents on which the building official may require the seal of a registered engineer.
B-9 Instruction for bidders; They
(the bidders) are also required to examine carefully any drawings, specifications and other bidding documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner effect the work.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this subject matter and the parties to this action in accordance with Sections 120.53(5) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, together with Rule 10-13.012, Florida Administrative Code.
To prevail in this case Petitioner must prove that the actions by Respondent declaring Petitioner's bid to be unresponsive or alternatively to be more than the bid submitted by Neel was an act evidencing fraud, illegality, arbitrariness or dishonesty. See, Department of Transportation v. Groves- Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1988).
In pursuing its responsibilities Respondent exercises the discretion in Rule 10-13.012, Florida Administrative Code, which states:
The Department shall reserve the right to reject any or all bids and proposals. The Department shall reserve the right to waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid bid or proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the bid invitation or proposal terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid, or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or does not adversely impact the interest of the Department. Variations which are not minor cannot be waived. A bidder
may not modify its bid or proposal after bid opening. Mistakes clearly evident on the face of the bid documents, such as an error
in an arithmetic extension of pricing may be corrected by the Department. See also
Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt, 421 So.2d
505 (Fla. 1982) and Harry Pepper & Assoc. v.
City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (2nd DCA 1977).
In carrying out the bid process Respondent must not reserve exceptions, releases or modifications in the bid instructions which might create the opportunity for favoritism among the competitors and influence Respondent's ability to effectively compare bid responses. See Webster v. Belote, 18 So. 721 (Fla. 1931).
In determining the acceptability of a bid response Respondent may not use criteria not set forth in the invitation to bid. See Section 287.057(1), Florida Statutes.
Here Respondent does not propose to reject all bids, but would have that option.
Respondent did not perceive Petitioner's response to the bid request to evidence minor irregularities. Rather, the Petitioner's bid response was seen to be a major deviation from the bid requirements, or alternatively a response which would place the Petitioner second among the competing bidders when considering price quotations.
The terms set forth in the bid request contemplated a base bid price quotation without alternates. In preparing the base bid quotation, the design proposed for the chiller replacement, consistent with Section 7.3, would need to meet code requirements that were applicable to the chiller installation and be designed to address all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Respondent and its project manager were not responsible for "stating or setting forth" what those code requirements might be. When the request for bids was submitted with its "statement of work scope and contractual conditions" Respondent merely set forth the minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, having in mind that the owner and project manager would be exempt from liability in any manner pertaining to the Petitioner's adherence or non-adherence to any governing codes and/or legal argument, again according to Section 7.3.
Pursuant to Section 7.3 the cost associated with implementing the design to comply with codes that were applicable during the course of the installation and with any laws that pertain to refrigerant handling associated with the installation must be set forth in the base bid. It was not anticipated that those costs associated with code compliance as described at Section 7.3 would be segregated from other costs and quoted separately.
Notwithstanding this expectation Petitioner chose to describe items not included in its base bid in an manner that was susceptible to the interpretation that Petitioner intended to exclude some items described as "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" from its base bid. The manner in which the Petitioner chose to portray this additional cost item of $14,750.00 was made more confusing by placing it under the category on the Respondent's form which is related to "more or less work than that qualified by the specifications and drawings." The specifications and drawings in this project only contemplated one base bid price. Finally, absent the ability to consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether the Petitioner intended to offer Respondent optional equipment not called for in the request for bids or required by some applicable code, Respondent could not make a reasonable
comparison between the bid submitted by Petitioner and those bids submitted by its competitors. It would not have been appropriate for Respondent to look to extrinsic evidence to make that comparison. To do so would create an advantage for the Petitioner not shared by the competitors.
The manner in which Petitioner set forth its price does not conform to the bid requirements and does not allow the proper comparison between the Petitioner's price quotation and that of its competitors. Therefore, Respondent did not act inappropriately in rejecting the Petitioner's bid as unresponsive.
Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is,
RECOMMENDED:
That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest based upon the unresponsive of its bid and awards the contract for Project No. HRS- 95203000 to Neel.
DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 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 20th day of December, 1995.
APPENDIX
The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties:
Petitioner's Facts:
Paragraph B1 is contrary to facts found.
Paragraph B2 is rejected in the suggestion that Respondent should be bound by resort to extrinsic evidence to determine Petitioner responsive to the bid invitation.
Paragraph B3 is contrary to facts found.
Paragraph B4 is rejected in the suggestion that it was inappropriate to defer to the Neel protest as a means for Respondent to reconsider its position.
Paragraph B5 is rejected in the suggestion that Neel has controlled the outcome in this case.
Paragraph B6 is rejected in the suggestion that Petitioner has complied with the bid invitation requirements.
Paragraph B7 is rejected in the suggestion that the contrary position stated by the Respondent in the informal review wherein Petitioner had been preliminarily determined to be the responsive bidder and the point of view at hearing would preclude a decision favoring the Respondent.
Respondent's Facts:
Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Tommy McAuley, Account Manager Natkin Service Company
3428 A. Garber Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303
Sam Chavers, Esquire Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Building 1, Suite 200
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Informational Copies:
JLS International, Inc.
P. O. Box 490 Foley, AL 36536
Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
P. O. Box 1916 Thomasville, GA 31799
Smith's, Inc. of Dothan
P. O. Box 1207 Dothan, AL 36302
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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 21, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 20, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 11/01/95. |
| Dec. 12, 1995 | Petitioners Response Proposed Recommended Order (copy) filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1995 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1995 | Transcript filed. |
| Nov. 01, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/1/95; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders; Bid Protest, Letter Form dated 10/3/95; Statement of Facts, Letter Form dated 9/26/95 filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 20, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 20, 1995 | Recommended Order | Petitioner's bid did not conform to bid requirements by offering a qualified bid response as opposed to an unqualified response. |
K AND M PINE STRAW vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 95-005073BID (1995)
FLORIDA MECHANICAL, INC. vs ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 95-005073BID (1995)
LIDO LINES, INC. vs. LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 95-005073BID (1995)
AUTO MACHINE AND PARTS COMPANY, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 95-005073BID (1995)
