STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NAVARRO GROUP, LTD., INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 01-2498BID
) BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
) SECURITY SERVICES OF AMERICA, ) L.L.C., )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on July 30 and 31, 2001, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: C. David Tangora, Esquire
C. David Tangora, P.A.
200 Southeast 18th Court
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
For Respondent: Edward J. Marko, Esquire
Steven H. Feldman, Esquire
Office of the School Board Attorney Kathleen C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
For Intervenor: Thomas R. Tatum, Esquire
Brinkley, McNerney, Morgan, Solomon & Tatum, P.A.
200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether the intended action by Respondent to award RFP 21-203T for Security Guard Services to Intervenor is improper.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated June 11, 2001, Navarro Group, LTD., Inc. (Petitioner) timely filed a Formal Written Protest, protesting the intended action by the Broward County School Board (Respondent) to award Request for Proposals (RFP) 21-203T to Security Services of America, L.L.C. On June 27, 2001, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
On June 20, 2001, Security Services of America, L.L.C. filed a Petition to Intervene. Intervenor status was granted to Security Services of America, L.L.C. (Intervenor) by oral pronouncement of the undersigned.
Respondent filed a Motion to Strike and In Limine regarding Petitioner's Formal Written Protest. A telephone conference was held on the motion. As a result of the parties' arguments and consideration of the record, during the telephone conference, Petitioner was granted leave to amend its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner subsequently filed an Amended Formal
Written Protest/Petition. Additionally, as a result of the parties' arguments and consideration of the record, during the telephone conference, the undersigned ruled that Petitioner was
(1) precluded from challenging the specifications or contents of the RFP in the protest hearing and (2) precluded from presenting evidence in the protest hearing as to any alternative methods to what was provided in the RFP of evaluating or calculating the "cost of services." These preclusions were re-iterated during the protest hearing by way of rulings made by the undersigned.
At hearing, the parties filed a Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, which included admitted facts. Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses. Neither Respondent nor Intervenor presented any witnesses. The parties entered ten joint exhibits (Joint Exhibits numbered 1-4, 12, 15, 18, 25, 26(a), 26(b)) into evidence. Another joint exhibit (Joint Exhibit numbered 10(a)) was entered into evidence over the objection of both Respondent and Intervenor. Even though there was objection to Joint Exhibit numbered 10(a), no party objected to Joint Exhibit 10(a) remaining so designated and, therefore, Joint Exhibit 10(a) was permitted to remain designated as a joint exhibit.
A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for no later than September 3, 2001. The parties waived
having the recommended order entered within 30 days of the filing of the transcript. The Transcript, consisting of two volumes, was filed on August 21, 2001. Respondent timely filed its post-hearing submission. Intervenor chose not to file a post-hearing submission. Petitioner filed its post-hearing submission on September 5, 2001. No objection was made to Petitioner's late-filing. Furthermore, the undersigned has determined that the other parties have not suffered any prejudice due to the late-filing. The parties post-hearing submissions have been considered in the preparation of this
Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent wanted to procure security guard services for its various schools, centers, departments, buildings and/or compounds in order to protect its equipment and property from damage or theft. Consequently, on March 19, 2001, Respondent issued RFP 21-203T (RFP), entitled "Security Guard Services," with a contract period from October 1, 2001, through
September 30, 2004. The RFP required all proposals to be submitted by 2:00 p.m. on April 24, 2001.
At the time of the hearing, the security guard services were being provided by Petitioner under a contract awarded through a previous procurement, RFP 98-146T. The contract was to expire on September 30, 2001.
The RFP contains Sections 1 through 9 and Attachments A through F.1
Section 2, entitled "Introduction," provides that the scope of services included, but were not limited to, the requirements contained in the Articles of Agreement, which is Attachment A. Additionally, the said Section set forth the major sites that may be covered under the contract of the RFP, which were described as Group 1 and Group 2.
Proposers to the RFP were permitted to offer their security guard solutions to existing and future school sites. Respondent selected the Group 1 facilities consisting of eight school sites for the RFP.
Further, Section 2 provides that Respondent reserves "the right to increase or decrease its stated requirements under the hours of coverage for the number of security personnel, location and/or hours from time to time at the hourly rate quoted"; and provides the hours of coverage for each site.
Section 3, entitled "Information to be Included in the Submitted Proposal," contains several subsections. Subsection
3.5 requires certain information to be submitted by a proposer with the proposal or within three days of request. Subsection
3.7 requires a proposer to validate its minimum eligibility.
Subsection 3.71 requires a proposer to submit a copy of its Florida's security guard services license and submit the license
number on the Cost Proposal Sheets Additional Information, which is Attachment B.
Subsection 3.8 requires a proposer to show its experience and qualifications through certain submissions. Subsection 3.8.13 requires a proposer to provide a security solution that includes additional security guards and/or hours that differs from the individualized security solution based on a single security guard at the specified sites in the hours of coverage in Section 2. Subsection 3.8.15 requires a proposer to provide an individualized security solution for specified sites based on the information obtained from the attendance of the mandatory site visits. Subsection 3.8.16 requires proposers to "prepare and submit with their proposal, an individualized, concise delineation of their recommendation to protect and secure . . . property on the sites listed in Section 2
. . . ." Additionally, Subsection 3.816 requires the recommendation to "include all personnel, their hours and equipment that proposer intends to provide . . . (i.e. contract (road) supervisor(s), number and level of guards, radios, cars, off-street motorized carts, etc.). Address each group listed on the Cost Proposal Sheets separately."
Section 3.10, Cost of Services, requires the prices quoted by a proposer to be "all inclusive and represent security guard services at existing sites and any future identified
sites" and requires a proposer to "complete Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets, for both Group 1 and 2 and provide an itemized breakdown of the total cost for each site and a total cost for each group." Section 3.10 provides further that the "fundamental responsibilities of the awardee(s) will be to provide the services listed in Articles of Agreement, Attachment A."
Section 7 is entitled "Evaluation of Proposals." Subsection 7.1 provides for the evaluation by Respondent's Evaluation Committee of proposals which meet or exceed the minimum eligibility requirements in Section 3.7. The following four categories and maximum points, totaling 100 points, are to be used by the Evaluation Committee: Experience and Qualifications--a maximum of 15 points; Scope of Service Provided--a maximum of 40 points; Minority/Women Business Participation--a maximum of 20 points; and Cost of Services Provided--a maximum of 25 points.
Subsection 7 confers broad discretion upon the Evaluation Committee. Subsection 7.2 confers upon the Evaluation Committee the "sole discretion" as to how many of the top-ranked proposers, based on the scoring, it may recommend to be awarded the RFP; as to whether a short list of top-ranked proposers should be established for further consideration and
how many should be on the short list; and as to whether to reject all proposals.
Subsection 7.4 reserves to the Evaluation Committee the right to negotiate any term, condition, specification or price with the short list proposers. Subsection 7.5 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and Respondent the right to ask clarifying questions after the proposals have been opened, and to interview all or any of the proposers. Subsection 7.5 further reserves to the Evaluation Committee the right to make its recommendations solely on the proposals submitted by the proposers.
Section 8 is entitled "Special Conditions." Subsection 8.8 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and/or Respondent the right to waive irregularities or technicalities in proposals received.
Section 9 is entitled "General Conditions." Subsection 9.371 reserves to Respondent the right to request additional information, reject any or all proposals that do not meet all mandatory requirements, or reject all proposals received. Subsection 9.37.3 provides for the rejection of a proposal if it fails to conform to the rules or requirements contained in the RFP and provides examples for which rejection may be made, one of which at Subsection 9.37.3.5 provides, among other things, for rejection when a proposal is incomplete, or
contains irregularities which make the proposal incomplete, indefinite, or ambiguous as to its meaning. Subsection 9.45 reserves to the Evaluation Committee and/or Respondent the right to waive irregularities or technicalities in proposals.
Attachment A, paragraph numbered 2, reserves to Respondent the right to "increase, decrease, delete hours and/or locations." Associated thereto, the said paragraph further provides that "additional locations or additional guards at existing locations shall be furnished at the price quoted on Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets." Additionally, the said paragraph reserves to Respondent the right to "choose which pricing group will be used in the evaluation process and sites requiring services during the term of the contract" and to "add, delete or make changes to any guard requirement, including hours of coverage, post location, numbers of posts, number of guards, etc."
Attachment B, Cost Proposal Sheets, also reserves several rights to Respondent. Per Attachment B, Respondent has the right to reject all or any of the sites of Group 1 and Group 2, to modify all or any of Group 1 and Group 2, to make an award based on the hourly cost(s) submitted by the proposers, or to reject all proposals and either make the award in total or any portion of the RFP in-house if it is in the best interest of Respondent.
Additionally, Attachment B requires proposers to submit, "in accordance with all terms, conditions, specifications and requirements," their annual all-inclusive total cost for each site in Group 1, the annual all-inclusive total cost for all the sites in Group 1, and, as an attachment to the RFP, an itemization of costs for certain specified items for each site in Group 1. The referenced attachment to the RFP is to include, but not be limited to, the itemized breakdown for the costs at each site for the following: number of contract (road) supervisors and their hourly cost; number and level of guards proposed and their hourly cost for each level; total number of coverage hours required; and equipment proposed.
Further, Attachment B requires the proposers to list the level (category) of their proposed unarmed security guards and their hourly cost and to list the hourly cost of their unarmed contract (road) supervisors.
Some proposers sought clarification of the RFP. As a result, on April 12, 2001, Respondent issued Addendum Number 1 to the RFP, which consists of written responses to proposers' questions and of the provision of a replacement page for the RFP. The replacement page contains minor changes to the RFP. Petitioner did not submit any questions for clarification.
Section 9.24 of the Special Conditions of the RFP permits the filing of bid specification protests. However, no
bid protest, regarding specifications contained in the RFP or Addendum Number 1, was filed.
On April 24, 2001, nine proposals were submitted to Respondent's Purchasing Department. The proposers were Petitioner; Intervenor; Chi-Ada Corporation; Command Security Corporation; 50 State Security Services, Inc.; Gabriel Security of Florida, Inc.; Kemp Security & Investigative Services; Metro Security Services; and Pronto Security, Inc.
Evaluation of the proposals was performed by Respondent's Evaluation Committee, which consisted of five members. Each member either possessed knowledge of security guard services or had knowledge of the sites to be guarded. The Evaluation Committee made a recommendation to Respondent for the award of the RFP.
The Evaluation Committee first met on May 3, 2001.
Prior to the meeting, the members of the Evaluation Committee were provided copies of the proposals submitted, the RFP, Addendum No. 1, score sheets, and cost analysis worksheets.
Further, they were provided other evaluation documents relating to categories and point allocations, which correspond to experience and qualifications, scope of services, cost of services, and Minority/Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) participation. Prior to the meeting, the members read and understood the RFP and the proposals.
Technical staff from the Purchasing and W/MBE Departments were available to the Evaluation Committee at the meeting to provide technical support.
As to scoring, Petitioner is challenging the scoring for the Cost of Services Provided category found at Section 7.1 of the RFP.
Furthermore, Petitioner is not seeking to have any proposer disqualified or found to be non-responsive.
Each member of the Evaluation Committee, as directed, used the score sheets in the analysis of the proposals. The score sheets correspond to the four categories found at Subsection 7.1 of the RFP. In scoring the proposals, each member of the Evaluation Committee evaluated the proposals, applying the evaluation criteria in the RFP to the materials provided to him or her, as well as using the presentations made by the technical staff.
Each of the four categories was scored separately and independently. No category is interconnected with the scoring for another category. Prior to the meeting, no discussion was had amongst the members as to the method to be used for scoring.
The same scoring method was used for each category.
The RFP contained no method of scoring, other than the allocation of points found at Section 7 of the RFP. The members of the Evaluation Committee decided on the method of scoring.
They independently used their own best judgment and sound discretion in the scoring. The method decided upon and used was that each member would independently score each proposer on each category, using the maximum number of points in Section 7; the proposer with the highest overall all-inclusive cost for a category would be allocated the lowest number of relative points and the proposer with the lowest overall all-inclusive cost would be allocated the highest number of relative points; the points allocated for a category to a proposer would be totaled and averaged; and the average number of points for a proposer would be the total and final score for a proposer for that category.
The members of the Evaluation Committee scored the Cost of Services category of the proposals based on the annual all-inclusive total cost submitted by each proposer, using the scoring method devised by the members. Section 7.1 of the RFP provides that the maximum number of points for the Cost of Services category is 25, thereby providing a range of points from 0 to 25.
Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $779,431.53. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category. Petitioner's
annual all-inclusive total cost includes the number of guards, road supervisors, vehicles, hourly rates, and hours of coverage.
The points allocated to Petitioner for the Costs of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 5 points each; one member allocated 8 points; and one member allocated 3 points. Petitioner received an average of 5.2 points. Petitioner's points for the Cost of Services category is 5.2. Petitioner received the lowest number of points for the Cost of Services category of all the proposers and, therefore, received the lowest score for that category. The lowest score means that Petitioner, amongst all the proposers, submitted the highest annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category.
The points allocated by each member to Petitioner are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration.
Intervenor's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $440,279.75. Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category.
At hearing, evidence was presented that, due to a clerical error, Intervenor had omitted the cost of road supervisors from its annual all-inclusive total cost. The
members of the Evaluation Committee were unaware of this clerical error when they evaluated Intervenor's proposal. The members of the Evaluation Committee considered Intervenor's annual all-inclusive total cost to include the number of guards, road supervisors, vehicles, hourly rates, and hours of coverage and evaluated the proposal as such.
At hearing, Intervenor stated that it would be bound by the annual all-inclusive total cost as submitted and, therefore, the road supervisors would be included in the total cost submitted. Consequently, no harm has been shown to have occurred as a result of the omission.
Additionally, Intervenor failed to provide an itemized breakdown of all its guards and hours of coverage in Attachment B of the RFP. However, Petitioner is not seeking to disqualify Intervenor's proposal as being non-responsive. Regardless, Intervenor's proposal does contain, albeit in Attachment B, the number of security guards and hours of coverage for each site in Group 1, and the number of road supervisors. The hourly rate for guards and road supervisors are in Attachment B. Therefore, even though the information is not itemized, all the information needed is contained in Intervenor's proposal. Hence, the lack of itemization is not a material deviation and is considered waivable.
The points allocated to Intervenor for the Costs of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 20 points each and two members allocated 25 points each. Intervenor received an average of 22 points. Intervenor's points for the Cost of Services category is 22. Intervenor received the highest number of points for the Cost of Services category and, therefore, received the highest score for that category. The highest score means that Intervenor submitted the lowest annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category.
The points allocated by each member to Intervenor are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration.
Petitioner also finds fault, regarding another proposer, Metro Security Services (Metro), in the scoring by the Evaluation Committee in the Cost of Services category. Metro's proposal as to an annual all-inclusive total cost is only on an hourly rate basis, not the total cost.
In order to obtain an annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category, the Evaluation Committee, themselves, performed calculations using the hourly rate submitted by Metro. The Evaluation Committee took the total number of hours of coverage for one guard and multiplied that number by the $10 per hour rate submitted by Metro, which
produced the annual all-inclusive total cost for Metro. Based upon the number calculated to be the annual all-inclusive total cost, the Evaluation Committee allocated points to Metro.
The points allocated to Metro for the Cost of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: three members allocated 12 points each, one member allocated 15 points, and one member allocated 14 points. Metro received an average of 13 points. Metro's points for the Cost of Services category is 13. Metro's points are more than Petitioner's points in the Cost of Services category, which means that Petitioner's annual all-inclusive total cost is more than the annual all-inclusive total cost calculated by the Evaluation Committee for Metro.
Metro was not considered for award of the RFP. Metro received the sixth highest ranked total score. Metro is not challenging Respondent's intended award of the RFP to Intervenor. Metro has not sought to intervene in this proceeding, and Petitioner cannot represent the interest of Metro in the instant case.
The action by the Evaluation Committee of calculating and scoring Metro's annual all-inclusive total cost for the Cost of Services category was reasonable, rational, and fair. Their action is not shown to be and is not considered materially
affecting or significantly impacting the scoring or the process of the RFP.
Metro provided the information needed for the Evaluation Committee to evaluate Metro's proposal in the Cost of Services category.
The points allocated by each member to Metro are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration.
Even assuming that the Evaluation Committee should not have calculated the annual all-inclusive total cost for Metro using Metro's hourly rate, Metro was not considered for award of the RFP. Furthermore, Metro was the only proposer for whom the Evaluation Committee performed this calculation. Because of the action by the Evaluation Committee, no benefit was shown to inure to Intervenor and no detriment was shown to inure to Petitioner.
Additionally, Petitioner finds fault as to another proposer, Chi-Ada Corporation (Chi-Ada), in the scoring by the Evaluation Committee in the Cost of Services category.
At the May 3, 2001, meeting of the Evaluation Committee, its members were informed by the technical staff of Respondent's Purchasing Department that Chi-Ada had not submitted proof of licensure required by the RFP but that Chi- Ada was providing proof of licensure by mail. The RFP permitted
additional information to be provided, upon request by Respondent, after submission of proposals.
The Evaluation Committee proceeded to evaluate
Chi-Ada's proposal. Chi-Ada's annual all-inclusive total cost for the security guard services for Group 1 is $510,963.60.
Each member of the Evaluation Committee utilized this amount in allocating the points for the Cost of Services category.
The points allocated to Chi-Ada for the Cost of Services category by each member of the Evaluation Committee are as follows: two members allocated 25 points each, two members allocated 20 points each, and one member allocated 21 points. Chi-Ada received an average of 21.2 points. Chi-Ada's points for the Cost of Services category is 21.2.
Subsequently, Chi-Ada was found to be non-responsive for the failure to provide the proof of licensure. Chi-Ada had failed to provide a copy of its Florida's security guard services license, as required by Subsection 3.7 of the RFP, within three days of the request from Respondent's Purchasing Department.
The action of the Evaluation Committee proceeding to evaluate Chi-Ada's proposal was reasonable, rational, and fair. Their action is not shown to be and is not considered materially affecting or significantly impacting the scoring or the process of the RFP.
The points allocated by each member to Chi-Ada are within a reasonable range and do not appear and are not considered to be an aberration.
After scoring of the proposals, the Evaluation Committee voted to recommended that Intervenor be awarded the RFP as the responsive responsible bidder, having received the highest total number of points in the scoring.
On May 23, 2001, the Evaluation Committee met again to reconsider the points allocated to Petitioner regarding the M/WBE Participation category. The Evaluation Committee assigned additional points to Petitioner in the M/WBE Participation category for workplace diversity.
On May 24, 2001, the proposed recommendation and tabulation were posted. The proposed recommendation is to award the RFP to Intervenor. The scoring tabulation, indicating the total points out of 100 points allocated to each proposer for all categories is a follows: Chi-Ada--55.2 points; Command Security Corporation--58.8 points; 50 State Security Services, Inc.--54.2 points; Gabriel Security of Florida, Inc.--42.6 points; Kemp Security & Investigative Services--64 points; Metro Security Services--55 points; Petitioner--69.2 points; Pronto Security, Inc.--44 points; and Intervenor--76.6 points.
At first, Petitioner filed a notice of protest with Respondent. Subsequently, Petitioner also filed a formal
written protest. Chi-Ada filed a combined notice of protest and formal written protest with Respondent.
Respondent's Bid Protest Committee, in accordance with statute and rule, attempted to resolve the protests by mutual agreement. Through separate noticed public hearings, the Bid Protest Committee considered the protests.
As to Chi-Ada, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest. The Bid Protest Committee determined that Chi-Ada failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria of Subsection 3.7 of the RFP by failing to provide proof of its licensure and was, therefore, a non-responsive bidder.
As to Petitioner, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest and upheld the recommendation to award the RFP to Intervenor.
Petitioner timely requested the referral of its protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Neither Petitioner's nor Intervenor's standing is in dispute.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsections 120.57(1) and (3), Florida Statutes.
Subsection 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
(f) . . . Unless otherwise provided by statute, the burden of proof shall rest with the party protesting the proposed agency action. In a competitive-procurement protest, other than a rejection of all bids, the administrative law judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency's proposed action is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. In any bid- protest proceeding contesting an intended agency action to reject all bids, the standard of review by an administrative law judge shall be whether the agency's intended action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Petitioner, as the protestor, has the burden of proof.
The hearing conducted by the undersigned was a de novo hearing. The definition of a de novo hearing in the context of the instant case is found in State Contracting and Engineering Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998):
In this context, the phrase "de novo hearing" is used to describe a form of intra-agency review. The [administrative law] judge may receive evidence, as with any formal hearing under section 120.57(1), but the object of the proceeding is to evaluate the action taken by the agency. (citations omitted)
The standard of proof is whether the proposed agency action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. This standard of proof is applied to answer the ultimate legal question which is whether the proposed decision to award the RFP to Intervenor is contrary to statute, rule, policy, or the RFP.
In some situations, questions arise as to whether an irregularity or deviation in a proposal is a material variance or a minor irregularity or whether a proposal is responsive; or as to interpretations of an agency rule or RFP; or as to the application of technical expertise. The standard of proof in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, is applied and requires the factfinder to defer to the agency for these policy-influenced determinations. State Contracting and
Engineering Corporation v. Department of Transportation, 709 So. 2d 607, 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Petitioner failed to demonstrate by the applicable standard of proof (clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious) that Respondent's intended decision to award the RFP to Intervenor is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the RFP.
The action taken and scoring performed by Respondent's Evaluation Committee are reasonable and have a logical and rational basis. The information that the Evaluation Committee
needed to score the proposals was in the proposals and was sufficient. The scoring by the Evaluation Committee is not contrary to any statute or any of Respondent's rules or policies or the RFP. Although the Cost of Services scoring by the Evaluation Committee is based upon partly, but not purely, subjective criteria, Petitioner failed to show that such scoring was contrary to any statute or any of Respondent's rules or policies or the RFP. Irregularities or deviations and the action taken by the Evaluation Committee regarding the irregularities or deviations did not materially affect or significantly impact the scoring or the process of the RFP and do not justify a finding of clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Further, Petitioner failed to timely challenge the RFP's specifications and, therefore, could not challenge the specifications at the hearing. The undersigned made this ruling prior to hearing and at hearing.2
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Broward County School Board enter a final order awarding to Security Services of America, L.L.C. the contract under Request for Proposals (RFP) for Security Guard Services, RFP 21-203T.
DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ERROL H. POWELL
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of November, 2001.
ENDNOTES
1/ The pertinent sections of the RFP are indicated in the Findings of Fact.
2/ See the Preliminary Statement.
COPIES FURNISHED:
C. David Tangora, Esquire
C. David Tangora, P.A.
200 Southeast 18th Court
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Edward J. Marko, Esquire Steven H. Feldman, Esquire
Office of the School Board Attorney Kathleen C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Thomas R. Tatum, Esquire Brinkley, McNerney, Morgan,
Solomon & Tatum, P.A.
200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education
The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Dr. Frank Till, Jr., Superintendent 600 S.E. Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
10 days from the date of 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 | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 04, 2001 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 06, 2001 | Recommended Order | Petitioner challenged intended action by Respondent to award Request for Proposals (RFP) to Intervenor. Petitioner failed to sustain burden of proof. Respondent`s intended action is not contrary to statute, rule, policy, or RFP. |
