STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DATA SPECIALTIES MART, a )
Division of S. F. Holdings, Inc., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-3048BID
) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ) SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This matter came on for hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings and its duly appointed Hearing Officer, R.
Carpenter, on January 6, 1982. The parties were represented by: APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Dean Bunch, Esquire
Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom and Kitchen Post Office Box 1170
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: William P. Beck, Esquire
Department of General Services
457 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
This case arose on Petitioner's protest to the rejection of its bid by Respondent. The issue presented for determination is whether or not Petitioner properly established its qualifications. Petitioner has also challenged Respondent's bidder qualification procedures under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1981)(F.S.) in a related proceeding (DOAH Case No. 81-3186R).
The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted or otherwise incorporated herein, they have been rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, through its Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 123-395-98-C Rebid, seeks to award a 12-month contract for, the purchase of electronic data processing cards. Bids were opened on November 10, 1981, at which time Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. However, Respondent disqualified Petitioner's bid because Data Specialties Mart did not have a corporate charter number and had no manufacturing capability on the bid opening date.
S. F. Holdings, Inc., is a Florida corporation, Charter No. 637983. Data Specialties Mart is a division of this corporation and has been assigned Vendor No. 00417 by Respondent. Confusion over Petitioner's identity arose from the section on Respondent's ITB where the vendor name is to be entered. Petitioner placed the name "Data Specialties Mart, Inc.," (non-existent as a corporation) in this block. Petitioner did, however, enter the S. F. Holdings, Inc., charter number and the Data Specialties Mart vendor number in adjacent blocks.
A letter attached to the bid describes Data Specialties Mart as a marketing division of S. F. Holdings, Inc. Although this letter did not have as its purpose correction of the above error, it did provide the clarification Respondent should have sought. Furthermore, this relatively minor discrepancy could have been resolved through contact with the Petitioner.
Petitioner stated by letter dated November 9, 1981, (attached to its bid) that "The cards will be produced through our Lakeland, Florida manufacturing facilities (formally [sic] known as National Electronics Computing Supplies, Inc.)." Respondent investigated the claimed ownership and determined that Petitioner did not possess the manufacturing facility on the bid opening date, November 10, 1981, as represented.
Petitioner's president, who signed the letter, believed he would acquire the facility at a November 16, 1981, bankruptcy proceeding and thus claimed the facility for bid purposes. Although Petitioner did acquire the factory as anticipated, it possessed no manufacturing capability on the bid opening date.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner filed a timely protest to disqualification of its bid as provided by Section 13A-1.06, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.
Subsection 283.10(1), F.S., provides:
No general contract shall be let to cover the printing designated as "class B," but each job coming under this classification shall be let separately under regulations adopted by the division of purchasing of the department of general services to the lowest responsible bidder who shall manufacture the same in accordance with s. 283.03.
Subsection 13A-1.13(5), F.A.C., provides:
(5) New Bidders - Any printer desiring to bid on State agencies' requirements of printing shall first file a request with the Division of Purchasing, who shall investigate the request to determine that the firm's resources, service reputation, manu-
facturing capability, and experience are adequate for performing on con- tract with the State to supply the printing and services in the classi- fication on which it submits the bids.
The above provisions require that a printing contract bidder, to qualify, must possess the capability of manufacturing the contract commodity. This capability is established as a condition precedent to bidding.
Since bids were opened on November 10, 1981, Petitioner was required to be a qualified bidder as of that date. Respondent, in carrying out its responsibility to investigate bidder manufacturing capability, correctly determined that Petitioner did not possess the manufacturing capability it claimed on the bid opening date and was therefore not qualified.
From the foregoing, it is
RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon
County, Florida.
R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1982.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Dean Bunch, Esquire
Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom and Kitchen
Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
William P. Beck, Esquire Department of General Services
457 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Thomas R. Brown, Executive Director Department of General Services
Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Issue Date | Proceedings |
---|---|
Apr. 09, 1982 | Final Order filed. |
Feb. 11, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
Issue Date | Document | Summary |
---|---|---|
Apr. 07, 1982 | Agency Final Order | |
Feb. 11, 1982 | Recommended Order | Petitioner did not have maufacturing capacities on bid opening date as required. Recommend dismiss petition. |
CHD MARKETING GROUP AND NORLAKE, INC. vs PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 81-003048 (1981)
TRAVELER ELEVATOR vs FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND THE BLIND, 81-003048 (1981)
AMERIDATA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 81-003048 (1981)
THE RELIABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 81-003048 (1981)