STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CRAIG A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-0892BID
) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice; the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on March 27 and 28 and April 4, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: John H. Beck, Esquire
1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Brant Hargrove, Esquire
Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 1985, respondents Department of Transportation (DOT), published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly advising qualified engineering consulting firms that it was soliciting "letters of interest" from firms interested in providing construction, engineering and inspection services on State Job Nos. 87170-3525 through 87170-3530. Those projects involved construction work on the Sunny Isles Causeway in Dade County, Florida. Such letters of interest were to be filed with DOT no later than February 1, 1985.
After receiving some ten letters of interest, a selection process narrowed the list to four firms, including petitioner, Craig A. Smith and Associates, and three other engineering firms. Those firms were requested to file technical and price proposals with DOT no later than November 12, 1985. After a review of said proposals at both the district and state level, DOT's final selection committee selected Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. as the consultant for the project.
On February 18, 1986, DOT issued proposed agency action advising petitioner that another firm had been selected to act as consultant on the project. The letter gave no reasons for petitioner's rejection. Thereafter, a formal protest was filed by petitioner on March 10, 1986. In its protest petitioner generally alleged that DOT had failed to properly evaluate its proposal that the agency failed to conduct discussions with the firm prior to its decision as required by Subsection 287.055(4)(a) Florida Statutes (1985), and that the DOT had no formal
procedures for evaluating the proposals even though Subsection 287.055(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1985), requires that such procedures be adopted. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by DOT on March 17, 1986, with a request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a hearing. By notice of hearing dated March 18; 1986, a final hearing was scheduled for March 27 and 28; 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. A continued hearing was held on April 4, 1986 at the same location.
At final hearing petitioner presented the testimony of Robert L. Orth, Robert Boatright, David P. Coury, Murray D. Thornburg, Jr., Steven L. Fuller, Walter Wood, Robert Lakits, Frank Gaffney and Charles C. Robshaw. It also offered petitioner's exhibits 2-14. All were received in evidence except exhibit 7 upon which a ruling was reserved. Respondent presented the testimony of John C. Goodknight, Murray Yates, James M. Killough, Jr., and Paul Mitchell and offered respondent's exhibits 1-4 which were received in evidence. The parties also stipulated into evidence certain documents identified as hearing officer exhibits 1-4.
The transcripts of hearing (two volumes) were filed on April 17, 1986.
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the parties on April 30, 1986. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
The issue herein is whether respondent properly awarded the consultant, engineering and consultant contract on State Job Nos. 87170-3525 through 87170- 3530 to the firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc.
Based upon all of the evidence the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background
On January 18, 1985, respondents Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice through the Florida Administrative Weekly to qualified and interested engineering firms that it desired "letters of interest" from firms interested in providing construction, engineering and inspection (CEI) services on State Job Nos. 87170-3525 through 871703530. 1/ Those jobs related to the construction of two major double leaf bascule bridges across the Intracoastal Waterway "flyover" bridge connecting State Road 826 (N.E. 163rd Street), A1A and continuous roadway sections in northern Dade County, Florida. The project is more commonly known as the Sunny Isles Causeway project.
After receiving and evaluating ten letters of interest, a DOT selection committee compiled a "short-list" of the four engineering firms considered most qualified and capable of performing the job. The short-list included petitioner, Craig A. Smith and Associates (petitioner or CAS), Beiswenger Hoch and Associates (BHA), Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (PBSJ), and Reynolds Smith and Hill (RSH). The four consulting firms were invited to a scope of services meeting on October 14, 1985. At that meeting DOT discussed in detail the services required on the project, answered all inquiries by the firms' representatives, and provided each firm with the scope of services package, which contains the technical specifications and plans. The firms were also given DOT's recommended staffing chart which identified the individuals required on the job and the anticipated man-months required from those personnel. According to DOT's recommended staffing plane the project would require
approximately 105,070 man hours. It was emphasized that this staff chart would be used as a "critical" measuring tool to evaluate the proposed staffing plans submitted by the firms, but that the firms would have an opportunity to change the number of man hours if such were necessary. The four firms were told to review the specifications and plans and to submit separate technical and price proposals with DOT no later than November 12, 1985. As a part of the technical proposals the firms were required to estimate the man hours to be provided on the project, keeping in mind the 105,070 figure utilized by DOT in its plans and specifications. The man-hour estimates submitted by the four firms were as follows:
BHA 66,011
CAS 74,800
RSH 83,214
PBSJ 97,328
After receiving the technical and price proposals an evaluation of the technical proposals was begun by personnel at both the Miami district office and the Tallahassee central office. The two reviews were conducted independently and without the benefit of the price proposal. The district review committee was made up of three district employees while the central office review was made by a construction engineer. Each firm was numerically ranked based upon the firm's (a) technical plan, (b) management plan, (c) project schedule, and (d) "other" factors. In determining the scores, the Miami and Tallahassee offices used an internal written DOT "procedure" which provides guidelines for evaluating a CEI technical proposal. After the grades were assigned, they were totaled and the firms were ranked according to their scores. The two grades were then averaged on a weighted average basis by DOT's Bureau of Contractual Services. The districts central office and weighted average scores were as follows:
Firm | District | Central | Office | Average |
RSH | 71 | 74 | 74 | |
PBSJ | 72 | 54 | 63 | |
BHA | 62 | 59 | 62 | |
CAS | 61 | 57 | 59 |
The firms were also ranked in accordance with their price proposals. The following price bids were made by the four firms:
CAS | $2,129,105 |
BHA | 2,136,417 |
PBSJ | 2,862,929 |
RSH | 2,978,462 |
It is noted that DOT initially estimated its cost for the CEI services to be
$3,033,873. All firms were below this estimate.
The grades and comments were forwarded to the office of the state construction engineer. Under his supervision, the two sets of comments and scores were "merged" together into a single recommendation as to which firm was the most qualified to perform the work. This recommendation, which was in the form of a memorandum was then forwarded to the chief of the Bureau of Contractual Services on January 9, 1986. In his memorandum the state construction engineer pointed out that although RSH and PBSJ were both technically qualified, he favored RSH for the project. The memorandum also
recommended that neither CAS or BHA "be considered" for the work. The adverse recommendation for CAS was based upon its "inadequate staffing" estimates (some 30,000 man hours less than the DOT estimate), and its proposed resident engineer not being registered as a professional engineer in Florida.
A selection committee made up of DOT's secretary, assistant secretary and deputy assistant secretary met on February 10, 1986, to make a final selection. The state director of construction (Murray Yates) was also present for the purpose of giving his recommendation to the committee. In preparing his recommendations Yates reviewed public hearing documents and studies relating to the project, and analyzed the DOT evaluation data and the CEI proposals. He also had discussions with both the district and central office personnel who originally evaluated the proposals. Finally, he relied upon his own experience as the DOT design engineer for the project. Prior to their meeting the members were furnished copies of the staff comments and the technical and price proposals of the four firms. At the first meeting, it was agreed to postpone the decision until February 17, 1986, so that the staff could reevaluate the number of man hours needed on the project. As a result of the further staff study, DOT revised its estimated man hours required on the job from 105,000 to approximately 95,000. At the second meeting PBSJ was tentatively selected as the successful firm subject to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHA) approval. The latter approval was necessary since the project is federally funded and PBSJ did not have the lowest price proposal. According to committee notes, PBSJ was selected because of its "sound technical plan for the project," its familiarity "with basculate construction, having provided similar services on the Miami River crossing," "inadequate" staffing requirements having been proposed by CAS and BHA and their lack of experience on bascule construction, and because the top technical firm, RSH, did not propose a fee acceptable to the selection committee." On February 18, 1986, DOT advised petitioner by letter that it "was not selected to provide engineering services on the above referenced project." No reason was given for rejecting petitioner's proposal. However, DOT orally advised CAS that its rejection was based upon inadequate man hours and the lack of qualifications of CAS personnel. Further, in a letter to the FHA dated February 19, 1986, DOT noted that CAS had been rejected because
(a) CAS "did not propose adequate manpower to satisfactorily perform the services," (b) its "staffing plan did not provide the expertise desired" for the project, and (c) CAS has no "demonstrated proven ability in the performance of CEI services for the construction of bascule bridges in Florida." The federal agency gave its approval of PBSJ's selection on a later undisclosed date.
There was no published notice of the meetings on February 10 and 17, 1986, nor was specific notice given to the four firms. However, there was no intent to bar any persons from attending the meetings, and had any appeared, they would have been permitted to observe the meetings. There is no indication of record that CAS made any inquiry to DOT as to when such meetings would take place, or that it be given notice of any meetings. No formal minutes of the meetings were kept.
In accordance with DOT procedures, CAS was allowed to attend a "settlement meeting" with DOT personnel after the bid protest was filed. Such a meeting gave CAS the opportunity to discuss its proposal and presumably to seek DOT to change its mind. However, DOT did not change its position, and this proceeding followed.
The Project Requirements
DOT required an outside consultant on this project for additional expertise and manpower. The CEI contract calls for the consultant to administer construction activity by inspecting the work of the contractor. By having the work inspected DOT insures that it will receive the type and quality of work necessary to satisfactorily complete the job.
The Sunny Isles Causeway project is considered to be a major project by DOT and was characterized by its state director of construction as being an "extremely complex project." Among other things, it involves the construction of two bascule bridges. A bascule bridge is one that can be raised or lowered to allow boat traffic to pass underneath. The total project cost is approximately $24.4 millions and will require 1,365 calendar days (or almost four years) for completion. The six jobs and their respective contract numbers are the west bound roadway and approach (87170-3525), Casino Canal work (87170- 3526), fly over bridge and roadway (87170-3527), east bound roadway and approach (87170-3528), west bound bascule bridge (87170-3529), and east bound bascule bridge (87170-3530).
Despite some assertions to the contrary, it is found that the construction of a bascule bridge is indeed complex in nature. In addition, the Sunny Isles project is unique in the sense that the contract calls for the existing bridge to be demolished and removed, and the new bridge to be placed in the same location. The existing foundation will be widened and incorporated into the foundation of the replacement bridge. Further some of the major utilities crossing the intracoastal waterway, such as the 48 inch force main, will remain in place during construction and cannot be disturbed or damaged. Finally the project is located in an affluent area of Dade County, and the contractor must be careful not to infringe upon adjacent private properties. Because of these features, the successful firm would be expected to have an experienced resident engineer, and other key personnel, who was familiar not only with bascule bridge construction, but also with DOT procedures regarding contractual claims, utility problems maintenance of traffic, and interfacing with the community on any other problems that might arise.
DOT's Selection Process
DOT is required by state law to "adopt administrative procedures for the evaluation of professional services, including, but not limited to capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, experience, whether the firm is a certified minority business . . . and such other factors as may be determined by the agency to be applicable to its particular requirements."
In accordance with the foregoing legislative mandated DOT has informally adopted a document known as "Guidelines and Philosophy on Consultant Selections." These guidelines are set forth in an agency memorandum dated January 29, 1985, prepared by its then chief of Bureau of Contractual Services, John S. Berry, III. This memorandum has been disseminated to all district consultant coordinators. In general terms, the memorandum provides district personnel with guidelines to be used in grading the short-list firms in the various technical non-technical and management categories. More specifically, the graders are given factors to be considered and scores to be given when assessing a firm's technical ability and capability to meet time and budget requirements. Specific guidelines are also given for non-technical and non- management factors such as workload and past performance. Further guidelines are given to assess the firms' managerial skills.
On October 20, 1983, DOT adopted Procedure No. 146-002 which governs the selection process for engineering consulting firms. However, the procedure has not been formally adopted as a rule. It covers everything from the initial DOT decision to use an outside consultant through the execution of the final contract. Among other things, the procedure sets forth in detail guidelines for
(a) initial selection evaluation, including the duties of the requesting unit, contractual services officer and selection committee, (b) scope of services meeting, (c) technical review committee evaluations and (d) final selection evaluation.
Once the proposals have reached the final selection stage, DOT procedure No. 146-002 requires that the contractual services office provide the final selection committee with a summary of all evaluations and grade point averages and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm. The committee must then review these summaries; the volume of work previously awarded the firms, the price proposals, and assign a rating factor to each firm.
Although the contents of the memorandum and procedure have not been "formally" adopted as rules, there was testimony from DOT personnel explaining the purpose, meaning and contents of both.
In the case at bar the agency adhered to its January 29, 1985 memorandum and procedure No. 146-002 in evaluating the various technical proposals. More specifically, the evaluation process considered each firm's capabilities personnel past record experience and other relevant factors. Prior to the selection of the successful firm DOT met with each firm including petitioner, at the scope of services meeting on October 14, 1985. At that meeting each firm was given the opportunity to ask questions, seek clarification on any ambiguous matter, and learn the specific needs of DOT. In addition it was emphasized to each firm that DOT placed special significance on the staffing plan that would be submitted by each firm. Finally, each step in the review and selection process was documented in writing by DOT, and such documents have been made available to petitioner and all other interested parties. These documents have been amplified on by DOT personnel through discovery and oral testimony at final hearing.
DOT Concerns With CAS's Proposals
DOT expressed several concerns with CAS's technical proposal, two of which were valid. First DOT was concerned that CAS did not propose adequate staffing and manpower for the jobs. This concern was based on staffing problems CAS is now experiencing on another pending CEI project, and the inadequate number of hours (74,800) proposed in CAS's technical plan for the Sunny Isles project. A failure to provide adequate staffing can create serious potential problems. These include inaccurate recordkeeping, loss of federal funding, contractual claims, insufficient personnel to perform all necessary tasks, a failure to adhere to public concerns, and the possibility of having to obtain another consulting firm to finish the job.
In preparing the job specifications, DOT estimated that 105,070 man hours would be required from the CEI firm during the life of the project. After further evaluations this was reduced to approximately 95,000 man hours to eliminate around 10 percent of "fat" in the estimate. CAS estimated that only 74,800 man hours would be required, which was some 21 percent below DOT's revised estimate. Although the DOT resident engineer who initially prepared the 105,070 man hours estimate did not have the plans and specifications for the project when his original estimate was made, he relied upon his extensive
experience and familiarity with CEI contracts in preparing his estimate. The engineer had estimated man hours on twelve other CEI contracts, utilized information from the project manager, reviewed available design data, and made a visit to the job site. These calculations were not subsequently reviewed in detail by any other DOT employee. However, the same procedure was followed by the engineer who prepared the estimate for PBSJ and he reached a comparable figure. The methodology and results thereof were not shown to be unreasonable or unreliable, and it is found that the estimates by DOT and PBSJ were both reasonable and appropriate. Three experienced CAS personnel were involved in preparing that firm's estimate, and they had the benefit of the plans and specifications in doing so. In contrast to the 173 hour manmonths used by DOT and PBSJ in their calculations, CAS "absorbed" 13 hours into its overhead and accordingly used a 160 hour man month in its calculation. It also included the project directors' man hours in its overhead cost. This results in CAS having a lower man-hour estimate for its staffing plan. Even so, CAS made no effort to determine the DOT methodology at the scope of services meeting, or to advise DOT that it was calculating man hours in a different manner. Given the low number of man hours, and CAS's problems on another pending job, DOT's concern was well- founded.
DOT also expressed concern over the expertise of CAS's staff to be assigned to the job. Although the resident engineer had many years of experience as an engineer, he had just moved to Florida and had no prior construction experience in the State. There was no evidence that he was familiar with DOT procedures, which is of particular importance where a complex and sensitive project is involved. Moreover, the firm itself has never constructed a bascule bridge. Given these considerations, DOT properly found the expertise and qualifications to be less than that of the successful firm.
Finally, at the initial stage of the review process, DOT personnel were concerned that CAS's proposed resident engineer was not a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida. However, this concern was unfounded since the engineer in question was granted his registration on February 4, 1986, which was prior to the final selection.
The Successful Firm
PBSJ is currently working on three CEI contracts for DOT. It has just successfully completed a CEI contract on a major bascule bridge project in downtown Miami which is comparable to the Sunny Isles project. The firm's proposed resident engineer has been involved on five bascule bridge projects in prior years. The firm's man-hour estimate of 97,328 was in line with DOT's revised estimate, and was prepared by the proposed resident engineer in a manner consistent with that used by DOT's estimator. Given the type and amount of experience on the part of PBSJ, and its adequate staffing plan DOT properly selected PBSJ as the consulting engineer on the project.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1); Florida Statutes (1985).
Subsections 287.055(3) and (4); Florida Statutes (1985), prescribe the following pertinent requirements relative to the use of outside professional services by agencies, including DOT.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT AND QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES.--
Each agency shall publicly announce, in a uniform and consistent manner, each occasion when professional services are required to be purchased for a project the basic construction cost of which is estimated by the agency
to be more than $100,000 or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services exceeds $5,000, except in cases of valid public emergencies so certified by the agency head. The public notice shall include a general description of the project and shall indicate how interested consultants may apply for consideration.
Each agency shall encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their professions that desire to provide professional services
to the agency to submit annually statements of qualifications and performance data.
Any firm or individual desiring to provide professional services to the agency must
first be certified by the agency as qualified pursuant to law and the regulations of the agency. The agency shall make a finding that the firm or individual to be employed is
fully qualified to render the required service.
Among the factors to be considered in making this finding are the capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, and experience of the firm or individual.
Each agency shall adopt administrative procedures for the evaluation of professional services, including but not limited to, capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record, experience, whether the firm is a certified minority business enterprise as defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985, and such other factors as may be determined by the agency to be applicable to its particular requirements. When securing professional services, an agency shall endeavor to meet the minority business enterprise procurement goal set forth in s. 287.042.
The public shall not be excluded from the proceedings under this section.
COMPETITIVE SELECTION.--
For each proposed project, the agency
shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the
agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and shall conduct discussions
with, and may require public presentations bye no less than three firms, regarding their
qualifications, approach to the project, and ability to furnish the required service.
The agency shall select, in order of preference, no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform
the required services. In determining whether a firm is qualified, the agency shall
consider such factors as the ability of professional personnel; whether a firm is a certified minority business enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms;
and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the agency; with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle
of selection of the most highly qualified firms.
This subsection does not apply to a professional service contract for a project the basic construction cost of which is estimated by the agency to be $100,000 or less or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services is $5,000 or less.
Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit a continuing contract between a firm and an agency.
In addition, Subsection 337.105(1), Florida Statutes (1985), provides as follows:
(1) Before the employment of a professional consultant or other provider of service, the department shall make a finding that the person to be employed is fully qualified to render the desired service. Among the factors to be considered in making this finding
are the professional reputation, past performance record, and experience of the candidate and the adequacy of the personnel making up his organization.
Finally, Rule 14-75.04(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, is pertinent and describes the selection process in cases such as this:
With respect to any project for which the department is able to clearly define the
scope of work required, the following procedures shall be utilized by the department in
the procurement of professional services:
The Department shall evaluate the letter of interest submittal package received from each consultant along with performance data
on file with the Departments and shall conduct discussions with, may require technical
proposals of and may require public presentations be no less than three firms, regarding
their qualifications and ability to furnish the required service.
The Department shall select no less than three firms nor more than six firms deemed to be most highly qualified and capable of
performing the required services after considering such factors as the technical proposal
when required; overall management procedures, including type of financial
management system; the ability of professional personnel; past performance; willingness
to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current and projected work
loads of the firms; volume of work previously awarded to the firm by the department and certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise in accordance with Rule Chapter
14-78; with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified
firms provided such distribution does
not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified and capable of performing the required services if the Secretary determines that such is in the public's best interest.
The Department shall request each firm deemed to be most highly qualified to submit a price proposal to perform the services defined in the scope of work and if necessary, a technical proposal providing the firm's approach to the project. The price proposal shall include an estimated number of man
hours by job classification to be expended on the project, direct labor rates, overhead
rates, and any other costs directly attributable to the project.
The Department shall execute a contract with the firm deemed most qualified in accordance with the criteria set forth in this
subsection and in accordance with the price submitted by the consultant.
In its post-hearing filing, petitioner raises a number of grounds to support its argument that DOT erred in awarding the contract to PBSJ. They will be dealt with separately.
First, CAS contends that DOT has no rules which advise interested parties of the "criteria" or "yardstick" that the agency uses to evaluate consultants. It specifically refers to the lack of standards concerning man hours and the failure of DOT to advise the firms as to the number of man hours needed and how they should be calculated. But Rule 14-75.04 (3)(b)2. sets forth a number of specific criteria to be used in evaluating the short-list firms. Moreover, subparagraph (b)3. of the rule places each firm on notice that its technical proposal must "include an estimated number of man hours by job classification to be expended on the project." In this regard, DOT gave CAS its
estimated man hours for the project to use as a tool in developing its own estimate. If CAS had any questions concerning the use or calculation of man hours, it had ample opportunity to clarify those concerns at the scope of services meeting on October 14, 1985. Therefore, it is concluded that the agency provided sufficient guidelines and advice through its rule and scope of services meeting to enable all firms to adequately develop their proposals.
Petitioner next complains that the agency has failed to adopt administrative procedures for the evaluation of professional services as required by Subsection 287.055(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). But, again, these procedures are codified in Rule 14-75.04, Florida Administrative Code. Further, the agency has informally adopted by memorandum and procedure specific guidelines for evaluating and selecting professional firms. Such formal and informal procedures satisfy the statutory requirement.
Subsection 287.055(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985) provides that "(t)he public shall not be excluded from the proceedings under this section." Petitioner argues that because no notice of the two selection meetings was given, a violation of the law has occurred. Admittedly, no external notice was given, and CAS apparently had no knowledge that selection meetings would take place on February 10 and 17, 1986. However, even if the law is construed to mean that notice of all selection meetings be given the public, there has been no showing that the agency's failure to follow this prescribed procedure impaired the fairness of the proceeding. Section 120.68(8), Florida Statutes (1985).
Petitioner next complains that the agency did not give any reasons in its letter of February 18, 1986 for rejecting CAS's proposal. But CAS acknowledges that it was orally given the reasons, and through other documentation and discovery, CAS has been able to clearly identify the reasons, and to have ample opportunity to counter those objections. Therefore, no error in procedure has occurred.
CAS also contends that its bid was some $700,000 lower than that of PBSJ, and having been found qualified in the initial selection process, it should have been selected. However, this project is controlled not only by cost, but by technical considerations as well. The agency has the discretion to select a higher costing firm where that firm's technical capabilities outweigh the cost considerations. See, e.g., System Development Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 423 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, it was not erroneous for DOT to select a firm with a higher dollar bid than CAS.
The evidence reveals that DOT had two valid reasons for rejecting CAS's bid: concerns with its staffing plan, as evidenced by the technical proposal and its staffing problems on another CEI project, and inexperienced key personnel. Given these shortcomings, and the contrasting experience and staffing plan of PBSJ, it cannot be said the agency acted in bad faith or irrationally or accorded PBSJ any advantage over the other three firms. It is concluded that DOT properly awarded the contract on Job Nos. 87170-3525 through 87170-3530 to PBSJ, and followed all prescribed procedures in doing so.
The objection to petitioner's exhibit 7 is sustained.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding the contract on State Job Nos. 87170-3525--87170-3530 to Port, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc., and that Craig A. Smith's bid protest be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
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 14th day of May, 1986.
ENDNOTE
1/ Letters of interest contain such information as the number of professional engineers a firm hash its prior experience, current projects, and other similar data designed to enable DOT to evaluate the minimum qualifications of the firm.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0892BID PETITIONER:
Covered in background and finding of fact 1.
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Covered in findings of fact 2 and 4.
Rejected as being irrelevant to the issues.
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Partially covered in findings of fact 6 and 21.
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Rejected as being contrary to page 15 of Procedure No. 146-002 which requires the final selection committee to consider the summary of data created through the evaluation process, volume of work previously awarded the firms, and prices proposed, and to then assign a grade.
Covered in finding of fact 7.
Rejected as being irrelevant since the selection committee is only required to read the summaries of data and not the technical proposals themselves.
Rejected as being irrelevant.
RESPONDENT:
Covered in background.
Covered in background.
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Covered in finding of fact 9.
Covered in findings of fact 1-6.
Covered in findings of fact 2 and 18.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 19.
Covered in finding of fact 22.
Covered in finding of fact 18.
Covered in findings of fact 2 and 3.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in findings of fact 6 and 20.
Covered in finding of fact 8.
Covered in finding of fact 8.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John H. Beck, Esquire 1026 E. Park Ave.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Brant Hargrove, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee Florida 32301
Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 14, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 12, 1986 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 14, 1986 | Recommended Order | Agency had discretion to select higher costing firm where the firm's technical capabilities outweighed the cost considerations |
