STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COMPUTER RESOURCES, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 87-2149BID

) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF GENERAL SERVICES, )

)

Respondent, )

and )

)

VERBATIM CORPORATION, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on June 19, 1987, a formal hearing was held in this case. The conduct of the hearing was in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the hearing officer. A transcript of the proceedings was prepared and has been examined prior to the entry of this recommended order. Additionally, each party, in the person of counsel, has provided a proposed recommended order. These proposals have been reviewed, and in some instances the suggested facts found within those proposals, as to substance, have been utilized in the preparation of the recommended order.

Otherwise, the suggested factual outcomes set forth in the proposals are disregarded for reasons announced in the appendix to this recommended order.

APPEARANCES

FOR PETITIONER: W. Douglas Hall, Esquire

Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel,

Smith, Cutler and Kent

410 First Florida Bank Building Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

FOR RESPONDENT: Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire

Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955

FOR INTERVENOR: G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire

Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A.

101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1040 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUES

The issues in this case concern the question of whether Computer Resources, Inc., offered a responsive bid to the invitation from the State of Florida, Department of General Services, and the related question of whether it is entitled to the award of a contract for the provision of items 1 through 9 within the bid apparatus.

In determining these issues, the testimony at hearing of Jerry Wensloff and Danielle Stark, witnesses for Computer Resources, Inc., has been considered.

The testimony of George Banks and Bill Fox, called by the State of Florida, Department of General Services, has also been considered. Finally, the testimony of Mark Smith and Kent Coykendall, witnesses for Verbatim Corporation, has been considered. Joint Exhibits Nos. 1 through 9, Exhibit No. 1 of the State of Florida, Department of General Services, Verbatim Corporation's Exhibits Nos. 1 through 5 and Computer Resources, Inc.'s, Exhibits Nos. 1 through 4 have been examined.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

The State of Florida, Department of General Services urges the rejection of the Computer Resources, Inc., bid based upon its belief that the bid was unresponsive due to the fact that technical literature provided by that bidder was for different products than those described as being products offered in response to the bid invitation. Further, the Department believes that the bid was unresponsive because at the time the bid response was made, the products that were being offered by Computer Resources, Inc., were not current models.

These alleged failures on the part of Computer Resources, Inc., in the perception of the State of Florida, Department of General Services, constitute material defects or departures from the bid requirements.

Computer Resources, Inc., argues that its bid is responsive in terms of technical information provided and asserts that the products offered in response to the bid were current models.

Verbatim Corporation has the same concerns expressed by the Department on the topic of the acceptability of Computer Resources, Inc.'s, bid and also asserts that testing done on some of the products which Computer Resources, Inc., would intend to offer pursuant to contract reveals that those products do not meet the bid specifications. Consequently, Verbatim wishes to have the contract for items 1 through 9 awarded to it as the lowest responsive bidder.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The State of Florida, Department of General Services ("DGS"), offered for bid its project number 407-250-440-B. This bid involved the purchase of single-sided and double-sided computer diskettes. Among those companies who responded to this invitation to bid were Computer Resources, Inc., ("CRI") and Verbatim Corporation ("Verbatim").

   
   

2. Having examined the bid responses in the subject project, DGS rejected the CRI bid as not responsive. The bid opening occurred on August 1, 1986. Given that CRI had been the low bidder by dollar amount, the rejection of its bid caused the Department to declare its intention to award the contract to Verbatim, the next lowest bidder.

3. When confronted with the declaration of alleged unresponsiveness, CRI offered a timely challenge to that declaration by DGS. By way of relief, CRI requested an informal Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, hearing to resolve the dispute. Verbatim was not made aware of this proceeding to resolve the case by an informal hearing until that hearing had been convened by a hearing officer within DGS and conducted. Subsequently, upon the reconvening of the informal proceeding, it was determined that disputed facts existed between the parties and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   That hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings was held on June 19, 1987.

   
   

4. More particularly, when DGS put the subject bid out by mailing on June 24, 1986, the invitation to bid sought responses for 33 different types of computer diskettes which would be made available for purchase by state agencies in Florida and others entitled or required to participate in the State of Florida's purchasing system administered by DGS. The total annual dollar volume of the contract approximated $800,000. Items 1 through 9, which are the items in contest in this dispute, represent the majority of the contract. CRI had initially protested the declaration of this alleged unresponsiveness on all items, 1 through 33. It subsequently withdrew its protest on items 10 through 33, leaving for consideration items 1 through 9.

   
   

5. The invitation to bid specified two sizes of computer diskettes: 5 1/2 inch and 8 inch. Of the remaining items at issue, 1 through 9, an award could be made for all nine items or each of those nine items separately.

   
   

6. Twenty-three vendors submitted bids in response to the invitation. Following bid opening on August 1, 1986, and its evaluation, DGS issued the bid tabulation on September 16, 1986. Fourteen bids were found responsive, Verbatim among them. The CRI bid was rejected based upon the Department's concerns that CRI had not provided published specifications for the products that it offered in response to the bid invitation. DGS also rejected the bid because it did not believe that CRI was offering a current model as called for in the bid document. The specific nature of those concerns is discussed in succeeding paragraphs.

   
   

7. A substantial requirement within the bid specifications related to the necessity for the diskettes sought for purchase to attain a clipping level of at least 60 per cent. Basically, the clipping level is a measure of the diskettes ability to retain the electronic/magnetic signal originally fed to it. It corresponds to the amount of signal remaining on the diskettes following the initial signal transmittal. This is important because the higher percentage of retention represents better longevity in storage of data applied to the diskettes. In order to identify the retention capacity of the diskette, the diskettes are tested during the manufacturing process to determine their clipping level. DGS had raised the previous requirements which it had for clipping level of diskettes, from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, given the wide range of users who would be utilizing the diskettes and the fact that some of those users were less discriminating in their care of the diskettes and because the higher capacity in clipping level was seen as promoting a greater protection of data storage.

   
   

8. The invitation to bid further described technical specifications which mandated that the diskettes provided under contract would achieve a 60 per cent "clipping level" for missing pulse and a 20 per cent "clipping level" for extra pulse. In particular, at paragraph 3.1.8 of the invitation to bid, it was specified that "Diskettes must be individually tested and certified to assure 60

   per cent or more of the original clipping signal strength remaining on each bit recorded for retrieval. A copy of the manufacturer's published specifications shall be included in the bid." On the seventh page of the specifications, paragraph 3.1.9(A) set forth that the missing pulse should have no permanent errors on all tracks at 60 per cent clipping level.

   
   

9. The invitation to bid contained a special condition which mandated that the bid responses be accompanied by technical literature on the products bid. This special condition stated:

   
   

   Technical literature is a requirement of this bid to accommodate an evaluation to assure that products offered meet or exceed the specifications attached hereto. Failure to provide such data with the bid may result in rejection of the bid.

   
   

10. There is also set forth in the general conditions at paragraph 4e, entitled "Conditions and Packaging," as follows:

    
    

    It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be new (current model at the time of this bid). All containers shall be suitable for storage and shipment and all prices shall include standard commercial packaging.

    
    

11. The requirement that the bidders submit technical literature to assist in evaluation of the products in their compatibility with bid specifications was critical, made the more so in that DGS was not in a position to test the clipping level. Nor was the end user in a position to determine the clipping level of the product bid. Should the diskettes fail to meet the 60 per cent clipping level, there would ensue a potential problem of the loss of data and the need to reenter that lost data into the system, assuming that there was some other source from which the data could be recaptured. These concerns prompted the requirement of paragraph 3.1.7 in the bid document which mandated that the diskettes must be 100 per cent individually certified or verified to be error free. In summary, the only assurance that DGS and its prospective users have that the diskettes are as billed, is the ability to examine the published specifications of the companies' bids and ascertain whether they are in accordance with bid specifications and upon the promise by the bidders in their responses that current products are being offered.

    
    

12. Within its bid response, CRI, in its price sheet for items 1 through 9, describes the brand name of the products bid as being CRI brand. The identifying numbers for the products bid in these items utilized eight digits, the last three digits as to each item being constituted of the numbers 333. By contrast, the product specifications contained within the bid response of CRI in the lead sheet identified the product as CRI Opus and within the product specifications description found on sheets two through four identified the products as Opus brand. In both the lead sheet and sheets describing the particulars of the products it is indicated that these diskettes were manufactured by Computer Resources, Inc., Compared to the numbering system found in the pricing sheets, the first five digits were similar in the product specifications to those found in the pricing sheets; however, the product specification information did not include the suffix numbers, or final three numbers, 333.

13. Given the circumstances set forth in the price listing and the product specifications as offered in CRI's bid response and the explanation of those materials presented at hearing, it is concluded that CRI intended to provide CRI brand products if awarded the contract for items 1 through 9. Nonetheless, in its product specification sheets the Opus brand product was being described. What had transpired, according to the CRI representative who submitted the product specification sheets, was that CRI brand product information was not available for submission with the bid materials tendered by CRI and as a consequence, this individual took product information pertaining to Opus brand products which described a 50 per cent clipping level for missing pulse and changed that 50 per cent to 60 per cent in an attempt to comply with the requirement for 60 per cent clipping level. An Opus brand product at 50 per cent clipping level was not acceptable. In effect, CRI tailored the product specification sheet pertaining to the Opus brand products in an effort to meet the particular requirements of the subject bid invitation.

    
    

14. According to its witness, the product specifications or technical data that CRI intended to offer with its bid response was found in Joint Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. It shows a 60 per cent clipping level. Per the employee for CRI involved in the preparation of the bid response in discussion, this is the set of materials that he wished to offer, thereby avoiding the necessity to white out the 50 per cent clipping level and substitute a 60 per cent clipping level. Interestingly, the Joint Exhibit No. 5 is the same as what was submitted with the exception that on the lead sheet of the Joint Exhibit No.

    5 there are found the initials OEM, meaning original equipment manufacturer. OEM products which CRI was manufacturing at the relevant time were for the benefit of purchasers who used their own brand names, not the Opus brand name. The impact of the Joint Exhibit No. 5 does not change the difficulty that DGS would have in trying to ascertain whether Opus products or CRI products were

    being offered in response to the bid. Joint Exhibit No. 5 continues to give the impression that Opus is the brand which is being described, and not CRI. Moreover, given the facts that were adduced at hearing, there is a serious question about whether technical literature existed which showed Opus products at a 60 per cent clipping level, as opposed to a 50 per cent clipping level.

    Notwithstanding Computer Resources, Inc.'s, protestations to the contrary, while CRI and Opus are names that are associated with Computer Resources, Inc., the manufacturer, the brand names CRI and Opus are separate marketing lines and not synonymous. CRI is a brand name which Computer Resources, Inc., has selected in marketing its products for government purposes, such as under consideration here, and Opus is a brand name employed in the basic marketing of Computer Resources, Inc., products for sale other than in a setting such as found in this dispute.

    
    

15. The problems with the CRI bid were made the more bewildering for DGS when review of the submission of Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products, another bidder in this project, revealed that it was offering a product manufactured by Computer Resources, Inc., known as Unicopy, which in the details of the product specifications were similar to the offering by CRI and set out a

    50 per cent clipping level, which was found to be unacceptable. The Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products bid submission carried the same five-digit numbering code in identifying the Unicopy products in describing its product specifications that was found in the CRI product specifications for its Opus brand products. That bid response by Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products also attached certain sales information pertaining to Opus brand diskettes. Testimony pointed out that CRI was manufacturing diskettes with 50 per cent clipping level to be sold by Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products under the

    Unicopy brand. DGS, in the face of this information pertaining to Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products, was uncertain about the true capacity of the product offered by CRI. Was it 50 per cent or 60 per cent?

    
    

16. The bid submission by CRI, in its compatibility sheets related to cross referencing with equipment of other manufacturers, listed Opus as the brand, not CRI. This enhanced the confusion about which products were being offered: Opus or CRI?

    
    

17. None of the numbers employed in the system of identification for Computer Resources, Inc., pertaining to the diskettes which are at issue identify the clipping level of the product. The first five digits used in its number identification system describe the basic nature of the diskettes and the use of the suffix or latter three numbers describe packaging or routing information. Consequently, when DGS or its users refer to these numbers, they cannot ascertain what clipping level is found within the diskettes.

    
    

18. The bid submission made by CRI did not explain the differing marketing ideas in the use of the CRI or Opus brands, nor did it explain how the numbering system works and whether there was any compatibility between a CRI product and an Opus product.

    
    

19. An examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that Computer Resources, Inc., was not selling a product under the CRI brand name on August 1, 1986, bid opening day, which met the 60 per cent clipping level for missing pulse, such that technical specifications or product specifications for CRI brand could have been supplied with Computer Resources, Inc.'s, bid response. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence, correspondence of December 26, 1985, from Jerry E. Wensloff to Tab of Nashville, says that Computer Resources, Inc., was dealing with a 60 per cent clipping level for system houses, software houses, etc. who ask for a 60 per cent clipping level in products which they ordered from Computer Resources, Inc., This does not equate to the manufacture of products under the CRI brand name which carried with them technical specifications describing a 60 per cent clipping level. The provision of the 60 per cent clipping level for these various purchasers was under what the letter describes as Computer Resources, Inc.'s, operation for supplying OEM, or original equipment manufacture. At the time of the correspondence, as stated in that correspondence, approximately 50 per cent of Computer Resources, Inc.'s, business as a manufacturer was OEM accounts wherein some demand of 60 per cent clipping level had been made by purchasers.

    
    

20. On August 1, 1986, in the warehouse associated with the manufacturing plant for the type of diskette in question here, Computer Resources, Inc., was holding in inventory products under the Opus brand name. It had no stocks under the CRI brand name. Subsequently, Computer Resources, Inc., gained contracts with two state governments and began to make available diskettes under the CRI brand name. The standard packaging product which Computer Resources, Inc., was manufacturing on August 1, 1986, using the Opus brand name was at a 50 per cent clipping level. A sixty per cent clipping level product under the Opus brand was provided upon request. The Unicopy brand name associated with Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products was at a 50 per cent clipping level on August 1, 1986, in accordance with the arrangement between Computer Resources, Inc., and Florida Ribbon and Carbon Office Products.

    
    

21. On August 1, 1986, the company known as Ashton Tate had an ongoing arrangement with Computer Resources, Inc., for the manufacture of diskettes with

    60 per cent clipping level, which Computer Resources, Inc., described as an OEM

    account. Computer Resources, Inc., did not have other routine OEM accounts at that time or at the point of final hearing in this case.

    
    

22. On August 1, 1986, the time when the bids were opened, the process which Computer Resources, Inc., employed for distinguishing differences in the diskettes in terms of clipping level response was through certification. Once the diskettes' performance was graded, the diskettes were placed in bins with a move ticket. In essence, this was a sorting process by clipping level following the manufacture of the diskettes.

    
    

23. In August 1986, the manufacturing plant which produces the diskettes which are marketed by Computer Resources, Inc., did runs of diskettes at 60 per cent clipping level about ten days out of the month. Leftover products following the manufacture of 60 per cent clipping level for Ashton Tate would be used to fill other accounts that made specific request for that clipping level, but the leftover diskettes were not being separately marketed as a 60 per cent clipping level product.

    
    

24. CRI had shipped sample diskettes to DGS on August 22, 1986, to demonstrate the nature of its products' appearance to the state. Further request was made by the state for sample products on March 19, 1987, and on March 24, 1987, those products were shipped to DGS. In the March 1987 shipment, the products that were shipped were label led as CRI products and carried with them a five digit model number corresponding to five digit model numbers provided in Computer Resources, Inc., product specifications submitted with the bid response. In addition to the boxes containing the diskettes, the diskettes themselves bore this product numbering system. The boxes and contents did not carry the suffix or last three digits found in the pricing sheet which had been submitted with the bid response of Computer Resources, Inc. On the other hand, a packing list did carry eight digit numbers, with the last three numbers being 353, a suffix which was different from that found in the pricing list of the bid submission by CRI. The suffix change was designed to distinguish the packaging of the CRI product.

    
    

25. DGS had been concerned that Computer Resources, Inc., in submission of its CRI brand name, could not meet the 15-day delivery requirement which DGS had for shipment of the products at issue. In both the August 1986 and March 1987 shipments of CRI diskettes, the 15-day threshold was met. While CRI has shown the ability to ship a small amount of products under the CRI label on those two occasions, on August 1, 1986, at the place and time where the bid was opened, Computer Resources, Inc., was not making available any significant amount of 60 per cent clipping level products as called for by the items 1 through 9, either as a CRI brand or an Opus brand. It was stocking Opus products in the 50 per cent clipping level and its principal 60 per cent clipping level account was with Ashton Tate, which merchandise was already spoken for. Any other arrangement for provision of 60 per cent clipping level products was on an "as needed" basis.

    
    

26. Verbatim obtained part of the sample diskettes which had been sent to DGS in March 1987. It obtained ten double-sided, double-density diskettes and twenty Single-sided, double-density diskettes. These diskettes had been specifically tested by Computer Resources, Inc., before sending them to the State of Florida and shown to perform, according to this testing, at a 75 per cent clipping level. Testing done by Verbatim in Sunnyvale, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina, revealed a number of failures below the 60 per cent clipping level. The California tests showed four out of ten failures for double-sided diskettes and one out of twenty failures for single-sided

    diskettes, whereas the North Carolina experience was three of ten of the double- sided diskettes failed and one of twenty single-sided diskettes failed. The equipment utilized by Computer Resources, Inc., for testing prior to shipment and the equipment in testing conducted by Verbatim was different. In addition, handling of the diskettes can adversely affect the performance of the diskettes in terms of signal retention. Conversely, at times testing can enhance that performance. On balance, given the adversarial posture of the private litigants in this cause, no conclusion is reached on the true capacity of the diskettes which were tested by Computer Resources, Inc., and Verbatim. The experiences in testing do point out the efficacy of the requirement that DGS be provided a clear statement of the technical information concerning the products bid by Computer Resources, Inc.

    
    

27. In summary, Computer Resources, Inc., did not submit technical information and specifications associated with the brand of product that it intended to offer if the contract was awarded to it. Indeed, the technical information which it would have submitted had it had the time to prepare it was for a product brand different than the brand it had bid on this project. That is to say, the specifications offered at the time the bid was submitted were for Opus products and the specifications which it desired to offer at the time that the bids were submitted were also for Opus products, not CRI. Furthermore, there is some question on whether legitimate specifications existed pertaining to Opus products with a 60 per cent clipping level on August 1, 1986, the date of bid opening. In this circumstance, it is not appropriate that DGS allow the substitution of specifications as envisioned by the Joint Exhibit No. 5 pertaining to the Opus products or any other substitution of specifications. Taking into account the facial appearance of the bid response of Computer Resources, Inc., and the evidence which was presented at the final hearing which attempted to describe the significance of those materials, with particular emphasis on the confusion about brand names, model numbers, the inability to differentiate clipping levels by reference to product numbers provided by Computer Resources, Inc., and the confusion created for DGS as a consequence, the technical information provided by Computer Resources, Inc., is found to be inadequate. Likewise, Computer Resources, Inc., did not have a current model at the time the bids were opened on August 1, 1986, under the brand name CRI, the brand which it chose to operate under for the purpose of this bide which could be provided to DGS. It had the capacity to produce that quality of diskette and was producing it as what it described as OEM for the benefit of Ashton Tate and a few other smaller accounts. This, however, could not be considered a current model of CRI brand. Finally, the fact that the declaration of disqualification of the Computer Resources, Inc., bid causes additional expense to the State is not sufficient reason to declare the Computer Resources, Inc., bid responsive. Such an outcome runs contrary to the weight of the evidence and would be inappropriate.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

29. The bid procurement for items 1 through 9 as contemplated in the dispute was a procurement governed by Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Thus, the process was one involving competitive bidding in which DGS sought to procure the lowest responsive bid. Bids are not responsive when they demonstrate a material variance from the specifications set forth in the bid invitation. Computer Resources, Inc., has failed in its response in two material respects. First, it

has not provided technical information or specifications as mandated by the bid. Second, it has failed to bid a brand which had a current model available at the time the bids were opened. As indicated, these shortcomings are material in nature, they are not minor irregularities and may not be waived. To allow Computer Resources, Inc., to rehabilitate its bid submission through supplemental materials would promote an unfair advantage for that bidder at the expense of others who are privy to this bid solicitation process and destroy the integrity of that process. See Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code.

Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered which finds that the bid of Computer Resources, Inc., is nonresponsive and awards the contract for items 1 through 9 to Verbatim Corporation.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1987.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2149BID

Fact proposals presented by the parties have been incorporated in substance in the course of the fact finding set out in the recommended order except in the following instances: Computer Resources, Inc.

Sentence two to paragraph 6 is contrary to facts found.

Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 as to its first two sentences are subordinate to facts found.

The last sentence in paragraph 10 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraphs 14 and the first sentence and last two sentences of paragraph 15 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The remaining sentences within paragraph 15 are subordinate to the facts found.

Paragraphs 16 and 17 are subordinate to the facts found, as is the first sentence of paragraph 18. The remaining portion of paragraph 18 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

The first two sentences of paragraph 19 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The portions of the last sentence of paragraph 19 up to the word "and" are contrary to facts found. The remaining portion of that sentence is subordinate to facts found.

Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and sentences one through three and sentence five to paragraph 27 are subordinate to facts found. Sentences four, six and seven of paragraph 27 are contrary to facts found.

Sentence one to paragraph 28 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The second sentence of that paragraph is subordinate to the facts found. The last sentence of Paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found.

Paragraph 29 in its first sentence is not necessary to the resolution of facts in dispute. The last sentence of that paragraph is contrary to facts found.

The nature of what is being described in the two parts to paragraph 30, paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 34 are contrary to the facts found.

Department of General Services

Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are subordinate to facts found. Verbatim Corporation

Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and the first three sentences of paragraph 10 are subordinate to facts found. The balance of paragraph 10 is not necessary to the dispute resolution.

Numbered paragraph 11 up to and including the first sentence of the last unnumbered paragraph within numbered paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found. The next sentence in that unnumbered paragraph is not necessary to resolution of the dispute. The next sentence beyond that is contrary to facts found, as are the last two sentences within the unnumbered paragraph. All other sentences in the unnumbered paragraph are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found.

COPIES FURNISHED:

W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Nancy G. Linnan, Esquire

Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler and Kent

Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Department of General Services

452 Larson Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955

G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Suite 1040

101 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director

Department of General Services Room 133, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955

Docket for Case No: 87-002149BID

Orders for Case No: 87-002149BID