STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CABER SYSTEMS, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
and )
) MICROCOMPUTER ASSOCIATES, INC., )
)
Intervenor, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-5551BID
) DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, )
)
Intervenor. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on January 27, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Caber Systems, Inc. (Caber):
Philip L. O'Neill, Esquire 1730 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 350
Washington, DC 20006-4706
For Minicomputer Associates, Inc. (MCA): Steven J. Brodie, Esquire
Suite 321
195 Wekiva Springs Road Longwood, FL 32779
For Department of General Services (DGS) Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire
Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire
Larson Building, Room 452 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0955
For International Business Machines (IBM)
Harry R. Detwiler, Esquire Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, FL 32301
For Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple):
Richard A. Lotspeich, Esquire Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302
BACKGROUND, PROCEDURE, AND EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
Caber protests the specifications set forth by DGS in its 1987 Invitation to Bid (ITB) microcomputers, alleging that the ITB is so fatally flawed that it unduly restricts State users from realizing the manifold benefits of competitive bidding.
Caber attacks the ITB in five general areas of the specifications: inclusion of restrictive language in the required Manufacturer's Certificate; failure to permit the bidding of equivalents (suggesting a generic specification for Table I or the adding and deleting of specific name brands/models to Table I's Qualified Product List or addition of an "all other" Table V); failure to permit multiple awards in the clone categories of Table IV; alleged need to expand acceptable options/accessories; and alleged need for bidding third party components in Table I.
Prior to formal hearing, MCA, Apple, and IBM were permitted to intervene, with final resolution of each intervenor's standing to be determined in the course of this Recommended Order.
Caber and MCA joined in presenting the oral testimony of Frank Boyle, Richard Lawrence Evans, Allen Himmelstein, James J. Knerr, and Marcia Clair. 1/ The Department of General Services presented the oral testimony of James J. Knerr, Linda Fuchs, James R. Striplan, George Banks, Herman P. Barker, and, by deposition, Francis Watson. IBM presented the oral testimony of Charles Becker. Apple presented no oral testimony and introduced no exhibits and took a voluntary dismissal at the conclusion of Caber's and MCA's case-in-chief.
Caber and MCA joined in having admitted in evidence twenty-nine exhibits and proffering three. 2/ DGS had admitted in evidence 17 exhibits. Exhibit DGS-32, the deposition of Francis Watson, is also deemed admitted, since post- hearing, all parties waived their objections thereto.
Judicial notice has been taken of the Recommended and Final Orders in the consolidated cases, Caber Systems, Inc., et al. v. DGS, et al., DOAH Case No. 87-0836BID and Microage Computer Systems Stores, Inc. v. DGS, DOAH Case No. 87- 0837BID.
At the close of Caber's case-in-chief, DGS moved to dismiss Intervenor MCA due to lack of standing and moved to dismiss those portions of Caber's petition/protest relating to Convergent Technologies, NEC, and Tandon. These motions were taken under advisement for disposition in this Recommended Order, and are ruled upon in the conclusions of law infra.
The parties have filed post-hearing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the proposed findings of fact of which have been specifically ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. 3/
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Department of General Services, Division of Purchasing, is the state agency responsible for establishing standards and specifications and term contracts for purchase by the State of commodities used in volume.
Generically, term contracts are established for fixed periods of time, usually one year, with no predetermined quantities or guarantees of purchase. The current ITB contemplates $38,000,000 in annual expenditure. During the fixed period, vendors agree to sell commodities at the prices established through the competitive bidding process. Term contracts permit concentration of the State's entire purchasing power so as to obtain price advantages through anticipated large volume purchases, through reduced administrative costs, and through standardized terms and conditions of sales, warranties, and service. History of DGS and Department of Education collaboration in drafting of a term contract for microcomputers dates back at least to 1982. Purchases have, of course, been made under those contracts. Continuity in successive state microcomputer term contracts serves the significant purposes of supporting microcomputer equipment already in place with various governmental users (the "embedded State base") and supporting expansion of that embedded base by meeting users' emerging needs.
On October 30, 1987, DGS issued Invitation to Bid 462-250-040B, microcomputers.
Potential bidders (including among them both manufacturers and dealers) were notified of a bidders' conference to be held on November 16, 1987, and were asked to submit written questions concerning the ITB by November 9, 1987. At the November 16, 1987 conference, written answers to the pre-submitted questions were read aloud and distributed to all in attendance. Caber had submitted written questions, but no Caber representative attended the conference. On November 17, 1987, an Addendum to Invitation to Bid 462-250-040B was issued, incorporating selected suggested changes, thereby completing Invitation to Bid 462-250-040B (hereafter, "ITB-462"). A simultaneous bid submittal deadline and bid opening was scheduled for 2:00 p.m., December 3, 1987.
Caber timely filed its Notice of Protest on November 23, 1987, within
72 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) of receipt of completed ITB-462. Following uneventful and unsuccessful informal procedures, Caber timely filed its Formal Written Protest on December 2, 1987. Pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 13A-1.006(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, DGS stopped the bid solicitation process at that point, one day prior to the bid submittal/bid opening deadline of December 3, 1987. At the time of Caber's filing its Formal Written Protest, Apple, along with approximately 72 other dealers and manufacturers had already submitted bids. IBM was en route to DGS with IBM's bid, but IBM's bid submittal was refused by DGS because of the statutory "freeze." MCA had filed no Notice of Protest, no bid, and no Formal Written Protest.
The purpose of ITB-462 was to establish a 12 month term contract for the purchase of microcomputers, which term contract could be extended for each of two successive 12-month terms. As a term contract, all state agencies would
be required to purchase microcomputers from the contract. The state university system, counties, municipalities, local school districts, and political subdivisions would have the option of doing so.
The format of ITB-462 reflects major substantive changes in DGS' policies for the microcomputer term contract from what those policies had been previously. Last year, when intended awards by DGS under its last previous (1986) microcomputer bid solicitation (ITB-545) for the proposed 1987 term contract were protested by Caber, DGS had decided to reject all bids arising thereunder and to rewrite ITB-545 to correct certain flaws. The DGS' decision to reject all bids under ITB-545 was upheld over Caber's protest in consolidated cases Caber Systems, Inc. et al. v. DGS, et al., DOAH Case No. 87-0836BID and Microage Computer Stores, Inc. v. DGS, DOAH Case No. 87-0837BID. As a result of the flaws in ITB-545 revealed during that formal protest, DGS finally abandoned ITB-545 entirely, extended the 1985 microcomputer contract (hereafter, "contract 621" or "621") for one year to January 26, 1988, embarked on serious reevaluation of its users' needs, and commenced the drafting process that resulted in the ITB-462 format which is the subject of the instant specification protest.
In order to assure that the new specifications would meet the needs of its embedded base, DGS consulted the Department of Education (DOE), other state agencies, the Information Resources Commission (IRC), user groups such as the Government and Education Microcomputer User Group (GEMUG), and various manufacturers of microcomputers. DOE operated partly as a conduit for user need information from school boards and the state university system. IRC acted partly as a conduit for user need information from other state agencies and partly as a consultant providing technical information and bid specification evaluation to DGS.
The format of ITB-462 contains four tables. Table I identifies 353 microcomputers of 21 manufacturers arranged by brand and model and includes product descriptions supplied by the respective manufacturers. Table II consists of forms for bidders to list microcomputer options and accessories. Table III consists of forms for bidders to list microcomputer software. Table IV contains a set of separate generic specifications of IBM compatible clones. Tables I through IV were combined with DGS' General Conditions and Certain Special Conditions.
The Special Conditions of ITB-462 provide that, in the case of Table I, brand name and models, "[n]o additional micro- computer brand names and models will be considered for this bid;" and that third party components (products of one manufacturer installed in the larger system or computer of another manufacturer) are not acceptable for Table I unless they are used by the manufacturer in normal production and supported by the manufacturer for warranty and maintenance service, and they further provide that:
EVALUATION AND AWARD
Any contract resulting from this bid shall be awarded for specific microcomputers listed in Table I by brand name and model number to the low qualified bidder.
A single award shall be made for each IBM- compatible clone configuration listed in Table IV to the low qualified bidder for that configuration.
Options, `Accessories and Operating System/Programing Language/Utility Software placed on any contract resulting from this bid shall be limited to those products applicable to microcomputer models awarded to each low qualified bidder.
Technical Specification 3.2 of the Specifications Nos. 250-040 and 250-041 of the ITB identifies fourteen "acceptable" hardware options/accessories and provides that these "are the only peripherals or components that are acceptable for this bid and any award."
Unlike prior microcomputer ITBs, there is no place in Table I of ITB-
462 for a vendor to bid systems that are equivalent to (meet or exceed) any brand system listed in Table I. The list of 353 systems in Table I is designated a Qualified Product List (QPL). DGS intends to make one award to the lowest responsive bidder for each system. Responsiveness of bids will be determined by ascertaining that a bid is in the proper form, properly executed, and correctly identifies the item bid. Award by low price will be faster than the evaluation process that had been employed with the 1986 ITB-545, which took far in excess of the time allotted. Improving the former evaluation process and attaining a speed factor were identified and evaluated as positive goals in the course of the ITB-545 bid protest and in the drafting process for ITB-462. DGS intended that there should be no technical evaluation (i.e. benchmarking) for Table I of ITB-462 because the QPL has eliminated that need.
Microcomputer Models were selected for inclusion in the ITB-462 Table I QPL based on four criteria listed specifically in the ITB itself as "placement on the current microcomputer contract, review of contract exceptions, demand by State contract users, and experience of prior usage by the State." DGS formulated the four criteria as a means to achieve the objective of supporting the State's embedded base of microcomputers and applied a volume of usage measurement to all four criteria.
Although Caber and MCA urged that meeting just one of these four criteria was insufficient to get on the QPL and that there was in place an unpromulgated "50 sales" threshold rule or policy with regard to volume of usage, the credible competent substantial evidence as a whole does not support their inference. Rather, the evidence shows that DGS personnel wanted to apply a "50 sales" policy but abandoned it in favor of merely requiring hard proof through sales reports or sales receipts, purchase orders, or similar documentation or by user requests that there was a current embedded base of more than one sale of one model by each potential supplier. This is reasonable for a term contract. Each of the four criteria has the same intent and purpose, that is, to determine the true current embedded base. Caber originally protested that DGS should be precluded from requiring any proof of volume sales by way of sales reports and similar documentation without first promulgating a formal rule or enunciating a clear policy. The agency has wide discretion in how it implements its statutory duties, and requiring proof of volume usage is a reasonable method of determining the true current embedded base and serving it. Requiring proof of the true current embedded base does not exceed DGS' statutory authority and is not arbitrary or capricious. It is reasonable for DGS to
require potential suppliers to prove past sales instead of merely accepting, without further proof, self-serving letters from them alleging that they have made such sales. DGS cannot legitimately ignore that if potential suppliers' allegations of sales are taken at face value, some potential suppliers will be tempted to falsify their claim of sales in the hope of gaining an advantage.
Also, as set out in Finding of Fact 19, infra, such proof has been anticipated and provided for in prior contracts. Neither Caber or MCA filed a Section
120.54 or 120.56, Florida Statutes, rule challenge, with regard to either a volume policy of "50 sales" or the policy above- described. In the course of formal hearing and in their posthearing proposals, however, Caber and MCA suggested unequal application of the policy of volume usage and the number needed to be proved. Although it was shown that an indefinite volume usage scale was applied, to various manufacturers, Caber and MCA were unable to show that any legitimate party to this instant protest was treated unequally. See, infra. Findings of Fact 22-26 and the Conclusions of Law.
During the course of the 621 contract, DGS had, pursuant to General Condition 25, revised that contract on at least a quarterly basis, to reflect, among other things, deletions of discontinued products and additions of new products by actual sales to the state. 4/ Therefore, DGS did not question volume of current usage of recently added suppliers or require those suppliers which had been recently added to the 621 contract revisions to demonstrate anew a need for their products by State users so as to get on the ITB-462 QPL. Rather, DGS broadened the ITB-462 QPL by all models of any manufacturer listed on the 621 contract revisions up to the date of mailing ITB-462. If DGS already possessed proof of volume usage by the embedded base either by proof of sales or by user requests, it added any supplier listed on the basic 621 contract to the ITB-462 QPL, without further inquiry or proof requirements. However, if DGS had reason to question the volume of current usage by the State embedded base of products from suppliers listed on the basic 621 contract, DGS then required those particular suppliers to come forward with proof of current true volume usage of their products by the State embedded base, before DGS would add that particular supplier's products to the ITB-462 QPL.
DGS only questioned volume of current State embedded base usage of the products or potential suppliers listed on the basic 621 contract if two situations converged. First, DOE, IRC, and the state contract users would have to have given no indication that a 621 listed supplier's products were still in demand and DGS would have to have had no independent record of sales above a single unit single sale. No potential supplier in this dual category is a legitimate party to this Section 120.53, 120.57, Florida Statutes, ITB-462 protest, and none submitted to DGS satisfactory proof of sales to an embedded state user base sufficiently in advance of the ITB-462 mailing to be placed on the ITB-462 Table I QPL. See, infra., Findings of Fact 22-26 and the Conclusions of Law.
If a brand/model could not qualify under the first of the four ITB-462 QPL criteria, "listing on the revised 621 contract," DGS would still place it on the ITB-462 QPL if it met one of the other three criteria. Criterion one was not demonstrated to be arbitrary or capricious either in concept or in application to any party with standing in this proceeding. Together with the other three criteria, it is a reasonable component of a method of achieving the agency's statutory goal of competitive bidding, and does not exceed the agency's statutory authority.
Criterion two, "review of contract exceptions", refers to DGS' role in approving or disapproving State agencies' requests to acquire microcomputers and
equipment which is not on a state contract. See, Rule 13A-1.008(4), Florida Administrative Code. DGS personnel reviewed the 621 contract exceptions that had been granted previously, but did not consider a contract exception for a single unit sufficient to qualify a brand/model for the ITB-462 Table I QPL. However, Table IV, the IBM clone category, was drafted in response to DGS' review of contract exceptions. DGS demonstrated that this standard was reasonable. Caber and MCA did not affirmatively demonstrate any significant competitive bidding benefit or any substantial and compelling embedded user base that was overlooked in requiring more than a single unit exception, nor did they show that a multiple unit standard was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, exceeded statutory authority or showed favoritism.
Criterion three, "demand by state users", refers to oral and written requests from State contract users for certain products. DGS reasonably added Datamaxx brand products to the 462 Table I QPL as a result of such a request from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Caber and MCA failed to demonstrate any significant competitive bidding benefit or substantial and compelling embedded user base that was overlooked in this process or that Datamaxx should be deleted from Table I due to any overreaching of statutory authority, unreasonableness, arbitrariness, capriciousness, or favoritism employed by DGS.
Criterion four, "experience of prior usage by the State" was a catchall category by which DGS sought to ultimately capture all potential suppliers needed by its embedded base. In practice, it overlapped criterion one and was not arbitrary or capricious and did not exceed the agency's statutory authority. DGS again would not accept a single unit sale as proof of a significant embedded users base. DGS' initial knowledge of volume sales can come from sales reports and purchase orders and from DGS personnel's oral and written contact with various state agencies. Also, suppliers on contract 621 are required to furnish to DGS quarterly sales reports and the contract notifies them in advance that furnishing these quarterly sales reports will be considered in awarding future contracts, but there has not been uniform supplier compliance with that 621 contract requirement, and DGS admits its figures in this regard are not entirely accurate. If no contract user had specifically requested a microcomputer product, rather than simply striking those suppliers which had not properly provided adequate sales documentation under contract 621, DGS allowed listed suppliers to submit proof of a current embedded base of state users of their products in the form of receipts, invoices, sales records, and similar documentation. DGS expected the supplier listed to make initial contact with DGS to supply this volume usage information, but where first contact had been initiated by such a potential supplier, DGS would actively continue to solicit such proof. DGS reasonably and logically required that the proof be submitted sufficiently in advance of the mailing of the ITB-462.
If DGS already had proof or an embedded user base through proof of sales or had contract user requests for suppliers listed on contracts predating contract 621, DGS also added those potential suppliers to the ITB-462 QPL without requiring further proof. This broadening of the ITB-462 QPL could fall in either criterion three or four and demonstrates no offense against competitive bidding even if it does not precisely fit criterion one.
In every application of the criteria, the intent of DGS' actions has been to responsibly broaden the QPL, not limit it.
Caber's protest suggests adding specific name brands to the ITB-462 Table I QPL: Toshiba, Wyse, Tandon, NEC, and Convergent Technologies. DGS had
not included these brands in the QPL because DGS had no requests and no independent proof of an embedded base, and because these brands submitted no documentation of volume usage prior to the ITB-462 mailing.
At no time prior to the conclusion of formal hearing in this cause was Caber an authorized dealer for Tandon, NEC or Convergent Technologies, and therefore Caber could not have bid products of those brands by December 3, 1987, the bid submittal/opening date. Nor did Caber have any standing to represent these manufacturers during the crucial 72 hour "window" provided for filing notices of protest. Caber's connections with these manufacturers is "hopeful" at worst and speculative at best.
Caber is an authorized dealer for Toshiba and Wyse. At formal hearing, Caber proved up a one unit sale of a Toshiba product under a contract exception, but Caber's principal witness stated that a similar single unit bid would not be in Caber's best interest. At formal hearing, Caber presented no proof through supporting sales receipts, invoices, or similar sales documentation of any Wyse sales to an embedded state user base.
NEC does not sell directly, but only through third party dealers. Its products appear on the expired 621 contract but neither NEC nor its dealer, who is the supplier listed on the 621 contract, filed a protest or sought to intervene in this proceeding. NEC knew about the required proof of sales, but submitted no supporting documentation of sales to an embedded state user base when requested to do so by DGS prior to the ITB-462 mailing, and prior to that date there was no direct request for NEC products by contract users.
Intervenor MCA is the sole authorized distributor of Convergent Technologies products in Florida. MCA sells such microcomputers to state contract users through an arrangement with Integrated Microsystems, Inc. Integrated Microsystems is listed on the 621 contract as providing Convergent Technologies equipment. MCA provided quarterly sales reports to Integrated Microsystems but neither MCA nor Integrated Microsystems filed them with DGS. Neither MCA nor Integrated Microsystems met DGS' deadline for submitting similar documentation of such sales prior to the mailing of ITB-462, although MCA had requested that Convergent Technologies be added to the ITB-462 QPL. Neither MCA, Integrated Microsystems, Inc., or Convergent Technologies timely filed a Notice of Protest or Formal Written Protest. MCA made a conscious decision not to do so. Neither Integrated Microsystems, Inc. nor Convergent Technologies sought to intervene.
Caber and MCA proposed that if ITB-462 is not modified to allow addition by name brands or equivalent bids for Table I models, then it should be modified to allow potential suppliers reasonable notice and opportunity to submit proof of State user demand for any brands/models not currently listed on Table I. Implementing such a proposal would only be providing an additional chance for these potential suppliers to submit the proof DGS required prior to the ITB mailing and which was not supplied then. Pursuant to General Condition 25, DGS intends to add new brands to the new microcomputer contract resulting from ITB-462 by competitive bidding. DGS intends to develop criteria for addition to the Table I QPL to be published and mailed to potential vendors in the future. Once a microcomputer meets the criteria, there will be an ensuing bid and award. DGS then plans to continue to add replacement models without competitive bidding when they meet or exceed specifications at the lower prices. New brands will then be added by specific make and model only. If DGS is required to fulfill its intention, the protestants' goal will be achieved
without sacrificing additional time in getting out ITB-462 and the goal of further expansion of the embedded base will be served quarterly within the contract's life.
In drafting ITB-462, DGS worked closely with DOE and the Information Resources Commission (IRC) beginning approximately in June 1987 and provided each with a draft or "specimen" copy of the ITB at a conference held October 7, 1987 and requested their comments at a conference held October 16, 1987. The IRC is the centralized management authority for all information technology (computer) use within State agencies. With the exception of the Department of Community Affairs, no state agency suggested equivalency bidding, and the IRC did not recommend this substantial change in the specimen ITB-462 format when it presented its review of agencies' needs and its own recommendations to DGS. DOE expressed no need for an "all other" or "equivalent" category/goal because it was felt that Table I contained a broader range of models which would meet the majority of their users' needs and the Table IV clones would meet any state needs not met by Table I. DGS' position was that reopening Table I to "all other" or "equivalent" categories would be to return to the 1986 ITB-545 format that Caber previously protested and that DGS had abandoned because it was vague and because it was impractical to administer.
Caber and MCA proposed that DGS develop specifications (an "all other" category) which bidders would attempt to meet by assembling their own systems of components. Specifically, Caber and MCA proposed deleting the provisions of the Special Conditions of ITB-462 which prohibit bidding of equivalents, and allowing potential vendors to bid models that are "equivalent" to (meet or exceed the specifications of) Table I models, either by creating a new Table V form on which vendors may bid a model equivalent to any specified model on Table I or by creating a set of "other low qualified bid" categories involving generic specifications based on Table I models. However, Caber and MCA did not affirmatively demonstrate any compelling competitive bid advantage to the State's embedded user base in doing so. Neither did they present any substitute specifications by which an "equivalent" goal/category could be successfully bid, evaluated, and awarded, whether it be added to existing Table I or placed in a "created" Table V. The 1986 ITB-545 bid protest resulted in part from a failed attempt to draft generic specifications and Caber and MCA only suggested in the present formal hearing that DGS should advertise for someone to come forward and write such specifications and other methods more reminiscent of a "request for proposal", (RFP) than of a firm specification for an ITB to meet a known embedded user base with definite parameters of need. Evaluation by benchmarking to establish functional equivalency would be necessary to implement Caber's and MCA's proposals even if generic specifications could be drafted, due to the myriad combinations possible. The alternatives to benchmarking proposed by the Caber and MCA witnesses are impractical and demonstrably not in the best interests of the State, based on time considerations associated with benchmarking literally hundreds of potential combinations, time considerations rendered even more compelling by the termination of the 621 contract on January 26, 1988. Moreover, Caber's and MCA's suggestions that the State rely solely on default provisions of the ensuing contract clearly would not be in the best interests of the State in that such a practice would inherently subvert all the price benefits sought through term contracting. Moreover, as it stands now, a degree of equivalent bidding is permitted in Table IV of ITB-462.
Although third party components (products of one manufacturer installed in the larger system or computer of another manufacturer) may be bid in other tables, DGS has excluded them from Table I by the following language,
Third party components are not acceptable within a system designated by a manufacturer's model number on Table I unless they are used by the manufacturer in normal production and supported by the manufacturer for warranty and maintenance service.
The purposes behind this exclusion are to avoid the same problems inherent in bidding equivalents and the necessity for benchmarking of all possible variations, and because manufacturers will generally not provide maintenance contracts on altered equipment, because of the need for contract users to know exactly what they are getting, because of enunciated safety reasons, and because of the need for specificity in bid solicitations, administration, and award.
By their prehearing stipulation, Caber, MCA, DGS, IBM, and Apple stipulated that the Manufacturer's Certificate called for in ITB-462 should be modified so as to delete the following language "AND IS OFFERING EQUIPMENT THAT IS IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BID SPECIFICATIONS." No reason was shown why this stipulation should not be accepted and given effect, provided all the potential bidders have an opportunity to resubmit bids to comply with ITB-462 as reformed on this point.
An IBM-compatible clone is a computer marketed by a manufacturer other than IBM, having an operating system that will run IBM programs and which has the capability to be expanded with IBM-compatible devices. DGS established such a category in Table IV to meet demonstrated needs of an embedded base of State microcomputers which perform the same functions as IBM equipment but which can be obtained at significantly lower prices. The clone category specifications are already at least "semi-generic" or "semi-equivalent" in that any combination of components which meets those specifications is acceptable to DGS, regardless of manufacturer or dealer. Third party components are acceptable in the IBM- compatible clone systems, provided that all such components are warranted by the bidder and maintenance subsequent to the warranty period is available from the bidder. There are hundreds of manufacturers of IBM compatible clones in the microcomputer marketplace today, and there are many third party components offered for use in IBM computers and/or IBM compatible clones of widely varying features and prices. There has never before been an IBM clone category awarded on a State contract, but a clone category involving two models was proposed in the ITB-545 abandoned last year, and the new ITB-462 contemplates that there will be a single award to the lowest bidder for each of the four IBM compatible clone configurations in its Table IV. There is nothing in the specifications which would prevent Caber from bidding many models on Table IV. Determining compliance of clones with the ITB-462 specifications as now drafted will involve DGS performing benchmark testing of at least two systems in each configuration, or at least 8 tests. DGS has allotted 10 days to perform these tests and it is estimated that it will take one person approximately one day to test each clone. The purpose of the benchmark test is to certify that the computers bid are IBM compatible and actually work as represented. Benchmarking is done by setting up the machines, formatting disks, and running the application's software to ensure that the machines can create, retrieve, update, and manipulate files, and can generally perform all the functions of IBM compatible machines. Caber and MCA propose that there be multiple awards for each configuration. The majority of state agencies do not favor multiple awards for the clone category because the four configurations on Table IV represent the basic equipment they need. DOE opposed multiple awards for itself and its constituency. IRC did not recommend multiple awards for clones. Multiple awards are the least desired method of
contracting in State government and are reserved for situations where a specification cannot be written. DGS was able to draft specifications for the clone configurations that the State embedded base of users indicated were most needed. DGS' intent in the Table IV category was to capture the single lowest bid through competitive bidding, not to produce a catalogue of manufacturers/dealers willing to do business with State users, which latter goal seems to be the thrust of the ITB amendments proposed on this point by Caber and MCA, who demonstrated no cost advantage to the State in making multiple awards for clones. Multiple awards for clones would result in the benchmark testing criticized in the orders of consolidated cases Caber Systems Inc. et al. v. DGS, et al., DOAH Case No. 87-0836BID and Microage Computer Systems Stores, Inc. v. DGS, DOAH Case No. 87-0837B1D. Again, Caber and MCA witnesses proposed several alternatives to benchmarking the literally thousands of configurations possible under their proposal. All proposed alternatives were overwhelmingly discredited by credible testimony as impractical and subject to enormous time delays.
Historically, DGS has not limited the number or type of related options/accessories that a winning bidder could have placed on the microcomputer term contract. ITB-462 limits the number and types of options/accessories to 14 acceptable items. The Special Conditions restrict the options to the models with which they function, require bidders to identify the options' list prices, percentage discounts, and net delivered prices in Table II. In developing the list of acceptable options, DGS drew on what it had learned from the last bid protest and considered the volume of State usage of the options, prices of the items, and the need to support equipment in place. Information supporting the usage of the options which were eventually listed included sales reports, purchase orders, sales summaries, and input from State users. The IRC, DOE, and GEMUG concurred in the limited list of options which finally resulted. DGS proved a reasonable need for these items by an embedded State user base. Caber and MCA did not demonstrate any need by an embedded State user base which was left unmet by DGS' procedure or which is not otherwise addressed by other existing State contracts or by the state contract exception provisions. In the case of certain accessories/option additions proposed by Caber and MCA, the cost of such proposed additions fell below the vanishing point for unit price savings through volume purchases.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause. See Sections 120.30, 120.53(5), 120.57(1), and 287.042, Florida Statutes, and Rules 13A-1.006(3) and 13A-1.008, Florida Administrative Code.
MCA, Apple, and IBM were granted intervenor status subject to final resolution in this Recommended Order.
Apple's standing, if any, is moot as a result of its voluntary dismissal of its Petition to Intervene.
MCA does not have standing in this cause and should be dismissed as a party-intervenor. The time for filing a bid solicitation protest is within 72 hours of receipt of the project plans and specifications, Capelletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 499 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Rule 13A- 1.006(3), Florida Administrative Code, Section 120.30, Florida Statutes. MCA's position that MCA has derivative standing through Caber is not supported by legal authority and is without merit.
MCA's theory of "bootstrapping" or "coattailing" standing is based upon MCA's status as an authorized dealer for Convergent Technologies. While Caber is not an authorized dealer for Convergent Technologies, it has suggested that Convergent Technologies microcomputer brands/models should be added to Table I. MCA contends that because Caber timely raised this issue, MCA has standing. It is simply not so.
Since Caber never qualified to represent Convergent Technologies, NEC, or Tandon, it could not bid their products and had no standing to raise any issues concerning those brands during the crucial 72 hour period. Speculation that Caber some day may choose to become an authorized dealer for, and eventually bid, these brands/models is not sufficient to establish any real, existing, substantial interest at the present time. Thus, there is no "standing" in Caber. Without any substantial interest of its own, Caber cannot bestow any derivative substantial interest or standing on MCA. See, Preston Carroll Co. Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), Capelletti v. Department of Transportation, supra, Agrico Chemical v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478, (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981), State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
It is for the same reasons and upon the same authority that the Motion to Dismiss those portions of Caber's petition relating to adding Convergent Technologies, NEC, and Tandon to the Qualified Product List is well taken and is granted.
IBM sought to intervene in a hybrid posture. On one hand, IBM supported Caber's protest that the required Manufacturer's Certificate should be somehow altered; on the other hand, IBM supported DGS' position that all other specifications of ITB-462 challenged by Caber were acceptable in every way. To proceed in support of Caber, IBM would have to have filed its own protest within
72 hours. It did not. To proceed in support of DGS, IBM ideally should have filed a bid, thereby becoming substantially affected" by another route. IBM did not. However IBM did not file a bid solely because it was prevented from doing so by the statutory freeze. Under these circumstances, IBM has standing, and it would be manifestly unfair to hold otherwise.
Caber timely filed its Notice of Protest within 72 hours of its receipt of the addendum completing ITB-462, and has standing pursuant thereto and pursuant to its timely filed Formal Written Protest.
While a protest of bid specifications is a de novo proceeding in the evidentiary sense, its scope is bounded by the four corners of the Petition. Caber essentially prays that the ITB should be reformed and modified, by appropriate addendum, upon the following terms:
The Manufacturer's Certificate should be deleted as a special condition of the Bid, or, in the alternative, the Manufacturers Certificate should be modified to solely state that the bidder is an authorized representative of the manufacturer with no further reference to certification by the manufacturer that the offering of equipment is in complete compliance with the Bid Specifications.
The ITB should be modified to allow for multiple awards for the IBM-compatible clone categories and the identified configurations.
ITB should be modified to create an "All Other Low Qualified Bid" category for each configuration set forth in Table I and should allow for multiple awards.
The ITB should be modified to add other significant major brands and models based upon the identified four criteria that the Department has set forth. Furthermore the ITB should be modified to delete the specific brands and models of minor manufacturers that are not in conformity with identified criteria of the Department. 5/
The ITB should be modified to expand the list of important options/accessories and peripheral items so as to avoid the necessity for subsequent termination as to what constitutes a "basic component" for purposes of State users and to provide a more complete and comprehensive bid contract.
The ITB should be modified to allow for submission of bids incorporating third party components generally and at a minimum with respect to "All Other Low Qualified Bid" categories as relating to Table I Configurations.
A protestor has the ultimate burden of persuasion but the agency is required to defend its policy and give the basis for it, State Department of Administration v. Harvey, 356 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The format of ITB-462 reflects major substantiative changes in DGS' policies for the state microcomputer term contract from what those policies had been previously, but absent some showing of vagueness, arbitrariness, capriciousness, favoritism, statutory bar, or similar impediment, vendors have no vested right in the maintenance of a single perpetual ITB format. The purpose of the competitive bidding statute is that there be adequate reasonable and definite specifications which afford a reasonable basis for comparison of bids. See, Robinson's Inc. v. Short, 146 So.2d So.108, (Fla. 1st DCA 1962), cert.den. 146 So.2d 108, (Fla. 1968)
The situation at bar is not what it was in the preceding ITB-545 protest: a conflict between potential bidders' understanding of past DGS practice and their understanding of DGS' current procedure as literally described in a new ITB or their misunderstanding of an ITB specification or condition resulting from vagueness. On the contrary, DGS in its ITB-462 has made a valiant effort to eliminate all the confusing and vague elements
criticized in Caber Systems Inc., et al. v. DGS, DOAH Case No. 87-0836BID and Microage Computer Systems Stores, Inc. v. DGS, DOAH Case No. 87-0837BID.
DGS demonstrated good reason to change its ITB format, not the least of which was to realize the previously identified goals of speedy evaluation and elimination or vagueness in what products were sought by the State as vendee and to clarify how a contract would be awarded under the bids received.
DGS has a right to solicit bids only for those products that are needed or desirable to its users and has no obligation to include in its ITB specifications for every product variable produced by a burgeoning technology. Agencies are afforded wide discretion and interpretation of the statute which they administer and will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous. School Board of Pinellas County v. Florida Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 492 So.2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Tri State Systems v. Department of Transportation, 491 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Sans Souci v. Division of Land Sales and Condominiums, 421 So.2d 623, (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Department of Environmental Regulation v. Goldring, 477 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1985). Its interpretation does not have to be the only one or the most desirable one, it is enough if it is permissible, Florida Power Corp. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 431 So.2d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Public agencies have wide discretion in advertising for bids. The decision of an agency, when based on an honest exercise of this discretion, will not be overturned even if it appears erroneous or if reasonable people may disagree with the decision. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1982); C.H. Barco Construction Company v. Department of Transportation, 483 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1986). When a court finds no illegality, fraud, oppression, or misconduct of either the agency or the bidders, the agency's discretion will not be disturbed. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc., supra.
DGS acted reasonably in automatically deleting from a proposed QPL those brands/models which potential suppliers had already notified them would not be available. There is no motivation for potential suppliers to falsify with regard to deletions. DGS was also reasonable in adding those potential suppliers for which DGS had already reviewed proof of the embedded user base through recent revisions of the existing 621 contract pursuant to General Condition 25 or pursuant to recently granted contract exceptions. It was reasonable in terms of supplier motivation for DGS to require proof from manufacturers of an embedded base for their products when DGS did not already have on file quarterly proof of sales as required by the 621 contract and had no significant request from a State contract user for that particular supplier's goods. Unless a supplier is a proper party or intervenor to these proceedings, that is, one who has filed a timely protest, he cannot be heard to request additional time to submit such proof. (MCA, Tandon, NEC, Convergent Technologies, Integrated Microsystems). Where a timely protestor (Caber for Toshiba and Wyse) has not submitted the sales proof at hearing, an additional time allowance is fruitless.
Bid specifications drawn in such a manner as to permit only one bidder to qualify for an award violate competitive bidding statutes. See, 43 Fla. Jur. 2d, Public Works, Section 17 pages 194-195. Mayes Printing Company v. J.A. Flowers, 154 So.2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963).
In the instant case, the record is clear that rather than attempting to restrict the ITB-462 Table I QPL, DGS made every reasonable attempt to
broaden it. No embedded user base overlooked by DGS nor any competitive bidding benefit of further expansion of the QPL was demonstrated by Caber at formal hearing.
Caber relies heavily upon Rule 13A-1.002(16), Florida Administrative Code:
No Substitute -- Use of the term `no substitute' may allow for limited competition at the distributor level, but it establishes a restrictive specification and gives preferential treatment to a particular manufacturer. It shall be used only when absolutely required. The term
`or equivalent' shall be used whenever an identifiable brand name or process is included in the specification. [Emphasis added).
The rule itself permits use of the term `no substitute' when absolutely required. No rule should be applied so as to create a ridiculous result. DGS has demonstrated that limited generic or equivalent bidding is absolutely all it can accomplish after two years of good faith drafting attempts. By providing for 353 possible models on the ITB-462 QPL plus future additions to the QPL, and by including bidding equivalents on Table IV, DGS has balanced the desirability of bidding equivalents (except when absolutely required otherwise) against the specificity necessary for a term contract ITB in this very technical field of microcomputers.
By a preponderance of the evidence, a need to amend the Manufacturer's Certificate and need to provide for future QPL revisions has been demonstrated.
No compelling reason to alter any other portion of ITB- 462 has been demonstrated.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that DGS enter a Final Order providing:
That MCA be dismissed as an intervenor in this cause.
That Caber's Petition as it addresses products of Tandon, NEC, and Convergent Technologies be dismissed.
That ITB-462 be amended to delete the following language in the Manufacturer's Certificate: "and is offering equipment that is in complete compliance with the bid specifications," and amended in no other way.
That a date certain for completion of bid submittals (and resubmittals as necessary for those bidders who responded before the statutory freeze) be established, which date will allow sufficient time for all those eligible to submit bids that comport with the ITB-462 as amended pursuant to paragraph 3.
That the Division of Purchasing develop procedures to be included in the contract resulting from ITB-462, providing for additions to the Table I QPL at every General Condition 25 revision and requiring that copies of these
procedures be published and mailed to all potential vendors prior to the first revision of the ensuing contract.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida.
ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 29th day of April, 1988.
ENDNOTES
1/ Mrs. Clair's testimony was proffered by question and answer, subject to admissibility arguments in the post-hearing proposals. Mrs. Clair is a representative of NEC. NEC filed no timely notice of protest or formal protest, and did not seek to intervene herein. Neither Caber nor MCA was authorized, prior to the conclusion of formal hearing, to sell NEC brand models. Therefore, Mrs. Clair's testimony on the desirability of listing NEC brand models in Table I is irrelevant but her testimony on the desirability of equivalency bidding and upon the parties' opportunity to present proof of volume sales is found to be relevant. Her evidence, however, was either contrary to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole or was unpersuasive as reflected in the subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of law.
2/ Exhibits CS-31, CS-50, and CS-10 were proffered as part of Mrs. Clair's testimony. They have been considered upon the same terms set forth in n. 1 supra.
3/ Caber and MCA filed their joint proposals beyond the time provided, but since no motion to strike same was filed, Caber's and MCA's joint proposals have been considered anyway and their proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix hereto. Caber and MCA have also late-filed a separate "Memorandum of Points and Authorities," which has been duly considered as legal argument only.
4/ In fact, DGS further revised the 621 contract on December 3, 1987, one day after the formal protest herein was filed.
5/ Within its Petition, Caber identified Datamaxx as a minor brand which should be deleted and Wyse, Tandon, Toshiba, NEC, and Convergent Technologies as brands/models to be added by name.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER
The following constitute rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective Proposed Findings of fact (FOF).
Caber's and MCA's Joint Proposed Recommended Order
Covered in FOF 3, 6.
Covered in FOF 9.
Covered in FOF 10.
First and last sentences covered in FOF 7; remainder covered in FOF 11.
First two sentences covered in FOF 8, 28. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, the remainder is covered in FOF 4, 5.
Covered as necessary FOF 2, 27; otherwise subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found or mere argument.
In part cumulative; remainder is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found or mere argument.
Sentence 1 is cumulative; see FOF 11. Remainder is subordinate and unnecessary. See the Conclusions of Law (COL).
Subordinate and unnecessary. See COL.
Sentence 1 is covered in FOF 11. Sentence 2 and 3 are rejected as not supported by the record as a whole, as conclusionary, as mere recital of testimony, and as not dispositive of ultimate issues. Sentence 4 is rejected in part for the same reasons as sentences 2 and 3, and also as out of context so as to be misleading. See FOF
32 and COL.
Sentence 1 is contrary to the facts as found and mere argument. The whole proposal also is not supported by the record as a whole.
Inaccurate as stated; covered as supported by the record at FOF 28.
Mere quotations of testimony; not supported by the record as a whole.
Covered in FOF 7.
Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 12-20, especially FOF 14-16 and as stated the proposal is not dispositive of the issue at bar.
Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found.
Except as cumulative, covered in FOF 12.
Sentence 1 is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Sentence 2 is covered as the matters therein are supported by the record in FOF 12-21, especially FOF 12-15. Sentence 3 is covered in FOF 19. Sentence 4 is subordinate and unnecessary.
Rejected for the reasons and upon the evidence of record as a whole described in FOF 12-21.
Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. See FOF 19.
Except as covered in FOF 23, irrelevant. See also COL.
Except as covered in FOF 26, this is a mere recitation of testimony, conclusionary, and subordinate and unnecessary. Also see COL.
Subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 25.
Subordinate and unnecessary.
Not supported by the record as a whole and not dispositive of any material issue at bar.
Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF
32.
Subordinate and unnecessary to facts as found. Not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See, also COL.
Subordinate and unnecessary to facts as found, especially FOF 32.
Sentence 1 is accepted but subordinate and unnecessary to facts as found. Sentence 2 rejected upon the record as a whole, in any case DOE is not the only repository of such knowledge. See FOF 32.
Accepted that Caber's proposal has been stated, but as a proposal of ultimate fact, it is rejected upon the record as a whole in part and in part as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found See FOF 29, 32, and COL.
Rejected in part upon the record as a whole See FOF 28, 30, and 32. Also rejected because parts are subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found, or speculative, or mere argument of counsel.
Peripherally, it is inconsistent with other arguments/positions of the protestants.
Sentence 1 is covered in FOF 33. The remainder is subordinate and unnecessary.
Up to the last sentence, rejected as stated, upon the greater weight of the record evidence as a whole.
Also subordinate and unnecessary in parts, see FOF 33 entered upon competent, persuasive evidence. The last sentence is covered in FOF 33.
Rejected as taken out of context. See final three sentences of FOF 33 which address the evidence of record as a whole.
Sentence 1 is subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is rejected as mere argument of counsel, and to the degree it may propose some fact in evidence, it is covered in the facts as found and the COL or is not dispositive of any material issue at bar.
Cumulative in part and otherwise not, supported by the record as a whole. See FOF 12-21 and 33.
Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found and not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 12-21 and 33.
Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found and not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 33.
The first sentence is cumulative. The remainder is irrelevant and not dispositive of any issue at bar.
DGS' PFOF and COL
Covered in FOF 1, 6.
Covered in FOF 2.
Sentence 1 is covered in FOF 2. Sentence 2 is modified and covered in FOF 2 and the remainder is subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 7.
Subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 7 and COL.
Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found.
Sentence 1 and 2 are covered in FOF 7. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, the remainder is covered in FOF 8.
Subordinate and unnecessary except as covered in FOF 8 and 9.
Covered in FOF 28.
Covered in FOF 4.
Covered in FOF 5.
Except as subordinate and unnecessary to all the facts as found, covered in FOF 9, 17, and 32.
12-15. Covered in FOF 32.
16-19. Accepted, but as proposed is either a mere recitation of testimony or is subordinate to the facts as found in FOF 28, 30, and 32.
20-21. Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 8, 32.
Except as subordinate and unnecessary to all facts as found, covered in FOF 32.
Covered in FOF 32. Otherwise, subordinate and unnecessary to all facts as found.
Covered in FOF 32. Otherwise, subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found.
Covered in FOF 9-11; otherwise cumulative or subordinate and unnecessary to all the facts as found.
Covered in FOF 28-30.
Subordinate and unnecessary.
Covered in FOF 28-30.
Covered in part in FOF 28-30, 32; otherwise subordinate and unnecessary.
Sentence 1 is covered in FOF 28-30, 32. Sentence 2 mere recitations of testimony. Sentence 3 is covered in FOF 28.
Covered in FOF 9 and 12.
Except as subordinate and unnecessary, covered in FOF 12-16.
Covered in FOF 17 to reflect the record as a whole more accurately.
Covered in FOF 18.
Covered in FOF 19-20.
Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, some recitation of testimony, cumulative, mere argument of counsel, and otherwise covered in FOF 2 and 27 and COL.
Cumulative. See FOF 8, 28.
Covered in FOF 22-26 except that the footnote is subordinate and unnecessary or mere recital of testimony and argument of counsel.
39-40. Except as subordinate and unnecessary and not dispositive of any material issue at bar, covered in FOF 26.
Covered in FOF 22-26.
Covered in FOF 24.
Covered in FOF 22.
Covered in FOF 22, 24 except as subordinate and unnecessary.
Except as subordinate and unnecessary to all the facts as found, covered in FOF 22, 24.
46-48. Except as covered in introductory material and FOF 22 and 25, subordinate and unnecessary or cumulative.
49-50. Except as covered in FOF 12-21, rejected as unnecessary. Peripherally, see FOF 27 and COL.
51-55. Except as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found, covered in FOF 33.
56-58. Except as covered in FOF 30, rejected as subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found.
59. Cumulative and mere legal argument.
IBM's Proposed FOF and COL
Sentence 1 is covered in FOF 3. Sentences 2 and 3 are covered in FOF 9. Sentence 4 is subordinate and unnecessary. Sentence 5 is covered in FOF 4.
Covered in introductory material, FOF 5, and COL.
Covered in FOF 5.
Except as subordinate and unnecessary to all the facts as found, covered in FOF 30-31.
Covered in FOF 5, 23.
Covered in FOF 26.
Covered in FOF 31.
8-11. Are not PFOF but statements of position. See respective rulings on DGS' PFOF and this recommended order's COL.
Covered in introductory material and FOF 30.
Covered in FOF 30.
14-17. Except as cumulative, subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 29-30. See also 28 and 32.
18-19. Accepted but covered more succinctly in FOF 30.
COPIES FURNISHED:
RONALD W. THOMAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
133 LARSON BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-1600
SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, ESQUIRE STEPHEN S. MATHUES, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES LARSON BUILDING, ROOM 452 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0955
STEVEN J. BRODIE, ESQUIRE 9100 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD SUITE 1003
MIAMI, FL 33156
PHILIP L. O'NEILL, ESQUIRE 1730 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 350
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
HARRY R. DETWILER, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 810 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301
RICHARD A. LOTSPEICH, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 271 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32302
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 29, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 15, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 29, 1988 | Recommended Order | Invitation To Bid under protest resulted in amendment thereof and establishment of new bid submittal date; no derivative "standing" without bidder's protest. |
INFINITY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 87-005551BID (1987)
OPTIMUM TECHNOLOGY, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 87-005551BID (1987)
NATIONAL ADVANCED SYSTEMS CORPORATION vs. ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 87-005551BID (1987)
AUTO MACHINE AND PARTS COMPANY, INC. vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 87-005551BID (1987)
