Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact In order to meet its need for new equipment in the new district administration building, the School Board advertised for competitive bid proposals for clerical, professional task, guest and conference chairs (task seating). Five bids were timely received by the School Board, two of which were determined to be responsive. The bid opening occurred on April 17 1990, and the Knoll Source was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder. In spite of this determination, the bid was rejected by the Director of Purchasing or the appointed designee because sales tax was not included in the bid. The Notice of Award was issued to Haworth, who submitted its bid showing the price it was willing to accept for the sale of the task seating, with and without sales tax. The initial decision to reject the Knoll Source bid, which was $10,393.72 less than Haworth in Sequence I; $12,231.94 less in Sequence II; and $994.17 less in Sequence III, was based upon Section 9.2.2.a in the "Instructions to Interior Bidders". This section of the bid documents provided that the contract for purchase of the task seating would not be exempt from sales tax. This bid specification is incorrect because the School Board does not pay sales tax on acquisitions of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System. Knoll Source was aware of the School Board's sales tax exemption prior to its bid submission. As Section 9.2.2.a of the instructions was inappropriate, the vendor relied on Section 9.2.2.c, and excluded sales tax from the bid because the cost of such tax was not applicable. Section 9.2.2.c instructed bidders to exclude inapplicable taxes from their bids. Pursuant to Section 5.3.1 of the bid instructions, the School Board has the right to waive any irregularity in any bid received and to accept the bid which, in the Board's judgment, is in its own best interest. The Knoll Source and Haworth bids can be comparatively reviewed, and Knoll Source is the lowest responsive bidder if the failure to include sales tax in the bid amount is waived by the School Board. It is in the Board's best interest to waive Knoll Source's failure to include a sales tax in the bid because sales tax does not apply to this purchase.
Findings Of Fact On May 19, 1983, Respondent mailed official Invitations to Bid (IFB) forms to 18 different firms, including Petitioner, soliciting bids for Class VI printing in accordance with the specifications and conditions attached to the letter, signed by R. E. Read, Jr. This letter contained the comment, "As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularities in bids received." This letter also advised prospective bidders who had questions regarding the IFB to call Larry Amison, the individual who had drafted the accompanying specifications. The notice of IFB, published in the Tallahassee Democrat on Thursday, May 19, 1983, also contained a notice of reservation of the right to reject all bids. Only five IFB forms were returned. Three of the five were returned without bids for various reasons, such as "Not Competitive," "Unable to meet specified delivery date" and "Cannot schedule job of this proportion at this time." This type of explanation, in government procurement circles, need not be taken at face value, but is often used to signal the recipient's thanks for the invitation to bid and a desire to be invited to bid again at some time in the future. The other two forms received were bids: one from Zenith Communications Group, and one from Petitioner. This procurement was somewhat unusual in that the IFB stipulated the amount of money the agency had to spend and requested a hid as to the most product it could get for that money. There were two publications involved: "A" and "B." An alternative was given on delivery date options: one within 30 working days of receipt of approved proofs, and one within 45. Zenith offered to provide 7,180 copies of Book "A" and 7,155 copies of Book "B" (14,335 total books) for a total price of $53,400 1/ within 30 working days. Petitioner offered to provide 9,473 copies of Book "A" and 4,950 copies of Book "B" (15,423 total books) for a total price of $53,344.64 within 45 days. The bids were opened on June 1, 1983, and published from June 1 through June 10, 1983. They were brought to the Director for consideration upon opening. It is his responsibility to evaluate the bids and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Agriculture on the successful low bidder. Since there was only one bid on each delivery date, the Director felt there were not two comparative bids. As a result, he forwarded the bid package to Ms. Grace Harrison, a purchasing agent with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and an individual very familiar with the procurement of printing services. After a review of the entire bid package, Ms. Harrison's studied opinion was that there were two valid bids and Douglas was the low bidder, and it is so found. Ms. Harrison also felt it was unusual not to receive any more responses than were received on a procurement of this magnitude. This same opinion is held by Mr. Amison, who drafted the specifications. Others have differing opinions, however. Whether it was unusual or not, however, is immaterial. There were two valid bids, and only two are required for an award. However, even in the case of two bids, the agency reserved the right to reject any and all bids. As a result, on or about June 6, 1983, the Director decided, based on his understanding of state policy on the matter and in light of the size of the procurement, to seek more bids through rebidding. In this case, the Director felt more bids were available because of the responses of the nonbidders which referred to the response times being so short. Therefore, he directed a rebid, and this information was communicated to all bidders, including Petitioner. On June 7, 1983, Petitioner wrote to the Director, disagreeing with his decision and notifying him of its protest. On the following day, the Director notified Petitioner the rebidding was being delayed, giving Petitioner 10 days to file a formal notice of protest. This was done in a timely manner. The phrase regarding the agency's right to reject bids is contained in every State IFB. Its purpose is to permit state agencies to reject bids where it becomes apparent there is a valid and legitimate benefit to be gained by the agency in doing so. One such situation is when, in the bona fide opinion of the agency, there are insufficient bids. While there is a difference of opinion as to whether only two bids are unusual in a procurement of this nature, there is no dispute that it would have been beneficial to the agency to have received more than two, since more bids would increase competition. To rebid the contract at this juncture would undoubtedly increase competition to the potential benefit of the Respondent. However, Petitioner claims it would also work to its detriment because other potential bidders would have access to the details of the two present bids and would thereby gain an advantage. This may be the result of rebidding.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Douglas Printing Company, Inc., be awarded Contract DOF- ADM-79. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services currently leases approximately 22,000 square feet of space from Nelson P. Davis. The space is contained in two separate buildings, both located at 417 Racetrack Road, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. The Department and Davis were involved in a legal dispute involving the currently leased premises, which concluded in 1986 with the entry of judgment in Davis' favor. While some antagonism remains between the parties related to the legal action instituted by Davis, Davis has been an acceptable landlord in all other respects. The current lease expires February 1, 1989. Davis has been aware, since late February or early March of 1988, that the Department would need space in excess of the currently occupied 22,000 square feet, but was not aware of the actual additional space requirements until the issuance of the invitation to bid. In general, the Department's space requirements have increased annually. In response to the anticipated need for additional space, Davis initiated plans for design of a third Racetrack Road building that could meet the additional need, but did not construct the facility. In response to the space requirements of previous years, Davis has constructed additional space. The Department has occupied the additional space in such proportions as to avoid the competitive bidding process, however, the current need for additional space exceeds the maximum which can be leased without competitive bidding. The Department on May 11, 1988, issued an invitation to Bid for approximately 26,165 square feet of space in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. (HO #1) In response to the invitation, Davis submitted a bid proposal. The Davis proposal, the sole proposal received by the Department, was disqualified by the Department as non-responsive. On June 23, 1988, the sole bid was opened by Joseph Pastucha, HRS District One Facilities Manager, who initially reviewed the Davis bid. Mr. Pastucha identified items of concern related to the responsiveness of the bid and then provided the information to his supervisor, who in turn provided the information to Mr. James Peters. The Department did not contact Davis for further information or to provide the opportunity to correct any defects. James Peters, HRS's District One Manager for Administrative Services has expressed on at least one occasion a desire to avoid entering into business arrangements with Nelson P. Davis. The bases for Peters' opinion is the earlier litigation between the parties. Peters was on the committee which was to have evaluated bids submitted in response to the invitation. However, Peters has stated that his personal opinion would not influence his participation in the bid solicitation process. The evidence did not indicate that Peters based his opinion regarding the Davis bid submission solely on the earlier litigation or that any other person involved in the agency's action permitted personal opinions to affect the decisional process. Davis' bid proposal included the two buildings constituting approximately 22,000 square feet located at 417 Racetrack Road which the Department currently occupies, plus a third building of approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposed square footage and lease cost were acceptable. The third building was to be either a planned, unconstructed building located at the 417 Racetrack Road location or an existing building located "7/l0ths of a mile southeast of the present HRS offices," (the off-site building). However, a memorandum attached to Davis' submission stated that he did not intend to use the off-site building for HRS purposes, (HO #2). Further, Davis had previously indicated in conversation with the HRS manager of the 417 Racetrack Road offices that he planned to utilize the off-site space otherwise. On page one of the bid submittal form Davis indicated the address of the proposed location as 417 Racetrack Road. By letter dated July 5, 1988, the Department notified Davis that his bid offering was deemed non-responsive and that the Department expected to readvertise for space in Ft. Walton Beach. The letter made no mention of any opportunity to protest the determination. The statement, "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes," which is required to be included in the notice of agency decision by Section 120.53(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was omitted by the Department. (HO #3) On or about July 7, 1988, Davis contacted the Department of General Services to express his dismay regarding the disqualification of his submittal. A meeting, held on or about July 19, 1988, between Davis and Department representatives, did not alter the Department's position. On or about July 25, 1988, the written notice of protest and request for hearing was filed. The Department forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The letter dated July 5, 1988, advising Davis that his bid was deemed non-responsive enumerated five reasons for the Department's decision. The reasons stated were: No photograph of the proposed facility was submitted as requested; No floor plan of the facility was submitted as requested; A substituted site was submitted Proposed space was not an existing building and was not measurable; Three buildings in bid proposal constitute three locations and are unacceptable. The letter was signed by Chuck Bates, DHRS Deputy District Administrator, District One. The letter was drafted by James Peters. (HO #3) Mr. Bates relied upon Peters and Pastucha to provide information sufficient to justify the disqualification of the bid, and was satisfied that the action was justified prior to signing the letter. Examination of the bid submittal package reveals that Davis failed to acknowledge by initial the requirements of page seven, but that he did, on that page, appropriately respond to questions related to proposed parking spaces being bid. The Department did not base the disqualification of the bid on the failure to acknowledge the page and did not include the failure to initial the page in the stated reasons for deeming the bid non-responsive. Paragraph 9(a) of the bid submittal form requires the submission of a clear photograph of the exterior front of the building. (HO #2) Davis submitted no photographs. Paragraph 9(b) of the bid submittal form requires the submission of a scaled floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. (HO #2) Davis submitted floor plans for the proposed-to-be-constructed building and for the off-site building, but failed to submit floor plans for the two buildings which the Department currently occupies. The bid also failed to include calculations of net rentable square footage related to the omitted floor plans. The letter to Davis stated that an additional reason for disqualification of his bid from further consideration was the submission of a substituted site, (HO #3). The "substituted site" refers to Davis' inclusion of the off-site building not identified in the bid submission other than by the statement that the building was located seven-tenths of a mile southeast of the present HRS office location. No map, street address, legal description, or other identifying information was submitted. The proposal submitted by Davis included plans to construct a third building at 417 Racetrack Road, which was rejected as not measurable. The invitation to bid states that to be considered, the space must be existing, dry and physically measurable, at the time of bid submitted. (HO #1) The proposed third building clearly fails to meet this requirement. While the Department may permit the correction of minor deficiencies, the deficiencies were adjudged by the Department to be more than minor. The proposal's inclusion of nonexisting space (Racetrack Road building #3) or in the alternative a building, the location of which can not be determined from the bid information and which the bidder apparently intends not to provide, is non- responsive to the specifications of the invitation. As to the fifth enumerated reason for disqualification of the bid (three buildings/three locations) the Department and Petitioner presented extensive testimony related to paragraph 3(b) of page 15 of the bid submittal form. Page 15 of the bid submittal form is titled "Evaluation Criteria" and contains a list of weighted factors which were to be used in the evaluation of bids. (HO #2) Paragraph 3(b) states, as one factor for consideration in evaluation, whether the bid provides for the required aggregate square footage in a single building, and continues, "[p]roposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within yards of each other." (HO #2) The space left for the specification of maximum yardage was erroneously left uncompleted by the Department and the Department did not learn of the error until the bid was submitted. The Department's disqualification of the bid on this basis relies on the Department's assertion that the three buildings included in the Davis proposal constitute three locations and that a responsive bid may contain not more than two locations. The Department's position is that "location" and "building" are synonymous and that paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria prohibits consideration of a bid submission including more than two buildings. The Department's position is rejected as arbitrary. The bid package does not state that proposals including more than two buildings will be disqualified. The sole reference to the number of buildings in a responsive bid submission is as stated and contained on the page of "Evaluation Criteria", wherein it is identified with a weighting factor of five percent of total possible points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing Case No. 88-3868BID. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3868BID The following constitute rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner: Accepted in part. The use of the word "required in the fourth sentence is rejected. The referenced section relates to evaluation factors, not specific requirements. Accepted. Accepted in part. The third building was proposed as either the off-site building or the planned, non-existent space. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as restatement of testimony. Other testimony indicated that Petitioner planned to use the off-site location for non-HRS purposes. Rejected, immaterial. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted in part. The use of the word "technical" is rejected. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. The change between the two invitations to bid was to clarify the obvious confusion related to the use of terms "location" and "building" and was made not to the bid specifications but to evaluation criteria. Rejected as restatement of testimony. Rejected, conclusion of law. Accepted so far as relevant. While the Davis bid was disqualified as non-responsive, the right to reject any and all bids encompasses the disqualification of a bid as non-responsive to the specific requirements of an invitation to bid. Respondent: Rejected, conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Floor plan of the off-site building was submitted showing that the building is essentially a hollow, box-like structure. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, irrelevant. While the usual distance may be 100 yards, the actual bid specifications do not state such. Further the sole reference to the distance between "locations" was contained in evaluation criteria. At no time prior to the June 23, 1988 bid opening did the Department attempt to identify the preferred distance between locations. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887, Suite 105 151 Mary Esther Cutoff Mary Esther, Florida 32569 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Acting District One Legal Counsel Post Office Box 8420 Pensacola, Florida 32505-8420 Joseph J. Pastucha 3300 North Pace Boulevard Room 109 Town & Country Plaza Pensacola, Florida 32505 Jan Kline 417 Racetrack Road Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 James V. Peters Department of General Services 160 Governmental Center Fourth Floor, Room 412 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Tom Batchelor Staff Director House HRS Committee The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On June 21, 1982, DGS issued specifications and contract documents as a basis for competitive bidding on a building construction project entitled "Rough Site Preparation and Grading for a Reception Center and Correctional Institution, Dade Co., Project No. DC-8037/8135," for the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. The specifications and contract documents were prepared by DGS' consulting architect/engineer ("A/E") Paragraph B-10 of the specifications provided that requests for correction or interpretation of the meaning of drawings and specifications or other bidding documents should be in writing, addressed to the A/E, and that all such interpretations and supplemental instructions would be in the form of written addenda to the bidding documents. In addition, subparagraph B-3 of the specifications for the project provided that each ". . . bidder is required to be familiar with all Federal, State and Local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that in any manner affect the work. Ignorance on the part of the bidder will in no way relieve him from responsibility." Further, subparagraph B- 11 of the specifications provides as follows: Bidders are required, before submitting their proposals, to visit the site of the proposed work and completely familiarize themselves with the nature and extent of the work and any local conditions that may in any manner affect the work to be performed and the equipment, materials and labor required. They are also required to examine carefully the Drawings, Specifications and other Bidding Documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner affect the work. By letter of July 6, 1982, Capeletti, as a prospective bidder, called to the attention of the A/E that an existing road near the north boundary of the property on which the project is to be constructed, which was designated on the site location plan drawing as Northwest 41st Street, was not a public road, but was, instead, a private road on private property. In fact, the road depicted as Northwest 41st Street on the plans and specifications is owned by Florida Power and Light Corporation, and has not been dedicated for public use. Capeletti has been granted an exclusive right-of-way by Florida Power and Light Corporation for use of that road. A fence with a gate installed by Capeletti at some time in the past blocks access to the road, and a sign on the gate advises visitors that the roadway is under private ownership. In its letter to the A/E Capeletti inquired whether another access road would be provided to the bidder ultimately awarded the contract. The A/E did not issue a written addendum in response to Capeletti's letter, nor were any prospective bidders notified in writing by the A/E of the absence of a public access road. Both Bergeron and Capeletti submitted bids on the project. Bids were opened on July 14, 1982, and the apparent low bidder was Bergeron, whose bid totaled $1,985,000. The amount of the second lowest bid was $2,390,000, and Capeletti's bid totaled $2,565,000, or $585,000 more than Bergeron's bid. The estimated DGS project budget for this project was established at $2,400,000 prior to the opening of the bids. Bergeron's bid was, therefore, $415,000 below the DGS estimate of the cost to do the project. By letter dated August 19, 1982, DGS gave notice to all bidders of its intent to award the contract to Bergeron. Within 72 hours after receipt of DGS' notice, Capeletti filed a Notice of Protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and within ten days thereafter filed its Petition for Formal Hearing. Capeletti's petition requested that the contract be awarded to Capeletti, since it was the only bidder having legal access to the project site, or, alternatively, that all bids be rejected and the project rebid. By letter dated September 22, 1982, DGS notified Bergeron and Capeletti that it was rejecting all bids, and further advised them that: We have determined that the specifications contained a mistake of material fact concerning access to the job site. Although there is no public road adjacent to the site and the state did not otherwise have access, the drawings indicated that a public street, Northwest 41st Street, adjoined the site on our north boundary. This was a misleading representation. When access is obtained, it may be at a different location and may affect the amount of the bid. The Department desires to give bidders an equal opportunity to bid on the project with knowledge of the access location after it is obtained. The Department proposes to rebid the project in the near future, combining the rough site preparation and the buildings into a single project, and you will be notified of the date when' specifications will be available. (Emphasis added.) After receipt of the DGS letter of September 22, 1982, Bergeron timely filed a Notice of Protest and its Petition in this cause, protesting the rejection of bids. The Capeletti and Bergeron petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes and for entry of a Recommended Order in this proceeding. Subparagraph B-22 of the specifications, entitled "Rejection of Bids," provides as follows: The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the proposal of a bidder who the Owner determines is not in a position to perform the Contract. . . At the time bids for the proposed project were invited, opened and rejected, there was no existing public road that contractors could use to gain access to the building site, and there was no private road adjacent to the state-owned property. That situation remained the same at the time of final hearing in this cause on October 25, 1982. DGS apparently knew, however, prior to the filing of Capeletti's protest that there was no public access to the job site. The DGS Chief of Construction for the Bureau of Construction testified that, prior to the filing of the Capeletti protest: . . . it was my understanding that the Department of Corrections had worked with . . . [Dade] county, and the county was going to provide the access and make arrangements for the access along the road designated as the Florida Power and Light private road and the A. J. Capeletti private road and along Northwest 41st Street. As required by the contract documents, Bergeron, prior to submitting its bid, visited the site of the proposed project and observed the aforementioned gate blocking what was delineated on the project drawings as an extension of Northwest 41st Street. Upon further inquiry, Bergeron determined that the roadway depicted on the project drawings as an extension of North West 41st Street adjacent to the north boundary of the project was in fact not publicly dedicated. As a result, Bergeron, in formulating and submitting its bid, contemplated the construction of a temporary haul road of approximately 4,200 feet in order to access the project site. Bergeron apparently factored into its bid amount approximately $155,000 to $160,000 for the cost of building this temporary haul road. The project specifications did not call for the construction of either a temporary or permanent access road into the project area. Bergeron does not have definitive plans for the location of any such temporary haul road, and has indicated only that it would attempt to obtain permission from adjacent private property owners to use their property for that purpose. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding from which it can in any way be concluded that such an arrangement cannot be accomplished. The State of Florida, Department of Corrections, is under a federal court mandate to have the entire facility, of which this contract is merely a part, available for use in the near future. There is, however, no evidence of record from which the exact date of such required availability can be determined, nor any indication that accepting Bergeron's bid would adversely affect that availability. The contract documents provide for delay damages payable to the contractor in case of a delay for reasons other than changes in the work of 10 percent of the contract price per day, divided by the number of days in the contract period. One of the reasons advanced by DGS for rejecting all bids is that failure to do so could result in claims for damages by Bergeron in the event of any delay in obtaining access to the job site. This fear would seem unfounded for two reasons. First, although the contract is a 150-calendar-day contract, the contract time does not begin to run until DGS issues a Notice to Proceed. No contractual provision sets an exact time in which any such notice should issue. Accordingly, it may well be that either DGS or Bergeron can solve any access problem before issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Secondly, Bergeron submitted its bid with full knowledge that there was no public access available, planning instead to furnish its own method of accessing the site. Indeed, Bergeron still contended in this proceeding that it was willing to perform the obligations of this contract at the price it had bid, including providing its own access to the site. Under these circumstances, it would seem improbable that any claim for delay concerning access could be deemed meritorious. The contract drawings show an entrance road running in a north-south direction from the buildings to be constructed on the project site to the northern boundary of the property. The bid drawings show the length of the entrance road to be built on the site as actually 103 feet less than will be necessary to join that access road to any improved roadway which would run east- west to connect with the current termination point of North West 41st Street. There is no showing in the record that this discrepancy in the plans in any way affected the amount of any bid on the project, and, as such, is not considered to be a "material error. DGS has also contended that re-letting the bids on this project may result in a cost-saving by combining with it certain other portions of the overall project. Only one witness was offered by DGS on this point, and his testimony regarding potential cost-savings is not persuasive, primarily because it appears to be based entirely on speculation, and was offered without any record showing of design criteria for any such revised project upon which to base such a conclusion. The testimony in this case reveals that DGS has been involved in siting and designing this project since 1974. DGS has failed to establish that it is in the best interest of the State of Florida, at this late date, to reject a bid that was directly responsive to the bidding documents, in an amount $415,000 below DGS' own project estimate, on the basis of speculation that some apparently hypothetical change in project plans might possibly result in a cost- saving.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "District") advertised for bids on Contract No. M-0137, Bid No. B-85-91, for the construction of a structure maintenance facility. The Specifications and Contract Documents for the project required that bidders submit a "Base Bid," which related to the essential components of the project, and three "add alternates," which related to additional items that the District might contract for over and above the Base Bid. The Notice To Contractors regarding this project included the following language: The right is reserved, as the interest of the District may require, to reject any or all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposal, or to readvertise for other or future proposals. Paragraph 2 of the Instructions To Bidders includes the following language: "The intent of the Proposal Form is to secure a price, based on unit prices, for the work described in the Contract. . . ." (emphasis added) Paragraph 4 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: The District reserves the right to reject any and all proposals (i) when such rejection is in the interest of the District; (ii) if such proposal is void per se; or (iii) if the proposal contains any irregularities, PROVIDED, however, that the District reserves the right to waive any irregularities and to accept the lowest responsible bidder's proposal determined by the Engineer on the basis of the gross sum for which the work will be performed, arrived at by a correct computation of the base bid plus the alternate bid item or items selected by the District. Bid items will be considered by the District on the has is of budgetary capability. (First emphasis in original; second emphasis added.) Paragraph 5 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: Proposals will be considered irregular if they show omissions, unauthorized alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or other irre- gularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are unbalanced either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values, or incomplete in any manner, including failure to bid on all items on the bid form. Paragraph 8 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No proposal can be withdrawn after it is filed unless the Bidder makes his request in writing to the District prior to the time set for the opening of bids, or unless the District fails to accept it within sixty (60) days after the date fixed for opening bids. Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No interpretation of the meaning of the Plans, Specifications or other Contract Documents will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation should be in writing addressed to the Engineering & Construction Division, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, Post Office Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33402, and to be given consideration must be received at least Ten (10) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the Specifications which, if issued, will be mailed by registered mail to all prospective bidders (at the respective addresses furnished for such purposes) not later than Five (5) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Failure of any bidder to receive any such Addendum of interpretation shall not relieve any bidder from any obligation under his bid as submitted. All addenda so issued shall become part of the Contract Documents. The bid items are described in Section 01021 of the Specifications and Contract Documents. Subsection 1.01 of that Section describes what is included in the Base Bid as follows: The Base Bid includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for: Structure Maintenance Facility, complete. Building utilities including all rough-in required for alternate bid items whether or not alternate bids are accepted. Site work including utilities. All other costs of the project not attributable to Items 1 thru 3 above or Alternate Bid Nos. 1 thru 3 below. Subsection 1.02 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 1 as follows: In the Base Bid all structural supports to receive the monorail trolley beams and hoists are included. Alternate No. 1 includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for two 15 ton capacity monorail hoists and trolley beams complete and operational. Work includes all final utility connections to points indicated on drawings, shipping, unloading at site, installation and final check-out and instruction to owner on operation of equipment as well as all other costs not attributable to items previously mentioned. Subsection 1.03 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 2 as follows: In the Base Bid all mechanical and electrical rough-in is to be provided for the two offices and the toilet and locker rooms above. Alternate No. 2 includes all costs over the Base Bid for completing the offices, toilets and locker rooms including all plumbing and lighting fixtures, partitions, lockers finishes, structure and metal stair as indicated and specified in the applicable sections of these specifications. Subsection 1.04 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 3 as follows: The Base Bid includes all site grading to finish elevations indicated. Alternate No. 3 includes all costs over the Base bid for providing subsurface preparation and asphaltic concrete paving to finish elevations indicated as described in Section 02513 for all areas where asphaltic concrete paving is shown. In September of 1984 the District had received bids for a similar project. Similar contract documents and bid forms were used for the project. Cox & Palmer Construction Company, Overland Construction Company, Inc., and Booth Construction, Inc., all submitted bids on the September 1984 project. All of the bids submitted on the September 1984 project, including the Booth bid, were submitted on an add alternates" basis. All of the September 1984 bids were rejected. A total of seven bidders submitted bids on the instant project. With the exception of Booth Construction, Inc., all of the bidders on the instant project calculated their bids on an "add alternates" basis. It was the clear intent of the architecture firm that prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents that the bids should be submitted on an add alternates" basis. There were no irregularities in the bidding process regarding the instant project prior to the opening of the first bid. At the duly appointed time a representative of the District began the process of opening and announcing the amounts of the bids. The first bid to be opened was the bid submitted by Overland Construction Company, Inc. The amounts bid by Overland were as follows: Base Bid $ 378,800 Alternate No. 1 64,000 Alternate No. 2 18,000 Alternate No. 3 11,200 Immediately after the announcement of the amounts bid by Overland, Mr. York, the Director of the District's Engineering and Construction Division, asked, "Is that an add-on or deduct?" Someone in the audience answered that it was an "add-on" bid. Mr. Gerachi, on behalf of Booth, promptly stated that the alternates should have been bid as "deducts". A general discussion ensued among members of the audience regarding whether the alternates should have been bid as "add-on" or "deducts." In order to continue with the bid opening process and to restore order in the room, a representative of the District announced that the matter would be resolved when the bids were tabulated and another representative of the District began the process of opening the rest of the bids. The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was the fourth bid to be opened. The amounts written on the Booth bid were as follows: Base Bid $ 396,586 Alternate No. 1 54,072 Alternate No. 2 14,597 Alternate No. 3 9,185 Immediately after the amounts of the Booth bid were announced, Mr. Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. stood up and stated that the Booth bid had been calculated on the basis of "deduct" alternates. The essence of his statement was that in calculating the amount of his company's Base Bid he had added to the base bid the sum of the three alternate bids with the understanding that the amounts shown for any of the three alternates would be deducted from his Base Bid if the District decided not to award a contract for one or more of the alternates. This statement following the opening of the Booth bid was the first time that anyone on behalf of Booth had made a specific unambiguous statement to representatives of the District responsible for this bidding process regarding the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated. 1/ The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company was opened after the Booth bid. The amounts bid by Cox & Palmer were as follows: Base Bid $ 392,225 Alternate No. 1 38,770 Alternate No. 2 19,200 Alternate No. 3 11,456 The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was prepared by both Vincent Gerachi, an estimator and project manager employed by Booth Construction, Inc., and by Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. Mr. Gerachi has been an estimator on construction projects for approximately 12 years. Mr. Booth has been in the construction business for approximately 30 years and has had his own construction company for about 18 years. Both Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth were uncertain whether the alternate bids were supposed to be bid as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Neither of them attempted to do anything to resolve their uncertainty until the morning of the very day on which bids were to be submitted. On that morning Mr. Gerachi called a representative of the District to ask whether the bid should be prepared with the alternate bids calculated as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Mr. Gerachi spoke to Mr. Brown at the District, who suggested that Mr. Gerachi call the architecture firm that had prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders (see paragraph 6 of these findings of fact, above), it is a customary practice of the trade for bidders to communicate directly with project architects to resolve any uncertainties in the Specifications and Contract Documents. Indeed, it is generally understood in the trade that it is the duty of the bidder to communicate with the project architect to seek resolution of any ambiguities. Mr. Gerachi tried to reach the project architect by telephone, but was unable to reach him because the architect had already left his office to drive to the bid opening. Mr. Gerachi did not have an opportunity to talk to the architect prior to filing the Booth Construction bid because the architect did not come into the bid opening room until about one minute after 2:00 p.m. Mr. Gerachi talked to Mr. and Mrs. Booth before turning in the Booth bid. Mr. Gerachi prepared the Booth bid with the alternate bids calculated as "deducts" from the Base Bid. In other words, the amount of the Base Bid on the Booth bid included the sum of the three alternate bids, which alternate bids were also separately stated on the Booth bid. Alvin Booth participated in the preparation of the bid and was aware of the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated before the bid was submitted to the District. Even though the Base Bid on the Booth bid is in the amount of $396,586, it was the intention of Booth Construction, Inc., to bid $318,732 for the work described as being within the scope of the Base Bid. The reason for the higher amount being entered for the booth Base Bid is that Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth misinterpreted the Specifications and Contract Documents and added to the Booth Base Bid the sum of the Booth bids on each of the three Alternate Bids. 2/ This misinterpretation of the Specifications and Contract Documents was caused by the culpable negligence or willful inattention of Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth. After all of the bids were opened a representative of the District announced that the District would consider the matter and notify all bidders of its decision at a later date. Thereafter the District, having concluded that Booth Construction, Inc., had acted in good faith and that the irregularities in the form of its bid were "minor irregularities," decided to treat the oral statements by Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth as amendments to the Booth bid, to treat the Booth Base Bid as being $318,732, and to award a contract to Booth Construction, Inc., for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $372,804, calculated as follows: $318,732 (Amended Booth Base Bid) 54,072 (Booth Alternate No. 1 Bid) $372,804 (Total Contract) Booth Construction, Inc., has the ability to perform the contract and can perform the contract for the proposed contract amount of $372,804. Booth Construction, Inc., is a responsible bidder. The District estimate of the cost of the work covered by the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 was $329,000. There are no irregularities in the bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company. Cox and Palmer Construction Company is a responsible and responsive bidder. The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer is the lowest responsive bid for the combination of the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1. 3/ The foregoing findings of fact include the substance of the majority of the findings proposed by the parties, although I have rejected a number of unnecessary details and editorial comments in the parties' proposals. Any proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are rejected on the grounds of not being supported by competent substantial evidence or as being contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the irregularities in the Booth Construction, Inc., bid may not be waived and that the bid will be considered, as submitted, to be a Base Bid in the amount of $396,586; Concluding that in view of the foregoing treatment of the Booth bid, the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company is found to be the lowest responsive bid for the Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1; Concluding that the District will accept the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company and enter into a contract with Palmer & Cox Construction Company consistent with the amounts bid by Palmer & Cox Construction Com- pany for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1; and Concluding that the petition of Overland Construction Company, Inc., is dismissed for lack of standing. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of July, 1985.
