The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Children and Families, properly rejected all bids received on an Invitation to Bid on Proposed Lease No. 590:2622.
Findings Of Fact The Existing Lease and the Decision to Look for New Space. District 7 of the Respondent, the Department of Children and Families (at all times relevant to this proceeding, the Department of Children and Families was known as the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)(hereinafter referred to as the “District”), leases approximately 26,955 spare feet of office space located in Palm Bay, Brevard County, Florida. The space is used as a client service center. Pursuant to the District’s current lease, the lease will expire on April 30, 1997. The current lease (hereinafter referred to as the “Existing Lease”) was still in effect at the time of the formal hearing of this matter. The Existing Lease also provides for a five-year renewal. For the first two years of the renewal period, the Existing Lease provides for a rental rate of $11.50 per square foot. For the third and fourth years of the renewal the rate is $11.75 and for the last year, $12.00. In June of 1995, the District submitted a Letter of Agency Staffing (hereinafter referred to as a “LAS”) and a Request for Prior Approval of Space Need (hereinafter referred to as a “RSN”), to the Department of Management Services. Pursuant to the LAS and RSN, the District sought approval from the Department of Management Services to seek a new lease of 26,872 square feet of office space in Palm Bay. The reasons given for seeking approval of a new lease set out in the RSN were as follows: New Service Center in Brevard County(Palm Bay Area). The existing lease is up! 4/30/97. The current space does not adequately provide for : (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage. The June of 1995, RSN was approved. The District, however, did not immediately seek the approved space. The evidence failed to prove why. In July of 1996 the District submitted another Request for Space Need (hereinafter referred to as the “Second RSN”). The same amount of space was sought and the same justification for seeking new space was described in the Second RSN. The Second RSN was approved by the Department of Management Services on or about July 8, 1996. The RSN and the Second RSN were prepared by Jim Birch. Mr. Birch is the District’s Facilities Services Manager. The reason for seeking a new lease set out in the RSN and the Second RSN was provided to Mr. Birch by Bill Rawlings and Philip Penley. Mr. Penley is the District’s Sub-District Administrator for Brevard County. Mr. Rawlings is the Program Administrator for Brevard County. The Existing Lease was first entered into in 1977. The amount of space leased has increased over the years and is located in more than one building. Mr. Penley decided to request approval to seek new space in the hopes that the client service center in Palm Bay could be moved under one roof and in the hopes that more ideal space could be obtained. The representation in the RSN and the Second RSN that the existing space “does not adequately provide for: (1) Secured storage, visitation areas, and case file storage” is misleading and incorrect. The programs located in the existing space in Palm Bay can, in fact, be carried out without relocating. The Invitation to Bid. The District released an Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as the “ITB”), between July 16 and July 19, 1996. The ITB provided that the “Project Contact Person” was Mr. Birch. The ITB sought bids on proposed lease number 590:2622, for approximately 26,872 square feet of office space in an existing building. The ITB sought office space in Palm Bay. The building was to be used as the District’s client service center. The term of the lease was to be ten years with five one-year optional renewal periods. The ITB scheduled a pre-bid meeting for August 8, 1996. Attendance at the meeting was not mandatory. The ITB specified, however, that “information and explanations provided at this meeting must be complied with by the bidder ” A representative of Petitioner, Executive Ventures (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”), attended the pre-bid meeting on August 8, 1996. During that meeting, the lessor under the Existing Lease asked questions about the renewal terms of the Existing Lease. Executive’s representative informed Executive of the discussions soon after the meeting. Executive was, therefore, aware of the existence of the Existing Lease and the fact that it could be renewed prior to submitting a bid in response to the ITB. The ITB provided that bids could be submitted at any time up to 10:00 a.m., September 12, 1996. Bids were to be opened at the close of the bidding period. The ITB provided that all bids received were to be evaluated first for technical responsiveness. Nonresponsive bids were to be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids were to be presented to a bid evaluation committee “for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award.” The ITB informed potential bidders that the District reserved the right to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. The first page of the ITB provides that “[t]he Florida Department of [Children and Families] reserves the right to reject any and all bids and award to the bid judged to be in the best interest of the state.” At page A1-5-8 of the ITB the following is provided concerning the rejection of bids: ITB. REJECTION OF BIDS 1. The department reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification which shall be communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail. [Emphasis in original]. . . . . Bids Submitted in Response to the ITB. A total of four bids were submitted in response to the The bids were opened on September 12, 1996. A bid tabulation sheet was prepared by Mr. Birch. The annual rental rates per square foot for the ten years of the lease were included on the tabulation as required by the ITB. Pursuant to the ITB, no other information was provided at the time the bids were opened and tabulated Executive submitted one of the four bids. Executive’s bid consisted of 90 to 100 pages. Executive expended a good deal of effort and incurred expenses in the amount of approximately $17,000.00 in preparing its bid. The suggestion that Executive incurred unnecessary expenses is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The rental rates per square foot bid by Executive for the term of the proposed leased are as follows: Year Rate 1 $14.56 2 15.00 3 15.53 4 16.08 5 16.73 6 17.40 7 18.10 8 19.01 9 19.96 10 20.96 The District’s Decision to Reject All Bids. Mr. Birch had expected to receive rental rate bids in the range of $12.00 to $13.00. Mr. Birch’s expectation was based upon what he had been told to expect by John Stewart and Mr. Penley. Mr. Stewart is the District’s General Service Manager. Upon tabulating the bids, Mr. Birch discovered that the bids were higher than expected. He realized that the bids were $3.00 per square foot higher than the Existing Lease. Mr. Birch contacted Mr. Stewart and informed him of the difference in rates. Mr. Stewart informed Mr. Penley of the rates that had been bid. Mr. Penley informed Mr. Stewart that the bid rates were too high. Mr. Stewart then informed Sid McAlister, the Deputy District Administrator, and Paul Sneed. Mr. McAlister and Mr. Sneed told Mr. Stewart that the rates bid were excessive. Mr. Stewart subsequently directed Mr. Birch to notify the bidders that all bids were being rejected. Had the bids received in response to the ITB been accepted, the District would have been required to pay an additional approximately $80,000.00 in rent during the first year of the lease. The amount of rent required in the second year would be in excess of $80,000.00. The decision to reject all bids was based upon a realization of the impact the rates contained in the bids would have on the District’s budget if the lowest bid were accepted in relation to the impact on the District’s budget of the rates of the Existing Lease. The District realized that the increase in rent would have a substantial negative impact on its budget. It was also suggested that the impact on the District’s budget as a result of the newly enacted Federal “Welfare Reform Act” was also considered. In particular, the impact of the Welfare Reform Act’s “Work and Gaining Economic Self Sufficiency” or “WAGES” program was considered. The Welfare Reform Act and, consequently WAGES, was signed into law in August of 1996. WAGES was effective October 1, 1996. Among other things, WAGES establishes time limits for the District’s clients' receipt of cash benefits. It also results in the integration of programs of the District and the Department of Labor. This integration of programs will have impacts on the District’s space needs, staffing levels and the ability to pay rental rates in the future. Mr. Penley was aware of WAGES. It was suggested that at the time the ITB was issued little was known about the impact on the District that WAGES would have and that it was not until the bids were received that Mr. Penley had sufficient information concerning WAGES to be concerned about the impact of WAGES on the District’s budget. The weight of the evidence in this case failed to prove that when the decision of the District to reject all bids was made that the decision was based upon WAGES. While the impact of WAGES was of greater concern at the time of the formal hearing, the evidence failed to prove that the District’s concern about WAGES as explained at the formal hearing was taken into account at the time the bids were rejected. Notice of the District’s Decision to Reject All Bids. On September 13, 1996, the day after the bids were opened, the District sent a letter to Executive and the other bidders informing them of the decision to reject all bids: This is to give notice that in the best interest of the State of Florida and the Department of [Children and Families], that any and all bids are hereby rejected. The letter was signed by Mr. Birch. The letter informing Executive of the decision was sent by certified mail. “Strong justification” for the rejection was not “communicated to each rejected bidder by certified mail.” After receiving the September 13, 1996 rejection letter, Executive was informed during a telephone call with Mr. Birch that all bids had been rejected due to excessive rental rates and budgetary constraints. The District failed to comply with the requirement of the ITB that it inform bidders by certified mail of the reason why it rejected all bids. The appropriate remedy for this error, however, would not be to require that the District now evaluate the bids. The appropriate remedy for the error would be to require that the District send out a corrected notice by certified mail containing the explanation of the reasons for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. This remedy would only be appropriate, however, if Executive had sought such a remedy AND the evidence had proved that Executive had been prejudiced by the failure to provide the explanation of the District’s justification for rejecting all bids contemplated by the ITB. Evidence to support such a finding was not presented. In fact, the evidence proved that Executive was not prejudiced by the District’s error. Executive was given additional information concerning the bid rejection during a telephone conversation and it had an opportunity to explore the reasons for the rejection through discovery prior to the formal hearing of this case. Executive, therefore, had the opportunity to determine the specific justification for the rejection in preparation for the hearing on this matter. Zone Rates. The Department of Management Services establishes maximum rental rates which agencies can agree to pay without obtaining approval of the Department of Management Services. The rates are established for geographic zones on what is referred to as a “Zone Rate Schedule”. Zone Rate Schedules may be obtained from the Department of Management Services or other agencies by potential bidders. At all times relevant to this proceeding Executive was aware of the Zone Rate Schedule applicable to Palm Bay. Rental rates which do not exceed the zone rate by more than 10% may be accepted by an agency without further approval from the Department of Management Services. Any rate in excess of 10% over the zone rate must be approved by the Department of Management Services before an agency may accept it. The rental rates submitted by Executive in response to the ITB exceeded the zone rate but not by more than 10%. Individuals involved with the District’s decision in this matter either were not aware of the Zone Rate Schedule or gave it no consideration in deciding to reject all bids. The evidence also failed to prove that agreeing to pay a rate included on a Zone Rate Schedule for which approval from the Department of Management Services need not be obtained is necessarily in the “best interest of the state”. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that the District did not have a reasonable basis for rejecting all bids despite the fact that the rates bid by Executive were within the Zone Rate Schedule plus 10%. Executive’s Challenge. Executive filed a Protest dated September 25, 1996, challenging as arbitrary the Department’s decision to reject all bids. In its Protest Executive alleged the following “facts” in support of its argument that the District’s rejection of all bids was arbitrary: The District failed to “communicate to each rejected bidder any justification whatsoever for rejecting any and all bids.” The District had decided to “reject any and all bids if the bid rental per square foot exceeded the rental they were paying under their present Lease, since such Lease had an option to renew for an additional five years. The present Lease renewal failed to comply with the requirements and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid.” The District, “at all times, knew that if such bids exceeded the square foot rental of the present Lease, that they intended to reject all bids and renew the existing Lease, although the existing Lease failed to meet the bid specifications.” The District “violated the competitive bidding procedure by failing to include in their Invitation to Bid a provision that any bid exceeding a specific dollar amount per square foot would be rejected in favor of the existing Lease. ” Although the evidence proved the first fact cited in finding of fact 51, that fact does not support a conclusion that the District’s decision was arbitrary. As to the other facts alleged by Executive in its Protest cited in finding of fact 53, the evidence simply failed to prove those alleged facts. At hearing, Executive presented the testimony of Mary Goodman, a consultant and former Chief of the Bureau of Property Management, Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman was accepted as an expert witness. Ms. Goodman opined that the District’s actions in this matter were arbitrary. Ms. Goodman’s opinion was based in part on her conclusion that the submittal of the RSN and the Second RSN constituted a “determination by the Department to not renew the existing lease.” The evidence failed to support this contention. Executive has failed to cite any provision of Florida law which supports this contention. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the assumption that the District had established a rental rate cap which it failed to inform prospective bidders of. The evidence failed to support this assumption. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on the fact that the bid submitted by Executive was within the Zone Rate Schedule for the area. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the fact that the bids were within 10% of the Zone Rate Schedule rates means that the decision to reject bids that would have cost the District approximately $80,000.00 the first year in additional rent was arbitrary because the rental bids did not require approval of the Department of Management Services. Executive has cited no provision of Florida law that requires agencies to accept bids simple because they do not require approval from the Department of Management Services. Ms. Goodman also based her opinion on her conclusion that the District should have known of its budgetary constraints before issuance of the ITB. Ms. Goodman, however, acknowledged that she knew nothing specifically about the District’s budget. Finally, Ms. Goodman based her opinion on the District’s failure to provide the notice of the District’s reason for rejecting the bids required by the ITB. As discussed, supra, the evidence failed to support this conclusion. The evidence failed to prove that Executive filed the action for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Children and Families dismissing the Protest filed by Executive Ventures. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Smith, Esquire SMITH, GRIMSLEY, BAUMAN, PINKERTON, PETERMANN, SAXER, WELLS Post Office Box 2379 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Eric D. Dunlap Assistant District Legal Counsel Department of Children and Families 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard A. Doran General Counsel Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the certified general contractor's licenses and the registered roofing contractor's licenses held by Petitioner Robert J. Nali should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact The certified General Contractor's License number CG-C007395 and CG- CB07395, and the Registered Roofing Contractor's License number RC0028067, issued to Robert J. Nali are active and current. Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Charles Rapp on June 1, 1977, to have a house constructed for the contract price of $29,500. The home was financed through the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Leesburg for the sum of $27,730. Disbursed directly to Respondent Nali in five different draws was $16,638. These disbursements left a total of $11,092 in the bank account for completion of the home. Two bills remain unpaid, one for $500 and one for $560.92. Cost of the home was approximately $2,035.87 above the contract price. Two liens were filed against Mr. Rapp's property which were satisfied out of construction funds from the bank, one by Adobe Building Center, Inc., in the amount of $1,315 and one by Branch Garage Door Sales in the amount of $171.38. Respondent Nali admitted that the Kennedy Company supplied air conditioning duct work for the home, and that Yale Ogron Builders provided labor as a subcontractor; that he was paid for the supplies provided by the Kennedy Company on the second drawing, and for the labor provided by Yale Ogron Builders on the fourth draw. Respondent Nali admitted he did not pay these concerns although he did receive the funds for the material and labor supplied. Mr. Rapp fired Mr. Nali and completed the home himself. There was no date of completion in the contract, but Respondent did not actively pursue the completion. Respondent Nali entered into a contract with Mr. Charles Fosmoen in June of 1977, for the purpose of constructing a home. The contract price was $28,150. The home was financed through the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Leesburg for the sum of $26,471. Disbursed to Nali under the contract was $19,845.75. The disbursement left a total of $6,625.25 to complete the house. Expended to complete construction of the home in accordance with the contract was $9,351.08, an excess of $2,725.83 of the contract price. A claim of lien was filed against the Fosmoen home by Lake Pre-Hung Door Manufacturing Company, Inc. Mr. Nali was fired from the job and, although no time was designated in the contract for completion, Respondent Nali did not actively pursue the construction of the home. A contract was entered into with Mrs. Ellen Haffey on November 16, 1977, to construct the shell of a home for the contract price of $17,600. Mrs. Haffey paid the sum of $10,000 directly to Respondent and expended a sum of $6,625.93 to complete the house as contracted. She has bills remaining unpaid in the amount of $3,620.50. Spent by Mrs. Haffey above the contract price was $2,648.43. Mrs. Haffey, a contractor, dismissed Mr. Nali, and the house is not yet completed. A claim of lien was filed against Mrs. Haffey's property on behalf of Leesburg Building Materials, Inc., in the amount of $4,384.47. The lien was for materials which had been delivered to the project site and should have been paid for out of the sum previously paid to Respondent. Mrs. Haffey paid $4,000 for the third draw instead of $6,000, as called for by the contract, a fact that prevented Respondent from timely payment of bills. A lien was filed on Mrs. Haffey's property by Keeman Brick of Central Florida, Inc., in the amount of $1,238.03. Respondent admitted he was charged with a criminal violation of misapplication of funds but pled nole contendere, and adjudication was withheld. A document entitled "Stipulation on Motion for Clarification and Modification" was received into evidence. The document constitutes an admission of Respondent that restitution was due from him to the complainants, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Rapp, Mrs. and Mrs. Charles Fosmoen, and Mrs. Ellen Haffey. Petitioner contends that Respondent diverted funds he had received to pay two subcontractors for the Rapp home; that although he may Waive underbid the Rapp and Fosmoen he later also underbid the Haffey contract, which caused these consumers inconvenience and loss and violated a contractor's position of trust. Respondent contends that he could have finished each of the houses within the contract terms, since time was not of the essence. He contended that increased building material costs contributed to the delay of the housing construction, and that he could have finished the houses were he not fired from each of the construction projects. Respondent denied that he had diverted any funds from construction projects. The Hearing Officer further finds: Both Mr. and Mrs. Rapp and Mr. and Mrs. Fosmoen gave Respondent Nali notice that they were dissatisfied because Mr. Nali was not actively finishing the construction of their respective homes. Both gave him notice and an opportunity to recommence active construction, which he did not resume; The dates of completion of homes were not specified in the contracts, but oral promises were given that the homes would be completed within a reasonable time. The delay caused each complainant much inconvenience; Liens were filed against these homes for nonpayment of bills. Respondent did not pay the liens; Each of the three homes cost more than the contracted price before said homes were completed by the parties contracting with Mr. Nali. Mr. Nali received money from Mr. Rapp for work and supplies provided by the Kennedy Company and Yale Ogron Builders, yet Respondent did not pay for these materials or work; and The complainants were justified in dismissing Respondent.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Robert J. Nali for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joan L. Wollin, Esquire Post Office Box 236 Leesburg, Florida 32748 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 78-2103 ROBERT J. NALI, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is-called a "Turnkey Lease". The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation where by agencies seeking space for their operations may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building thereon sufficient to-meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to DGS, DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provision of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into; it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval as to the conditions; and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy as well as code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, set forth the requirements for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2,500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DCS utilizes that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, the District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a Certification of Need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983, and after project review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 p.m., on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Services Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest hid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional higher bids would be evaluated if the four lowest bids were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc., Kenneth R. McGurn, one of the Intervenors (McGurn submitted five prices scheduled for his bid and of these, only one was considered); Elizabethan, Petitioner herein; and TSU. Only three bids are pertinent to the discussion here. They are #8-C (McGurn); #11 (Elizabethan); and #12 (TSU). In pertinent particulars, these bids provided as to rental costs: 8-C 11 12 1st yr $14.00/$220,808 $8.95/$ 61,916.10 S 7.16/$ 49,532.88 2nd yr 14.00/ 220,8088 8.95/ 141,159.40 7.35/ 115,924.20 3rd yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 7.62/ 120,182.64 4th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.08/ 127,437.76 5th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.33/ 131,380.76 6th vr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.59/ 135,481.48 7th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 8.86/ 139,739.92 8th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 9.19/ 144,944.68 9th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 9.58/ 151,095.76 10th yr 14.00/ 220,808 8.95/ 141,159.40 10.09/ 159,139.48 Renewal Option 1st yr3.00/47,316 9.93/ 156,615.96 10.51/ 165,763.72 2nd yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 10.99/ 173,334.28 3rd yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 11.48/ 181,062.56 4th yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 11.99/ 189,106.28 5th yr3.00/47.316 9.93/ 156,615.96 12.51/ 197,307.72 Total Basic Overall Lease 1-15 yrs $1,971,500 $2,115,430.50 $2,181,434.12 Average Sq.Ft. for 15 yrs $8.60 $9.20 $9.58 A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III, that McGurn's bid be selected, was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, upon completion of the committee's evaluation was also evaluated by Ms. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGurn bid to be the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGurn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Ms. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisement for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. In determining the McGurn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all the bids, Ms. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into con- sideration pro-ration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen year probable term of the lease (ten years basic plus five year option). According to Ms. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Ms. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for may years and many of the bidders here have bid before using this same system. All bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information will be considered along with that of all the other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. Petitioner contends that McGurn's bid does not conform to either the normal bidding procedure followed by contractors in this type of procurement over the past years or to the normal bidding procedures adopted by Respondent, DHRS. It urges that the questioned bid is non-responsive and front-end loaded to the detriment of DHRS. With regard to the front-end loading objection, Mr. Taylor, testifying for Petitioner, attempted to indicate by graphic evidence that Elizabethan's bid, which he claims is not front-end loaded, is cheaper to the State than that of McGurn. Due to the large rental cost of the McGurn bid in the opening years of the lease, the State would have to borrow money to make the large rental payments; the interest cost of which, when added to the $3.00 cost in the option years, raises the cost considerably and makes the bid not the lowest. Though Mr. Taylor testified to this he failed to produce any independent evidence to support it. In addition, Taylor urges, under the McGurn schedule, McGurn would recoup his entire construction debt (approximately $423.00 plus interest) in the first four years of the lease: Comparing the two bids, it appears that the State would pay McGurn approximately $494,500.00 more than it would pay Elizabethan for the same period during the first seven years of the lease. Considering this, it is Taylor's belief that McGurn's profit after the fourth year is excessive. He contends also that when, after the tenth year, McGurn's rental rate drops to $3.00 per square foot for the remaining five years which constitutes the option period of the lease, the State could not afford to leave the low figure and as a result, the ten year lease is converted to a l5 year lease which is unresponsive. Further, the $3.00 figure for the last years, which would ostensibly show a loss to McGurn, is misleading in that there would be sufficient income from the advance profit garnered in years 5 to 10, when invested, to cover the soft costs and more in these later years. Admitting that because of its involvement in other turnkey projects in Florida, Elizabethan is aware of the State policy on cost evaluation, Taylor contends that while his bid does not violate State policy, McGurn's bid does because it would be fiscally irresponsible for the State to pay so much up front. This conclusion is his opinion, however, and not supported by any independent evidence. Both expert witnesses, Respondents Scott and Perry, who testified for the Intervenor, TSU, agree that the present value of money should be considered in evaluating rental costs. Their major point of difference is in the percentage of discount rate to be applied. Dr. Perry urges that use of the 10% rate mandated by the U. S. Government in its procurements of this nature. Dr. Scott, on the other hand, considers this to be too high and urges a rate in the area of 3% be used. The significance of this is that at the lower of the range spread, McGurn's bid is lowest. At the higher end, TSU's bid is lowest. From 5.7% up to below 6%, Petitioner's bid is lowest. Whichever would be appropriate, the State has not adopted the present value of money methodology and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There is, in addition, no prohibition against front- end loaded bids encompassed within this policy. By the same token, there is nothing in the bid package issued to all prospective bidders that in any way stipulates the method of computing lease costs or prohibits from loaded bids. DGS zone rates, criteria stipulating the maximum agencies can send on rent without approval by DGS, are not part of the bid package and do not constitute a factor in determining whether a bid is conforming or not. These zone rates may be waived by DGS at the time the proposed award is submitted for DGS approval. In practice, within the memory of Joseph Lambert, HRS' Administrator of Facilities Services, who administers the Department's leasing program, he cannot recall DGS ever denying a DHRS request for waiver of the maximum zone rate in any case where it was pertinent. In this case, since the lease payments at-least in the second through tenth years-of the McGurn bid exceed the zone limits, the award would have to be approved by the Governor and Cabinet in addition to DGS. It has not yet been placed on the Cabinet agenda because of the protests filed. As was stated before, there are no rules governing the evaluation of bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given to each agency, when applied here, reveal that the McGurn bid, as was seen above, has an average cost of $8.86 per square foot per year. TSU's bid costs $9.58 per square foot per year, and Elizabethan's bid costs $9.29 per square foot per year. These same calculations are followed on all turnkey and non- turnkey leases in the State. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money methodology is that it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that at least 50% of the landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State follow this procedure. In the opinion of Ms. Goodman, the costs involved in utilizing the present value of money methodology would far outweigh the paper savings to be gained, notwithstanding the testimony of Dr. Perry to the contrary. With regard to the option issue, it was the position of DGS in reviewing the proposals that the very low $3.00 lease cost per square foot in the last five years (the option period) did not make the McGurn bid unresponsive. There were no limits imposed upon the bidders except that a five year option to a ten year lease be included. Were it not there, the bid would be unresponsive. DGS would issue approval for a ten year lease with a five year option but not a fifteen year lease. Ms. Goodman cannot recall a situation in which an option was not exercised by it if the need for the space continued though there have been some instances where option costs have been renegotiated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore; RECOMMENDED THAT DHRS License Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGurn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkwav Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood 8Oulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Morgan Staines, Esquire 2204 East Fourth Street Santa Ana, California 92705 Thomas D. Watry, Esquire 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven W. Huss, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary J. Anton, Esquire P.O. Box 1019 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Harden King, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Nine bids were received for Contract E4571, Project/Job No. 99004-3516 ("E4571"). Petitioner's bid was timely received. Respondent opened bids on December 13, 1991. Respondent posted its intent to award E4571 to J & D Tropical Landscape Design on December 20, 1991. Section 1.2 of the Bid Specifications for E4571, as modified by the Special Provisions, states: A contractor's bid shall be in the form of a unit price for each unit expected to be accomplished. The Special Provisions to E4571 require each bidder to submit a single unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. Item 4 in the Special "Provisions provides: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to submit to the Department A SINGLE unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. The Contractor shall be responsible for his/her method of averaging. Failure to comply shall result in the Contractor's Bid Proposal being declared "Irregular" and such Bid Proposals will be rejected. (emphasis added) Petitioner's Bid Proposal was properly declared irregular and rejected by Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Item 4 in the Special Provisions by failing to submit a single unit price for each pay item, by failing to correctly average a unit price, and by failing to state the unit price in words. The Unit Price Sheet on page 23 of the Bid Proposals contains the following table listing item numbers A582- 2 through A584-4. Petitioner listed item number A583 as follows: ITEM PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE $ AMOUNTS NUMBER QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE (IN FIGURES) (Exten- (IN WORDS) sion Price) 3/ A583 4 200.000 TREES (8' TO 20, 85 20400 PLANT ' HEIGHT OR CLEAR TRUNK) @ DOLLARS CENTS The actual extension price 4/ for 200 trees at $85 per unit is $17,000 rather than the $20,400 stated by Petitioner in the table on page 23. The "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the table is $37,013.20. The "Contract Total" that should have been stated if Petitioner intended the extension price of item number A583-4 to be $17,000 would have been $33,613. The "Contract Total" listed by a bidder on the Unit Price Sheet is the unverified contract price. The actual contract price is determined by Respondent pursuant to the formula given in Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications. Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications foil E4571 states: The contract price is defined as the sum of the unit bid price times the planned work for each item as shown on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner would have been the lowest successful bidder irrespective of whether Respondent had replaced the extension price for item number A583-4 and the "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner with the actual extension price for item number A583-4 and the actual "Contract Total" . However, Respondent is precluded from doing so by Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications For Road ,and Bridge Construction ("Standard Specifications"), published by the Florida Department of Transportation (1991) and by the Special Provisions for E4571. Respondent follows "Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications for the purpose of evaluating bid proposals. Section 3-1 is used, in part, to determine the extension price for item numbers listed on the Unit Price Sheet. Section 3- 1 provides in relevant part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price of any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, In which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Petitioner did not show the unit price in words for any item number on the Unit Price Sheet, including item number A583-4. There is a discrepancy in the three entries for item number A583-4 on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner failed to show the unit price for item number A583-4 in words, and the unit price and extension price are not in agreement. Under such circumstances, Respondent interprets Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications as requiring that Petitioner's bid be declared irregular and rejected. Respondent's interpretation of Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications is reasonable and is consistent with the mandate in Item 4 of the Special Provisions for E4571. See Finding 4, supra. Furthermore, in practice, the correct unit price of a pay item is necessary to process payment under the contract and the contractor must submit invoices based upon the pay items and unit prices listed in its bid. The bid specifications for E4571 provide that a bidder is responsible for his or her own averaging of a stated unit price, and that if a bidder fails to provide a single unit price for each pay item on the Unit Price Sheet the bid shall be declared "Irregular" and will be rejected. The requirement to provide a single unit price for each pay item was emphasized by Respondent at the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Petitioner's representative attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. No challenges were made to the bid specifications by any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (964) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1992.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statues, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard M. Golfman, was, at all times material hereto, licensed by the Department as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C032860, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual.1 The Feinstein project (DOAH Case No. 00-0599) On or about October 30, 1998, Respondent entered into a written contract with Norman and Sheila Feinstein to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to enclose and remodel the screened patio, and to build a rock garden, at their home located at 5468 Northwest 20th Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $5,000. At the time, the Feinsteins paid Respondent $1,500 as the initial payment (deposit) under the terms of the contract. The contract Respondent presented and the Feinsteins executed on October 30, 1998, did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Following execution of the contract, Respondent made repeated promises to construct the rock garden; however, it was not until November 10, 1998, that Respondent appeared on-site and constructed the rock garden, albeit not to the Feinsteins' satisfaction. Subsequently, Respondent had some high-hat electrical fixture cans and a bundle of furring strips delivered to the home for the patio project but, thereafter, despite repeated requests, refused to perform any work on the project or refund any money to the Feinsteins. The value of the labor and materials Respondent invested in the rock garden, as well as the cost of the building materials (the high-hat fixtures and furring strips) delivered to the job-site, was $250, a sum considerably less than the $1,500 the Feinsteins had entrusted to Respondent under the terms of their agreement. The Burres/Berger project (DOAH Case No. 00-0600) On or about November 23, 1998, Respondent submitted a written proposal to Tanya Burres to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary to replace the existing roof on her home located at 7270 Montrico Drive, Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $22,125. The proposal was a one-page preprinted form. In the upper left there appeared, printed immediately following Respondent's handwritten name, the following: THE GOLFMAN GROUP, INC. P.O. Box 811926 Boca Raton, Florida 33431 The proposal did not include Respondent's license number, nor did it contain a statement concerning consumers' rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. At the time the proposal was submitted, Tanya Burres was under contract to sell the home to Drs. Glenn Berger and Michelle Fiorillo, husband and wife (the Bergers), and Ms. Burres had agreed to split with the Bergers the cost of a new roof for the home. At the time, Ms. Burres had suggested the Respondent as a contractor to perform the work (because he had previously done satisfactory work for Ms. Burres); however, it was understood that the employment of any contractor was subject to the Bergers' approval. That the Bergers' agreement was required before any such employment would be accepted was clearly conveyed to Respondent. On November 23, 1998, Tanya Burres signed the proposal and gave Respondent a check payable to his order in the sum of $1,106.25, representing her half of the ten percent deposit called for by the proposal. The Bergers, however, declined to accept the proposal, and refused Respondent's request for the balance of the deposit. Rather, the Bergers, having received adverse information from the Department regarding Respondent's record, preferred to employ a different contractor, and Ms. Burres accorded the Bergers a monetary credit at closing (on the purchase of the home) for one-half the cost to re-roof the home. When the Bergers informed Ms. Burres (shortly after she signed the proposal on November 23, 1998) that they would not agree to use Respondent, Ms. Burres attempted to stop payment on her check; however, the check had already been cashed. Thereafter, Ms. Burres attempted on numerous occasions to contact Respondent by telephone and by his pager, but Respondent failed to return any of her calls or messages. To date, Respondent has failed to account for or return Ms. Burres' deposit of $1,106.25. The costs of investigation and prosecution As of February 25, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, totaled $234.85 for DOAH Case No. 00-0599 (the Feinstein project) and $195.65 for DOAH Case No. 00-0600 (the Burres/Berger project.) Previous disciplinary action At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.) The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated August 4, 1987, which found Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint (which were not revealed at hearing beyond what may be inferred from the terms of the Final Order), and resolved that Respondent suffer the following penalty: Respondent's licensure is hereby suspended for ten (10) years. Provided, Respondent may obtain termination of said suspension at anytime, without further action by the Board, upon providing the Board's Executive Director with a certified bank check in an amount sufficient to cover and pay a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), and the bad check alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and all service charges in connection therewith, and all other fees accruing as of the date Respondent seeks said termination of supervision. The second occasion Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, dated July 18, 1997, which approved a stipulated settlement of certain complaints then pending before the Board. That Final Order approved the dismissal of a number of counts contained in five Administrative Complaints then pending before the Board and, as to the remaining counts, agreed (without Respondent admitting or denying the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaints) to the following penalty: 3. FINE AND COSTS: Respondent shall pay a fine of Nine Hundred dollars ($900.00) and costs of Eight Hundred fifty One dollars ($851) to the Board within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. Said payment shall be in the form of a cashier's or certified check and shall be made payable to the "Construction Industry Licensing Board." To assure payment of the fine and costs, it is further ordered that all of Respondent's licensure to practice contracting shall be suspended with the imposition of the suspension being stayed for thirty (30) days. If the ordered fine and costs are paid in compliance with the terms set forth above, the suspension imposed shall not take effect. However, should payment not be timely made, the stay shall be lifted and Respondent's license shall be immediately suspended. Upon payment of the fine and costs in full, the suspension imposed shall be lifted. Respondent apparently satisfied the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as a penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $13,500.00, revokes Respondent's licensure, orders that Respondent pay restitution to Norman and Sheila Feinstein in the sum of $1,250.00 and to Tanya Burres in the sum of $1,106.25, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through February 25, 2000) in the total sum of $430.50 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Department) proposed award of certain contracts to Bay Area Youth Services, Inc. (BAYS), based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On July 2, 2003, the Department issued Request for Proposal (RFP) No. V6P01 for operation of IDDS programs in Judicial Circuits 1 through 20. The Department issued a single RFP and anticipated entering into 20 separate contracts, one for each circuit. Each contract was for a three-year period with the possibility of a renewal for an additional three-year period. The RFP was prepared based on a "contract initiation memo" generated within the Department and upon which the scope of services set forth in the RFP was based. The Department assigned one contract administrator to handle the procurement process. An addendum dated July 18, 2003, was issued to the RFP. As amended by the addendum, the RFP required submission of information in a tabbed format of three volumes. Volume I was the technical proposal. Volume II was the financial proposal. Volume III addressed past performance by the vendor. The addendum also allowed providers to submit some information in electronic format. The addendum requested, but did not require, that it be signed and returned with the submission. BAYS did not return a signed copy of the addendum in its proposal. Failure to sign and return the addendum was not fatal to the consideration of a proposal. The RFP set forth only two criteria for which noncompliance would be deemed "fatal" to a proposal. Failure to comply with a fatal criterion would have resulted in automatic elimination of a provider's response; otherwise, all responses submitted were evaluated. The proposals were opened on July 31, 2003. The contract administrator and staff reviewed the bids to ascertain whether required items were included, and noted the proposed costs on bid tabulation sheets. The first fatal criterion was failing to submit a properly executed "Attachment A" form to a submission. Attachment A is a bidder acknowledgment form. Both BAYS and JSP included a completed Attachment A in the responses at issue in this proceeding. The second fatal criterion was exceeding the Maximum Contract Dollar Amount. RFP Attachment B, Section XIII, provides in relevant part as follows: The Maximum Contract Dollar Amount will be the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount multiplied by the number of years in the initial term of the Contract . . . . EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS A FATAL CRITERION. ANY PROPOSAL WITH A COST EXCEEDING THE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BE REJECTED. The information reviewed as to each provider's cost proposal was set forth in Volume II, Tab 1, which included RFP Attachment J. RFP Attachment J is a cost sheet where providers were required to set forth proposal costs identified as the "Maximum Payment" under their proposal. Attachment K to the RFP identifies the counties served in each circuit, number of available slots in each circuit, and the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount for each circuit. JSP appears to have simply copied information from Attachment K onto Attachment J. The Department's contract administrator was the sole person assigned to review Volume II of the responses. Volume II included the cost proposal, the supplier evaluation report (SER), and the certified minority business enterprise (CMBE) subcontracting utilization plan. Neither BAYS nor JSP exceeded the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount applicable to any circuit at issue in this proceeding. Both BAYS and JSP identified a Maximum Payment equal to the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount as their proposal cost. Both BAYS and JSP received scores of 100 points for cost proposals in all responses at issue in this proceeding. JSP asserts that the instructions as to identification of the Annual Maximum Contract Dollar Amount were confusing and that its actual cost proposal was less than that set forth as the "Maximum Payment" on Attachment J. JSP asserts that it actually listed its cost proposal at the section identified on Attachment J as "renewal term dollar amount proposed." JSP asserts that the Department should have reviewed supporting budget information set forth in Attachment H to the RFP to determine JSP's cost proposal, and that the Department should have determined that JSP's actual cost proposal was less than that of BAYS. The Department did not review the budget information in Attachment H, but based its cost evaluation of the proposals on the total figures set forth on Attachment J. Nothing in the RFP suggests that underlying information as to cost proposals would be reviewed or evaluated. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on the information set forth on Attachment J was unreasonable or erroneous. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's scoring of the cost proposals was contrary to the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that JSP is entitled to have its cost proposal re-scored. One of the requirements of the RFP was submission of a "Supplier Evaluation Report" (SER) from Dunn & Bradstreet. The submission of the SER was worth 90 points. Dunn & Bradstreet transmitted most of the SERs directly to the Department, and the Department properly credited the providers for whom such reports were transmitted. The Department's contract administrator failed to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for the SER included within its proposal. The failure to credit BAYS for the SERs was clearly erroneous. BAYS is entitled to additional credit as set forth herein. The RFP sought utilization of a CMBE in a provider's proposal. BAYS proposal included utilization of The Nelco Company, an employee leasing operation. The Nelco Company is a properly credentialed CMBE. Under the BAYS/Nelco arrangement, BAYS would retain responsibility for identification and recruitment of potential employees. BAYS performs the background screening and makes final employment decisions. BAYS retains the right to fire, transfer, and demote employees. The Nelco Company would process payroll and handle other fiscal human resource tasks including insurance matters. The Nelco Company invoices BAYS on a per payroll basis, and BAYS pays based on the Nelco invoice. JSP asserts that under the facts of this case, the participation of The Nelco Company fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. BAYS proposals also included utilization of other CMBEs. There is no credible evidence that BAYS utilization of The Nelco Company or of the other CMBEs included within the BAYS proposals fails to comply with the RFP's requirement for CMBE utilization. The Department assigned the responsibility for service proposal evaluation to employees located within each circuit. The contract administrator and staff distributed appropriate portions of Volume I of each proposal to the evaluators. The evidence establishes that the evaluators received the documents and evaluated the materials pursuant to written scoring instructions received from the Department. Some reviewers had more experience than others, but there is no evidence that a lack of experience resulted in an inappropriate review being performed. In two cases, the evaluators worked apart from one another. In one circuit, the evaluators processed the materials in the same room, but did not discuss their reviews with each other at any time. There is no evidence that evaluators were directed to reach any specific result in the evaluative process. JSP asserts that there was bias on the part of one evaluator who had knowledge of some unidentified incident related to JSP. The evidence fails to establish the facts of the incident and fails to establish that the incident, whatever it was, played any role in the evaluator's review of the JSP proposal. JSP also asserts that another evaluator had contact with JSP at some point prior to his evaluation of the RFP responses. There is no evidence that the contact was negative or was a factor either for or against JSP in the evaluation of the RFP responses. The RFP required that each provider's proposal include letters of intent from "local service resources" indicating a willingness to work with the provider and a letter of support from the State Attorney in the judicial circuit where the provider's program would operate. The RFP indicates that Volume I of a provider's response should contain five tabbed sections. The RFP provides that "information submitted in variance with these instructions may not be reviewed or evaluated." The RFP further provides that failure to provide information "shall result in no points being awarded for that element of the evaluation." JSP included letters of support in Tab 5 of Volume I. BAYS included letters of support in a tabbed section identified as Tab 6 of Volume I. JSP asserts that information included in Tab 6 of BAYS proposals should not have been evaluated and that no points should have been awarded based on the information included therein. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Based on the language of the RFP, submission of information in a format other than that prescribed is not fatal to a proposal. The Department reserved the authority to waive such defects and to evaluate the material. Here, the Department waived the variance as the RFP permitted, and reviewed the material submitted by BAYS. JSP asserts that BAYS proposal breached client confidentiality by inclusion of information regarding an individual who has allegedly received services through BAYS. Records regarding assessment or treatment of juveniles through the Department are deemed confidential pursuant Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003). The evidence fails to establish that an alleged violation of Section 985.04, Florida Statutes (2003), requires rejection of the BAYS proposals. There is no evidence that the information was released outside of the Department prior to the bid protest forming the basis of this proceeding. The evidence establishes that JSP misidentified the name of its contract manager in its transmittal letter. The evidence establishes that the misidentification was deemed immaterial to the Department, which went on to evaluate the JSP proposals. The results of the evaluations were returned to the contract administrator, who tabulated and posted the results of the process. On August 25, 2003, the Department posted a Notice of Intent to Award contacts based on the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Insofar as is relevant to this proceeding, the Department proposed to award the contracts for Circuits 5, 6, and 20 to BAYS. The Department received four proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 5 (DOAH Case No. 03-3671BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 651.8 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 642.6 points. White Foundation was the third highest bidder at 630.7 points, and MAD DADS was the fourth bidder at 442.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 5 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 741.8. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 6 (DOAH Case No. 03-3672BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 649.0 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 648.8 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 6 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 739.0. The Department received two proposals from IDDS program providers in Circuit 20 (DOAH Case No. 03-3673BID). According to the Notice of Intended Contract Award, BAYS was the highest ranked bidder with 644.2 points. JSP was the second highest bidder with 620.6 points. The evidence establishes that BAYS included its SER in its Circuit 20 proposal. The Department neglected to examine BAYS submission for the SER, and BAYS did not receive credit for its SER. BAYS should have received an additional 90 points, bringing its total points to 734.2. MOTION TO DISMISS BAYS asserts that the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP must be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), which requires that a protesting bidder post a bond or cash in an amount equal to one percent of the estimated contract amount by the time a formal written bid protest is filed. Item 8 of the RFP indicated that the bond or cash amount required was one percent of the total contract amount or $5,000, whichever was less. However, RFP Attachment "B," Section IX, indicates that it replaces RFP Item 8, and provides that the required bond or cash amount is one percent of the estimated contract amount. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), JSP had 72 hours from the announcement of the bid award to file a Notice of Protest and an additional ten days to file a Formal Written Protest. The notice of intended bid award was posted on August 25, 2003. Accordingly, the written protest and appropriate deposits were due by September 8, 2003. The Department's Notice of Intended Award referenced the bond requirement and stated that failure to post the bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,159.70 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 5. The contract amount was $647,910. One percent of the contract amount is $6,479.10. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $3,414.52 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 6. The contract amount was $1,025,857.50. One percent of the contract amount is $10,258.57. On September 8, 2003, JSP provided to the Department a cashier's check for $2,231.69 in relation to its protest of the award for Circuit 20. The contract amount was $669,507. One percent of the contract amount is $6,695.07. In response to JSP's insufficient cashier's checks, the Department, by letter of September 12, 2003, advised JSP of the underpayment and permitted JSP an additional ten days to provide additional funds sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. JSP, apparently still relying on the superceded language in the RFP, forwarded only an amount sufficient to bring the deposited funds to $5,000 in each case. By letter dated September 25, 2003, the Department again advised JSP that the deposited funds were insufficient and provided yet another opportunity to JSP to deposit additional funds. On September 29, 2003, JSP forwarded additional funds to provide the appropriate deposits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Juvenile Justice enter a Final Order as follows: Dismissing the Petition for Hearing filed by MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc., in Case No. 03-3670BID based on the withdrawal of the Petition for Hearing. Dismissing the Petitions for Hearing filed by JSP for failure to comply with Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), and for the other reasons set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Barclay, Esquire Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian Berkowitz, Esquire Kimberly Sisko Ward, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building, Room 312V 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Larry K. Brown, Executive Director MAD DADS of Greater Ocala, Inc. 210 Northwest 12th Avenue Post Office Box 3704 Ocala, Florida 34478-3704 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire The Nelson Law Firm, P.A. Post Office Box 6677 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 William G. Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
