The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid on Project No. RS-40.
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 1993, Respondent issued an invitation to bid (ITB) for Project No. RS-40 to develop the site for the future construction of a work camp in Holmes County. The work under Project No. RS-40 specifically included site preparation, grading, electrical work, sewage, utilities and fencing. The bids were due to be opened on June 29, 1993. Ten bids were submitted to the Department, including Petitioner, Panhandle Grading and Paving, Inc., and Intervenor's, Hewitt Contracting Co., Inc., bids. Panhandle's bid total was $815,734.00, and was the lowest monetary bid. Hewitt's bid total was $847,554.00, and was the third lowest monetary bid. Baxter Asphalt had the second lowest monetary bid. However, both Baxter and Panhandle's bids were disqualified as nonresponsive because neither company complied with the Department's prequalification requirements. Baxter did not protest the Department's bid award to Hewitt and Baxter is not a party to this action. On the other hand, Hewitt's bid was accepted since Hewitt had complied with the Department's prequalification requirements and was otherwise responsive to the ITB. Therefore, the Department awarded Hewitt the contract for Project No. RS-40 since in its opinion Hewitt was the lowest responsive bid on the project. The ITB clearly notified potential bidders that they must prequalify with the Department. The ITB stated, in pertinent part: All bidders must submit evidence that they are qualified to perform the work in accordance with Section B, paragraph B-2 of the specifications. Evidence of eligibility must be submitted to the owner (defined in article B-1) not later than five (5) calendar days prior to bid date. Additionally, the cover sheet for the bid documents admonished all bidders to submit evidence of their eligibility to bid to Respondent at least five (5) days before the bid letting. The cover sheet stated: All bidders on this project must prequalify according to the provisions of section B, "Instructions to Bidders", article B-2. Evidence of eligibility must be submitted to the owner (defined in article B-1) not later than five (5) calendar days prior to bid date. Section B-1 of the bid documents defines the owner of Project RS-40 as the Department of Corrections. Section B-2 of the bid documents instructed all bidders to prequalify with Respondent to participate in the bid process. Section B-2 states: Prequalification: Each bidder whose field is governed by Chapter 399, 489, and 633 of the Florida Statutes for licensure will be prequalified by the Department to participate in the bid process for a specific field or area of construction based on the bidder's area of license or certification. Bidder qualification requirements and procedures are established by the State of Florida, Department of General Services rule (Chapter 13D-11, Florida Administrative Code) and by the bidding conditions and specifications. Failure of the bidder to strictly meet and follow all such requirements and procedures may result in bid rejection or disqualification for contract award. For the bidder's convenience, the provisions of Rule 13D-11.004 Bidder's Qualifications Requirements and Procedures are set forth below. Requirements: Each potential bidder must present, or have presented within this current biennium (July 1 through June 30) odd number years, evidence that: He is authorized to perform the work required by these documents in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes governing contractors, as a general (Insert contractor designation) contractor. If the Bidder is a corporation, he must submit evidence that this corporation is properly registered with the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Corporations, and holds a current State Corporation Charter Number in accordance with the Florida Statutes. (*This sentence to be deleted by Architect- Engineer if not applicable.) All interested firms who have NOT qualified within the current biennium (July 1 thru June 30) odd number years must submit evidence of their eligibility during the bidding period, not later than five (5) calendar days (received date) prior to the bid date. The Owner may, for good cause, allow a firm to correct any deficiencies in evidence submitted. Notice of qualification will be mailed to each bidder, but a Bidder may not receive the written notification prior to a bid opening. He may learn his status prior to the bid opening time by calling the Owner (Department of Corrections), Bureau of Facilities Services at 904-487-1330). The Bidder shall submit the required evidence of eligibility to the Department of Corrections, Bureau of Facilities Services, 2601 Blairstone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500. (emphasis supplied) All information shall indicate the full name, address and telephone number of the individual, partnership, or corporation, and the name of the contact person. Include a self-addressed stamped envelope. The names of all bidders will be checked against the list of contractors who have prequalified in accordance with the requirements of Section B-2. Additionally, a careful reading of Rule 13D-11, Florida Administrative Code, reveals that the information required under the Rule should be submitted to the owner of the project involved in the bid process, i.e. the Department of Corrections in this case. A contractor is the person who is qualified and responsible for an entire project and includes the person who submits a bid for a given project. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes. A general contractor is a person who is unlimited as to the type of work they can do, unless a specific type of license is required by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Section 489.105(3)(a), Florida Statutes. See also Section 489.113, Florida Statutes. Under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, a contractor can be a certified general contractor or a registered general contractor. A certified general contractor can contract in any jurisdiction in the state without fulfilling the competency requirements of the local jurisdiction. Section 489.105(8), Florida Statutes. On the other hand, a registered general contractor is required by Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes, to comply with all local licensing requirements. Registration with the state is specific for a given local jurisdiction and cannot be used in another jurisdiction. Section 489.113(2), Florida Statutes. In fact, Section 489.113(1), Florida Statutes, requires a contractor to be registered for a specific jurisdiction prior to engaging in the business of contracting. Additionally, a contractor must subcontract electrical, mechanical and plumbing work unless the contractor is state certified or holds the specific trade license required by the appropriate local authority if such a local license is required. Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes. Importantly, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, permits a person to act as a prime contractor, including submitting a bid on a project, where the bulk of the work under the contract is covered by the contractor's specific license, as long as the parts of the project for which he is not licensed are subcontracted to persons holding an appropriate license. Section 489.113(9), Florida Statutes. Respondent requires prequalification of contractors in advance of its bid lettings to ensure that everyone who bids is legally or financially qualified to do the work required in the bid. The five (5) day deadline prior to the bid letting gives Respondent's staff an opportunity to resolve any irregularities in a bidder's prequalification materials prior to the letting. Indeed, if a contractor is state registered, as opposed to state certified, Respondent's staff, prior to the bid, routinely contacts the local government with jurisdiction over the building site to determine if there are any local licensing requirements and if there are, to determine if the bidder/contractor is locally licensed in that jurisdiction. This process avoids the waste of time involved in reviewing a bid package from a bidder who cannot ultimately perform the work called for in the bid. More importantly, this process prevents a locally unlicensed registered contractor from having the ability to void a contract at its will after the bids are opened since it would be unlawful for the contractor to have either bid on a project located in a jurisdiction where the contractor was not licensed or enter into such a contract. The ability to refuse an award of a bid clearly constitutes an unfair advantage to the locally unlicensed registered contractor and could not be waived as immaterial by an agency. In this case, Hewitt is a certified general contractor and is therefore automatically qualified to work in Holmes County. Panhandle is a registered general contractor and can only bid on Project RS-40 if it has met the requirements for general contracting in Holmes County. The prequalification process requires a bidder who has not prequalified with Respondent during the current biennium to submit to Respondent his current state contractor license certification or registration, as well as his current corporate charter registration (if a corporation). When Respondent opened the bids for the Project, Petitioner had neither prequalified with Respondent nor obtained a license or certification of competency to engage in contracting work in Holmes County. Petitioner thought it was already prequalified under its prequalification with the Department of Management Services. However, prequalification with the Department of Management Services does not meet the requirements of the ITB which requires prequalification with the Department of Corrections. Panhandle did obtain the necessary licensure after submitting its bid and after the bids were opened. However, such belated licensure does not negate the unfair advantage created by Panhandle's failure to prequalify and be properly licensed prior to the bid opening as required by the bid documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order in this case dismissing Petitioner's formal protest and awarding the contract for the Project to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Department of General Services, (hereinafter "DGS") is a state agency, the responsibilities of which include the management of state construction project. It accomplishes such management through its Division of Building Construction. The Divisions responsibilities include, negotiation of architect/engineer contracts, review of plans and specifications, contract administration, and contract management. One such project is Project No. MA-87080010, the subject matter of which involves repairs and alterations to the National Guard Armory in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the Armory Project. Certain portions of the bid specification for the Armory Project were prepared by the project architect, Mr. William D. Tschumy, Jr. Other portions, specifically the portions dealing with bidding conditions and contractual conditions, were provisions provided by DGS for inclusion in the specifications. The project architect was not familiar with all of the bid specification provisions provided by DGS. Prior to submitting its bid on the Armory Project, James P. Moran, Inc., had been prequalified for bidding on the project. Such prequalification did not obviate the need for James P. Moran, Inc., to meet the experience requirements in the bid specifications and in Rule 13D-11.904(2)(a)(8), Florida Administrative Code. The bid specifications for the Armory Project include the following provisions: 1/ Section B-2, page 9: 8. Firm experience - must have successfully completed no less than two project of similar size and complexity within the last three years. and; Section B-22, page 16: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the best 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 and to negotiate the contract in accordance with its Rule 13- D11.08 if the low qualified bid exceeds the project construction budget. James P. Moran, Inc., timely submitted its bid on the Armory Project and was subsequently notified that it had been recommended for contract award by the Director of the Division of Building Construction. This recommendation was made on the basis of a recommendation by the project architect that the bid be awarded to James P. Moran, Inc. At the time of making his recommendation, the project architect was not aware of the firm experience provision in either the bid specifications or the applicable rules. A timely protest was filed by another bidder on the Armory Project, in which the protesting bidder raised the issue of the firm experience of James P. Moran Inc. DGS concluded that the protest was valid and after further deliberation made the determination to reject all bids. All the bids other than the bid submitted by James P. Moran, Inc., exceeded the funds available for construction of the Armory Project. Because the other bids all exceeded the available funds, DGS decided that the best course of action would be to modify the scope and nature of the work involved in the project and then re-bid the project. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed modifications to the project will result in lower bids, because the modifications would permit the work to be done quicker and at less cost to the contractor. James P. Moran, Inc., was incorporated in 1981. However, prior to the summer of 1988, it had submitted no bids acquired no permits, and had neither started nor completed any jobs. The qualifying contractor for James P. Moran, Inc., is Mr. James P. Moran who, for many years prior to the summer of 1988, was an employee, officer, and shareholder of Frank J. Moran, Inc. Mr. James P. Moran holds a State of Florida building contractors license, a State of Florida electrical contractors license, a Dade County electrical masters license, a Broward County electrical masters license, and a State of Maine electrical contractors license. While employed by Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was also the qualifying contractor for that corporation. While so employed, Mr. James P. Moran's primary duties were those of project director and estimator. He was also a corporate officer of Frank J. Moran, Inc. During his employment with Frank J. Moran, Inc., Mr. James P. Moran was the project manager on projects of similar size and complexity to the Armory Project. The construction budget for the Armory Project is approximately 250,000. The dollar values of construction jobs are valid indicators of the comparative sizes of construction jobs. The dollar values of the two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are approximately $161,000 and $112,000, respectively. The two largest construction jobs completed by James P. Moran, Inc., are not of similar size to the Armory Project. While DGS is concerned about the qualifications of the personnel employed by a contracting firm, DGS is also concerned about the track record of the firm itself, and, therefore, requires that a firm have completed projects in its own name in order to qualify for a bid award. In other words, a new firm cannot "take credit" for work performed by one of its employees at a time when the employee was working for another firm. Also, DGS does not allow "stacking" of the dollar value of several small jobs in order to demonstrate completion of a job of similar size to the job that is the subject of a bid. The purpose of the experience rule is to require a contracting firm to have completed at least two jobs of similar dollar size to the dollar size of the job being contracted. Among, the reasons stacking is not allowed is that completion of a job of any given size is a more complicated and complex undertaking than completion of a series of smaller jobs that total up to the same dollar value as the job of given size. DGS has now modified the scope of the project and has amended the plans and specifications in such a fashion that it will take less time to complete the modified Armory project and may reasonably be expected to result in lower bids closer to or below the construction budget. The modified Armory project may reasonably be expected to result in a savings of both time and money.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services issue a final order in this case rejecting the bid of James P. Moran, Inc., as being non-responsive, and rejecting all other bids, in order to modify the scope of the project and rebid it. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of March 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1990.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Intervenor was properly qualified to complete the construction project contemplated by Invitation to Bid No. DCF-03211120 (ITB)
Findings Of Fact The Department issued the ITB for a construction project, involving the re-roofing of Buildings 1 and 2 at 12195 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida. The ITB was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 24, 2008. The ITB outlined the terms and conditions for responsive bids. The ITB indicated, among other things, that all sealed bids were required to be submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, by January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. Leo Development submitted its sealed bid at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. FBM submitted its sealed bid by the date and time, but at a different location—the offices of Russell Partnership— contrary to the ITB. All other bidders submitted their sealed bids at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. The Department’s architect of record on the project, Russell Partnership, and one of its principals, Terry Holt, performed the examination and bid tabulation. Mr. Holt, a registered architect for approximately 36 years, was very familiar with the procurement process and had extensive experience in determining whether a bidder was licensed by DBPR in order to complete the work contemplated for a project. The sealed bids submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, on or before January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. were as follows: All Time Roofing, with a bid of $73,400.00; Taylor Roofing, with a bid of $59,708.00; Leo Development, with a bid of $54,109.00; John W. Hunter Enterprises, with a bid of $75,000.00; and Trintec Construction, with a bid of $75,500.00. 9. FBM’s bid was $71,600.00. Mr. Holt determined that Leo Development was the lowest bidder. FBM’s bid was not considered as being non-responsive. Additionally, Mr. Holt reviewed Leo Development’s website to ascertain as to whether any factors existed to disqualify Leo Development. The website failed to reveal any basis for Mr. Holt to disqualify Leo Development. Having discovered no basis to disqualify Leo Development as the lowest bidder, Mr. Holt submitted the list of bidders, with their bids, to Bill Bridges, the Department’s senior architect and a registered architect for approximately 25 years. Mr. Bridges was the person responsible for oversight of the ITB process. As Leo Development was the lowest bidder, Mr. Bridges reviewed the website of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (Division of Corporations) in order to ensure that Leo Development was registered with the Division of Corporations. His review revealed that Leo Development was a fictitious name properly registered to Leo Premier Homes, LLC. Further, Mr. Bridges performed a license background check on Leo Development in order to ensure that Leo Development was licensed by DBPR. Mr. Bridges reviewed DBPR’s website, which revealed that Frank Anthony Leo was the owner of Leo Development and that the following licenses were issued by DBPR: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Development; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development. Mr. Bridges confirmed and was satisfied that Leo Development was properly licensed to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Mr. Bridges recommended that Leo Development be awarded the ITB as the lowest responsive bidder. FBM filed a written protest (Initial Protest) of “its exclusion from the bid tabulation.” The Department issued a Final Order Rejecting Bid Protest (Final Order) on February 19, 2009. The Final Order provided in pertinent part: FBM was determined non-responsive because the bid was not presented at the time and place specified in the ITB. . . FBM’s formal written protest alleges that FBM, on the date of the bid submission/bid opening, was misdirected as to the location of the bid opening. . . . FBM’s protest must be rejected because it does not state a claim that could entitle it to relief. . . In the context of a bid protest proceeding . . . the protest must adequately allege that the protestor could obtain the contract award or otherwise benefit should the protest be successful. . . Assuming all of FBM’s factual allegations are true and that those facts entitle FBM to have its bid considered, FBM would still be entitled to no relief. Had FBM’s bid been accepted, FBM would have been the third lowest of six bidders. FBM’s formal protest does not allege that the lowest and second lowest bids were deficient in any manner. FBM was not injured in fact, because it still would not have received the contract award. Accordingly, FBM’s formal written protest is REJECTED. No appeal was taken by FBM of the Department’s Final Order rejecting FBM’s Initial Protest. Among other findings, the Department’s Final Order on FBM’s Initial Protest found that, taking FBM’s allegations as true, FBM would have been the third lowest bidder. FBM would not have been the second lowest bidder. The parties agree that the holder of a certified building contractor’s license and a certified roofing contractor license would be permitted to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Subsequent to the opening of the sealed bids, Leo Premier Homes, LLC, registered the fictitious name of Leo Roofing & Construction with the Division of Corporations. After the registration with the Division of Corporations and after the Department’s Final Order, licenses were issued by DBPR. As to the licenses issued, the record of the instant case provides2: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Roofing & Construction; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction. The licenses reflect the same license numbers, as before, and only the fictitious name is different on each license to indicate Leo Roofing & Construction.3 The contract for the ITB was entered into between the Department and Leo Development. In these proceedings, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $1,311.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing FBM General Contracting Corporation’s Protest and awarding costs in the amount of $1,311.05 to the Department of Children and Family Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of August, 2009.
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.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's bid should be rejected as non-responsive.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an invitation to bid on State Project No. 93060-3256 for repair and painting of the Flagler Memorial Bridge in Palm Beach County. Since the bridge had tested positive for lead, the advertisement for the project was a standard format utilized by the Department in its District IV for lead-based paint projects requiring QP2 certification. QP2 certification is issued by the Steel Structures Painting Council. The certification demonstrates to the Department that the contractor or subcontractor performing the abatement of lead-based paint on a project has been properly trained to deal with hazardous materials affecting workers and will take the necessary precautions to protect the environment. Utilizing contractors with QP2 certification limits the Department's liability. The certification also ensures that the contractor is familiar with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. Petitioner is a closely-held corporation. Peter Ambachtsheer is the president and project engineer for the corporation. His sister, Victoria Lane, is the vice president in charge of administration. The advertisement for the project specified that attendance at the pre-bid conference was required in order for any contractor to submit a bid on the project. The mandatory pre-bid conference was held on January 30, 1998, at the District IV office in Fort Lauderdale. Bill Rosenbaum attended the pre- bid conference on behalf of Petitioner. An agenda listing the topics to be discussed and the speakers who would address each topic was distributed to the persons attending the pre-bid conference. The agenda advised that Paul Lampley would discuss "QP2 Certification--Submittal with bid proposal." During his remarks, Lampley specifically told those in attendance that a QP2, Category A, certificate must be submitted with any bid. He read to the persons in attendance the section of the Technical Special Provisions requiring that the QP2, Category A, certificate be submitted with the bid and the provision in the project plans requiring the certificate to be submitted with the bid. Ambachtsheer reviewed the Technical Special Provisions and the plans for the project when Petitioner received the bid package after the pre-bid conference. He understood that the portion of the work involving the lead-based paint must be performed by a contractor or subcontractor holding the required QP2, Category A, certification. Since Petitioner is not so certified, Ambachtsheer contacted Len Hazen Painters, Inc., a company which he knew was certified. Ambachtsheer obtained a quote from Hazen for that portion of the project requiring QP2 certification. He included that amount as part of Petitioner's bid. He told Hazen to fax a copy of its certification to Petitioner so it could be submitted to the Department with Petitioner's bid. Hazen did so, and Petitioner received that certificate before it submitted its bid. Ambachtsheer completed his calculations for the bid and gave his worksheets to Victoria Lane to use in filling in the bid submittal portion of the bid documents. He then left the office to supervise certain work that the company was performing. He did not tell her that the QP2 certificate must be submitted with the bid, and she did not look at the Technical Special Provisions or the project plans since she considers those documents beyond her expertise. Lane prepared the bid submittal sheets using Ambachtsheer's calculations. She submitted the bid so that it was timely received by the Department. She did not include Hazen's QP2 certificate with the bid she submitted on behalf of Petitioner. The Department received Petitioner's bid prior to the deadline. The Department opened the bids it received on Friday, March 13, 1998. Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. When Petitioner learned that it was the apparent low bidder, Ambachtsheer asked to see the bid so he could plan the work on the project. He saw that Hazen's certificate was still in the file and had not been included with Petitioner's bid. He caused the certificate to be faxed to the Department immediately, which occurred late in the morning on Monday, March 16. Upon the next level of review, the Department rejected Petitioner's bid as non-responsive since it failed to include the required QP2 certificate. It is the Department's practice and policy to require that lead-based paint work be performed by a QP2, Category A, certified contractor. The submission of evidence of certification is a material condition of the bid. Petitioner's bid failed to include the required certification. There is, however, some variation among the Department's Districts as to when the required certification should be submitted. That variation did not confuse Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive and rejecting Petitioner's bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Ambachtsheer, President Sieg & Ambachtsheer, Inc. Post Office Box 609 Orange City, Florida 32763 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Diedre Grubbs
The Issue This case is a bid protest filed by Petitioner, L. Cobb Construction ("Cobb"), to contest the award of a contract by Respondent, Hardee County School Board ("School Board"), to another bidder to the exclusion of Cobb. The issue is whether Cobb's bid was responsive to the bid criteria; and whether the School Board's award of the bid to another party should be deemed clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, including the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Cobb is a construction company with decades of experience and has been involved with projects for the School Board in the past. The School Board is responsible for bidding out all construction projects and must determine the best qualified bidder at the lowest price. The parties agreed to the following facts as set forth in their Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: A "Bid Proposal for Roof Removal and Replacement" advertisement was placed in the Herald-Advocate newspaper on October 21, 2010. (The roof replacement will be referred to herein as the "Project.") A mandatory pre-bid meeting at Wauchula Elementary was held for potential roofing contractors on October 29, 2010. The meeting was led by roofing consultant Scott Bonk and Associates ("Bonk"). The School Board received Cobb's bid on the Project at 12:34 p.m., on November 15, 2010. School Board officials began opening all bids for the Project at 1:00 p.m., on November 15, 2010. Project bids were received from Cobb, Advanced Roofing, Crowther Roofing, Hamilton Roofing, Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal, Southern Roofing, and THL Roofing. Bonk was present at the time the bids were opened. Bonk sent an email to Rob Krahl on November 16, 2010, concerning Cobb and Latite's bids. Bonk advised Krahl that the Cobb bid did not meet the specified components, but that the Latite bid met all components and timeframes for the Project. Bonk recommended Latite as contractor for the Project. The School Board approved the recommendation of Latite, whose bid was $152,065 for the replacement of the roofs on building Nos. 5 (the exceptional student education or "ESE" building) and 6 (the media center). On November 17, 2010, Deputy Superintendent Woody Caligan faxed School Board Policy 6.07(5), entitled Bid Disputes and Procedures, to Cobb. A Notice to Proceed letter was faxed to Bonk on the same date, authorizing Latite to commence the Project. A denial letter was also faxed to each of the other bidders. On November 18, 2010, Cobb hand-delivered a Notice of Protest to Rob Krahl at the School Board. On November 26, 2010, Cobb mailed a cover letter and three original Letters of Protest, along with a cashier's check for the protest bond, to Rob Krahl. On November 29, 2010, Cobb faxed a copy of proof of postage, School Board Rule 6.07(5), its Letter of Protest, and a copy of its previously-issued cashier's check to Wood Caligan after Caligan indicated that he had not received the mailed version. The School Board is the governing entity of the school district of Hardee County, Florida. David Durastanti is the superintendent of schools for Hardee County; Woody Caligan is the deputy superintendent. Rob Krahl is an employee of the School Board and is responsible for facilities and construction projects for the school system. Barbara Spears is a School Board employee serving under Krahl. Joann McCray serves as secretary to the superintendent. Greg Harrelson is the chief financial officer for the school district. Harrelson's duties include the receipt, review and award of bids for the school district. A document entitled, "Project Manual," was issued by Bonk relative to the request for bids on the Project. The Project Manual contained the specifications for the Project, including a section entitled, "Bid Form" (comprised of pages 20 through 22). The Bid Form is the critical portion of the Project Manual for purposes of the instant proceeding. The Bid Form had several blanks to be filled in by the bidding party. The bidder was to fill in the contractor's name, a projected cost for the replacement of both roofs (the ESE building and the media center), a total cost line, a line for the amount of the payment, and a line for the performance bond amount. Following those blanks, there was a section that forms the crux of the dispute in this case. That section provided a space for identification of materials proposed by each bidder. It appeared as follows: The base bid price is based on the following: Manufacturer's Name Base Sheet Intermediate Ply Granulated Ply Insulation Manufacturer The responses by Cobb to this section of the Bid Form were deemed inappropriate by Bonk. Latite's responses to this section were deemed appropriate and compliant with the bid requirements. Cobb's responses were as follows: Manufacturer's Name: GAF Base Sheet: GAF-Ruberoid Modified Base Intermediate Ply: GAF-Ruberoid Granulated Ply: GAF-Ruberoid Mop Plus Insulation Manufacturer: GAF Latite's responses were as follows: Manufacturer's Name: Soprema Base Sheet: Sopra 6 Intermediate Ply: Elastophene 180 Sanded Granulated Ply: Elastophene FR 6R Insulation Manufacturer: GAF (Made by Atlas) These responses indicate the primary differences between Cobb and Latite's bids. Another important factor (and distinction between Cobb and Latite's bids) was the roof insulation material proposed by each. Cobb proposed using Perlite; Latite proposed Sopra Board. These will be discussed more fully herein. GAF, referenced by both Cobb and Latite in their responses, is the largest roofing manufacturer in the United States. The company is 125 years old and is based in Wayne, New Jersey. A representative of GAF testified at final hearing. At about the time bids were submitted for the Project, a representative from Bonk's office called GAF to discuss specifications about various GAF products. There were at least two conversations, one of which was generic in nature and one which somewhat addressed the Project specifically. Bonk determined from the discussions with GAF that neither the Ruberoid Mop Plus proposed by Cobb for its granulated ply, nor the Ruberoid Modified Base Sheet portion of the bid was available in Florida. Further, Bonk learned that the Perlite product proposed for the roof insulation by Cobb was inferior to the Sopra Board proposed by Latite. A letter setting forth his findings was sent to the School Board on November 16, 2010. The Project Manual set forth certain specifications to be used by bidders concerning materials to be used for the Project. The roofing system specifications contained a direction that "[s]hould Soprema products be used, the following membrane sheets are required," and then went on to list the various products that could be used. Latite proposed the use of Soprema products and most of its materials were Soprema brand (except for its insulation, where a GAF brand product was proposed). Cobb, on the other hand, bid GAF products for each of the major Project components. By using Soprema products, Latite ensured compliance with the basic specifications set forth in the Project Manual. Generally a project bid sheet will contain an ASTM product code number which allows contractors to look at comparable materials from different manufacturers. The Project Manual in this case did not include ASTM codes. Any bidder proposing to use materials made by a company other than Soprema, therefore, would be required to independently determine comparability with the Soprema brand product. Cobb's proposed materials list included non-Soprema manufactured products. The GAF products proposed by Cobb may generally have been comparable to the Soprema products, but the evidence is not persuasive as to that fact. Although the GAF representative testified that its products were of high quality and would likely satisfy the requirements for the Project, there was some question as to whether the items set forth by Cobb in its bid were sufficiently described. Bonk made some inquiry into the matter by contacting GAF, but the hearsay and nebulous nature of those discussions does not provide sufficient detail for formulation of a finding of fact as to whether the products were of comparable quality. Cobb proposed a product for the top membrane ply that was constructed using polyester material. The Project Manual called for ply with fiberglass construction. Both are quality products, but the polyester material has a tendency to shrink, especially if it is installed incorrectly. Of the six other entities submitting a bid for the Project, all of them proposed use of Soprema products or materials that were deemed equal in quality. Cobb's bid was the only bidder whose proposed products were deemed insufficient. One other bidder was also rejected due to time frame issues. None of the other bidders filed a protest or challenged the final decision of the School Board. The School Board's stated rationale for rejection of Cobb's bid was that the generic description of Cobb's proposed building materials made it difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain whether they met the standards set forth in the Project Manual. This rationale is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is based on sound reasoning. Cobb's bid, although more generic than the School Board would have liked, was nonetheless a viable bid. Cobb would have been able to explain and make his bid more specific had he been given the opportunity. However, the School Board did not owe Cobb the right to alter, amend, or explain its bid more fully after the bid process was complete. To do so would give Cobb an inequitable advantage, vis-à-vis, the competing bidders. It is very likely that Cobb could effectively and professionally complete work on the Project. However, its bid was not exactly in accordance with the requirements of the Project Manual and was justifiably rejected in favor of Latite's bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Hardee County School Board, upholding its award of the contract to Latite Roofing Company and denying the protest by Petitioner, L. Cobb Construction. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 30th day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Department of Transportation's rejection of all bids in this case meets the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact In August 1996, the Department sought bids for several road projects to be constructed in Bradenton, Florida. The projects were identified as State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6501, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. The construction project includes utility relocation work to be performed on behalf of the Manatee County, the City of Bradenton, and GTE, the owners of various utilities within the project area. In preparing for road construction projects, the Department enters into joint partnership agreements with utility owners. The agreements identify the responsibilities of the parties related to performance of utility relocation/construction work related to the road project. Essentially, the owner and Department determine an estimated cost for the utility construction which the owner places into escrow and the Department assumes the responsibility for obtaining bids for the utility work. In the event that the bid exceeds the escrowed estimated cost, the utility owner may withdraw from the agreement. Upon such withdrawal, the joint partnership agreement provides that the owner may perform the work itself or the Department can pay the amount in excess of that which the owner has escrowed. If the Department agrees to pay the "excess" cost, the utility work remains included in the bid project. If the Department does not pay the "excess," the work is performed by the utility owner in accordance with the Department's construction schedule, and is deleted from the final contract negotiated with the winning bidder. Six companies filed bids in relation to the projects at issue in this proceeding, including Gator Asphalt Co., APAC- Florida, MacKenzie E.T. Company, Westra Construction Corporation, Smith and Co., Inc., and the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bid of $6,586,034.13 was the low bid submitted. The Petitioner has been properly prequalified by the Department to perform the work that is the subject of the bid at issue in this proceeding. The date upon which the bids were opened is unclear, but by October 4, 1996, the bids had been opened and tabulated. By letter dated October 4, 1996, the Department notified the City of Bradenton of the bid tabulation. Although the estimated cost of work to be performed on behalf of the city was about $400,000, the letter indicates that the total amount of the deposited escrow should be $534,160.50. The letter provided a deadline of October 10 to provide certification to the Department that the funds had been escrowed. Although the Department's letter of October 4 does not address whether the Department was willing to pay the "excess," the request for additional city funds indicates that the Department was not offering to pay the additional costs associated with the work. By letter dated October 9, 1996, the City of Bradenton withdrew its participation from the project. The city portion of the work was State Project Number 13160-6501. The Department's technical review committee met on October 9, 1996. The committee reviews bid proposals and makes a recommendation to the awards committee. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the technical review committee meeting. No one who attended the technical review committee meeting testified at the hearing. At the hearing, a witness who did not attend the meeting reviewed minutes of the committee meeting and testified as to what the minutes appeared to indicate. The minutes were not offered into evidence. The awards committee met on October 15, 1996. There is no reliable evidence of what occurred during the awards committee meeting. No one who attended the awards committee testified at the hearing. Despite the lack of information as to what occurred during the committee meetings of October 9 and 15, the evidence establishes that the Department made no attempt to recalculate the bid amounts after the City of Bradenton withdrawal. On November 4, 1996, the Department posted notice of its intention to reject all the bids for State Project Numbers 13160-3512, 13160-6502, and 13160-6512. Four bids exceeding the maximum acceptable bid established by the Department were rejected. Two bids, including the Petitioner's, were rejected as nonresponsive for failing to meet requirements related to utilization of "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" (DBE) in the project. The Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's proposed rejection of all bids. The Department requires that each bid proposal either meet specific goals for DBE utilization or include an adequate "good faith effort" package identifying the efforts made by the bidder to meet the goal. The DBE goal for these projects was 12 percent of the total bid amount. Failure to either meet the DBE goal or submit an adequate "good faith effort" package renders a bid submittal nonresponsive. The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive for failing to meet the DBE requirements. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner's proposal did not include an adequate "good faith effort" package. The Petitioner's bid identifies DBE participation as 11.3 percent of its total bid. The Petitioner's total bid amount included the utility work for the City of Bradenton. The Petitioner asserts that a specification set forth in the bid package requires that the Department recalculate the bid proposals by deleting the City of Bradenton work from the project. Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications issued as part of the bid package at issue in this proceeding, states as follow: The Department reserves the right to delete the bid portion of the utility relocation work from the Contract. Deletion of any utility relocation work from the Contract will require the Contract bid tabulations to be recalculated based on the remaining project quantities. According to calculations made by the Petitioner, reducing the amount of his total bid by the cost of utility work related to the City of Bradenton, results in his DBE participation rising to 11.9777 percent of the revised total. The DBE reporting form supplied to bidders by the Department states that the "[g]oal may be rounded to the nearest tenth percent," indicating that his 11.977 percent could be rounded up to 12 percent. The Petitioner asserts that the withdrawal of the City of Bradenton from the project and the rounding of the goal results in his bid meeting the DBE requirement of 12 percent. The language of Article 3-1 of the Supplemental Specifications is applicable, not to bid proposals, but to the contract negotiated between the successful bidder and the Department. In practice, the Department has implemented this provision according to the specification language. Items specifically related to withdrawn utility relocation work are deleted from the contract negotiated with the successful bidder. The evidence fails to establish the Petitioner is entitled to recalculation of his bid proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by the Petitioner in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Brant Hargrove, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary S. Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid (ITB) for Bid No. 91-04, entitled "Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filter Installations and Exchanges" in September, 1990. Two bids were received in response to Respondent's ITB 91-04; one from Petitioner for a composite total price of $748,355.00 and one from Continental Water Systems, Inc. (Continental), for a total composite price of $904.475.00. An intended contract award was delayed until the bids were evaluated. Subsequently, Respondent determined to award the bid to Continental on October 12, 1990. The issue in the ensuing bid dispute in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 90-6962BID was the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid on carbon specifications to be used in water filters. The bid document did not require manufacturers' specifications, requiring instead only generic specifications or a description of the product to be used. Respondent awarded the bid to Continental after determining Petitioner's bid to be nonresponsive, although the bid appeared facially responsive. In the course of evaluating the bids, Respondent's personnel went beyond the bid submissions and telephoned the manufacturer of the carbon proposed to be used in Petitioner's bid submittal. The manufacturer confirmed the content of Petitioner's bid that a lot analysis and hand selection could be done to select lots of carbon of a specified iodine number of 950 or greater in satisfaction of Respondent's specifications. Absent such a selection process, no manufacturer in this country produces a standard carbon which meets Respondent's bid specifications. While the ITB required bidders to submit specifications for products, it did not require submission of manufacturer's specifications. However, Petitioner's bid submittal included the manufacturer's specification sheet for an activated charcoal product known as GAC 30. The iodine number 950 appeared on the sheet with an asterisk next to it. At the bottom of the page was a typed note explaining that lots with this iodine rating would be specifically selected to meet or exceed all bid requirements. In reviewing Petitioner's bid, Respondent's personnel were aware that Petitioner had been using selected lots of GAC 30 in fulfilling a previous bid award for the same project from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which specified carbon with an iodine number of 950. Further, Respondent's personnel knew that lot analyses were provided to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to confirm the carbon's standards. As a result of that knowledge, a provision for an analysis of each carbon lot to be used was included in Respondent's ITB. On October 9, 1990, when Respondent's employee telephoned the manufacturer whose specification sheet was submitted by Petitioner, he was orally informed that while the iodine number for GAC 30 is 900, the actual iodine number for GAC 30 is often above 950 and that lot selections of carbon could be made meeting or exceeding 950. Later, per the employee's request for written confirmation, he received a facsimile letter dated October 10, 1990, from the manufacturer. Without regard for these findings, Respondent rejected Petitioner's bid because the actual manufacturer's specification for the carbon proposed by Petitioner did not meet bid requirements. 1/ While Respondent's personnel deemed it appropriate to consider information from the manufacturer of GAC 30 that its actual specifications were different from those submitted by Petitioner, the manufacturer's confirmation of Petitioner's explanation that lots would be selected to meet bid requirements was rejected. Petitioner is a corporation which, at the time of the bid submittal, had its principal office in Winter Haven, Florida. At that time, Petitioner had 12 employees. Petitioner is a prevailing small business party and was awarded the bid by Final Order of Respondent dated February 18, 1991. In the course of the administrative litigation culminating in Respondent's Final Order, Petitioner incurred attorney's fees in excess of $15,000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Transportation, advertised its Invitation to Bid on Contract No. E4504, State Project Job No. 99004-3509 for work consisting of providing trees and shrubs with on-site placement for State Road 858 in Broward County, Florida. The Invitation to Bid advised that a mandatory pre-bid conference would be conducted on January 10, 1991. Although it was the responsibility of Kathleen L. Mims to submit bids on behalf of Mims Gardens, Inc., and to attend pre-bid conferences, Stephen H. Mims attended the mandatory pre-bid conference for this bid instead. At the pre-bid conference, after all attendees were provided with bid packages, the meeting was called to order by Teresa L. Martin, Respondent's Assistant District Contracts Administrator. Martin and Carl Higgins, the Project Engineer, explained unit pricing and how averaged prices were to be calculated. Higgins explained that although some of the pay items consisted of aggregate quantities of different plants, only a single average price was to be calculated for the total number of plants required for that category and only one figure was to be placed in the box for each pay item even if that pay item consisted of different plants with different prices. When Martin and Higgins concluded their remarks, they gave the attendees the opportunity to ask questions regarding the bid and the proper completion of the bid form. Stephen Mims heard the explanation for calculating the average price for the total number of plants in a single pay item category. He did not pay much attention to the explanation, however, because he was concentrating on counting the number of pages in his bid package. Although he did take some notes on some of the information given during the mandatory pre-bid conference, he made no notes regarding calculating the prices to be submitted on the bid form. He assumed that whatever information was needed would be included in the bid package itself. After the mandatory pre-bid. conference, he gave the bid package to Kathleen L. Mims to complete and submit to Respondent. He did not show her the notes that he had taken and did not give her the information given to him at the mandatory pre-bid conference regarding the fact that only one number was to be provided for each pay item even if that pay item consisted of plants with different prices or regarding how to calculate a single average price for the total number of plants in each pay item category. Kathleen L. Mims completed and submitted a bid on behalf of Mims Gardens, Inc. When she completed the bid price proposal sheet, she listed individual unit prices for each of the plants in the pay item categories that contained more than one plant. She did not calculate a single average price as required by Respondent in order that all bids could be evaluated against each other. Although Kathleen Mims had never previously submitted a bid to the Department of Transportation, and although the bid price proposal sheet was different than those she routinely completed, she did not contact Teresa Martin or Carl Higgins to inquire as to the proper method for completing the bid price proposal sheet. Although the Bid Blank itself contained no directions regarding the specific procedure to be used in filling out the bid price proposal sheet, she did not ask her husband Stephen Mims what information had been given to him during the mandatory pre-bid conference. Additionally, although the bid package advised potential bidders as to requirements for filing a protest regarding the bid solicitation itself, Mims Gardens did not protest the bid solicitation. Stephen Mims did not assist in the preparation of the bid proposal of Mims Gardens. When the bid proposal for Mims Gardens was completed, Kathleen Mims did not show it to Stephen Mims to ascertain if it complied with the instructions given to him at the mandatory pre-bid conference. She simply filed her bid with the Department of Transportation on January 18, 1991, the deadline for submittal of bids for the project in question. Thirteen sealed bids were received and opened by the Department of Transportation. Mims Gardens submitted the lowest bid based on the contractor's total bid price from the bid form. Vila and Son Landscaping submitted the second lowest bid. On January 25, 1991, the Department posted its Notice of Intent to award the project to Vila and Son Landscaping. That notice advised that the Department had determined the bid of Mims Gardens to be an irregular bid proposal and that the bid of Mims Gardens was therefore rejected. One other bid also contained multiple quantities and prices in some of the pay item categories, was also declared irregular, and was also rejected. Kathleen Mims admitted at the final hearing in this cause that if she had attended the mandatory pre-bid conference, she would have been able to fill out the bid proposal sheet correctly. Mims filed its notice of intent to protest on January 25, 1991, and its formal protest filed on February 1, 1991, was timely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Declaring Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive; Rejecting Petitioner's bid; and Awarding Contract No. E4504, State Project Job No. 99004-3509 to Vila and Son Landscaping Corp. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-0990BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 except for the second and third sentences, 3-7, and 10-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The second and third sentences of Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 8, and 9 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, the first sentence of 3, 4, and 6-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 and the second sentence of Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Hankins, Assistant General Counsel Susan P. Stephens, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Nancy Katherine Neidich, Esquire 2810 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 102 Post Office Box 5121 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN.: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58
