Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, violated the construction industry licensing law, by: (1) acting in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than as set forth on his certificate; (2) diverting construction funds resulting in his unwillingness or inability to perform pursuant to a construction contract; and (3) abandoning three construction projects, and if Respondent is guilty of such violations, the appropriate disciplinary penalty which should be imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Conclusions and Recommendation Conclusions: Respondent is guilty of the charges that he (1) acted in the capacity of a contractor under a name other than as set forth on his certificate, and (2) abandoned a single construction project; he is not guilty of the charges that he abandoned two other projects, and diverted construction funds which resulted in his unwillingness, or inability to perform pursuant to a construction contract. Recommendation: That Respondent's certified general contractor's license be SUSPENDED until such time as Respondent furnishes to the Board satisfactory evidence of having made restitution to purchasers entitled to the return of their deposits made pursuant to Hands High Ranchettes and Bass Creek of Boynton residential purchase agreements.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fuller holds a currently active certified general contractor's license, no. CG C009750. Fuller is authorized by his certification to perform contracting only under his proper name, or the name of Bass Creek Corporation. (Testimony of Kehr, Fuller) At all times material hereto, Fuller was a general partner in two Florida limited partnerships: Bass Creek of Boynton Associates, Ltd. and Hands High Ranchettes, Ltd. These partnerships attempted to develop and construct two residential subdivisions in Palm Beach County -- Hands High Ranchettes and Bass Creek. In furtherance of this undertaking Fuller, or his agents, executed written contracts to sell lots within the developments and construct residences thereon. The Board alleged, and presented evidence at hearing for the purpose of establishing, that Fuller violated Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (1978) by his actions relating to contracts executed with three individuals -- Muriel F. Mason, Rozeanne E. White, and George C. Mitchell. (Testimony of Mason, White, Fuller, Petitioner's Exhibits 1 - 6). [AS TO MURIEL F. MASON] On September 10, 1978, Hands High Ranchettes, Ltd. entered into an Agreement of Purchase of Sale with Muriel F. Mason. By this agreement, Mason agreed to purchase a lot, with residence to be constructed thereon, in the Hands High Ranchettes residential development. The contract purchase price was $75,930.00. By January, 1979, Mason had paid into the Hands High Escrow Account, pursuant to the contract, an initial deposit of $3,915.00. (Testimony of Mason, Fuller, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6) Early in 1979, the bank rejected her application for a mortgage loan to finance purchase of the property. Consequently, under the contract, Fuller was not required to commence construction on the property. Moreover, Mason subsequently notified Hands High Ranchettes that she no longer wished to proceed with the contract, and requested return of her initial deposit. Under such circumstances, the purchase contract requires, and Fuller admits, that Mason is entitled to the full return of her $3,515.00 deposit. (Testimony of Mason, Fuller, Petitioner's Exhibit 5). During early July, 1979, Fuller notified Mason that 1e intended to return her $3,815.00 deposit, and that he would send her a letter to that effect. Fuller has recently earned substantial monies by selling land and completing a construction project which should enable him to return Mason's deposit no later than October, 1980. (Testimony of Mason, Fuller) [AS TO ROZEANNE WHITE] On August 19, 1975, Hands High Ranchettes, Ltd. entered into a similar Agreement of Purchase of Sale with Rozeanne White, aid her husband. By the agreement, White agreed to purchase a lot, with residence to be constructed thereon, in the Hands High Ranchettes subdivision. The purchase price was $75,000.00. By March, 1979, pursuant to the agreement, White had paid into the Hands High Ranchettes Escrow Account a $7,500.00 initial deposit. (Testimony of White, Fuller, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In March, 1979, White obtained the necessary mortgage loan to finance purchase of the lot and construction of the residence. Hands High Ranchettes, however, except for clearing the lot and constructing foundation forms, never constructed the residence specified in the Purchase Agreement. (Testimony of White, Fuller). In July, 1979, Fuller told White that due to severe financial problems associated with the development, he would be unable to construct her residence, and would refund her deposit within thirty days. Fuller's failure to timely construct the residence imposed a severe burden on White and her family. In anticipation of her new home being built, she had sold her existing residence. When the new residence was not constructed, she had to move her family into an 18' travel trailer for seven weeks during the summer. At the time she was pregnant, and was accompanied by her husband and two children. After Fuller failed to return her deposit, she filed a suit for damages and obtained a civil judgment against Hands High Ranchettes, Fuller, and Bass Creek Corporation for $43,000.00. In satisfaction of the judgment she ultimately accepted a settlement offer of $10,000.00 plus attorney fees. (Testimony of White) [AS TO GEORGE MITCHELL] On April 28, 1979, George Mitchell and his wife entered a similar Agreement of Purchase of Sale with Fuller's other limited partnership -- Bass Creek of Boynton Associates, Ltd. The agreement covered the purchase of a lot and construction of a new residence in the Bass Creek subdivision. The purchase price was $68,301.00 and, pursuant to the contract, Mitchell paid an initial deposit of $1,001.00 (Testimony of Fuller, Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Due to no fault of Mitchell's, the residence specified in their agreement was never constructed. Fuller admits that he defaulted on his obligation under the Agreement of Purchase and that Mitchell is entitled to the refund of his $1,001.00 initial deposit. (Testimony of Fuller, Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4) [ACTIONS OF GEORGE FULLER] Fuller, d/b/a Hands High Ranchettes, Ltd. and Bass Creek of Boynton Associates, Ltd. used the initial deposits received under the Purchase Agreements with Mason, White, and Mitchell to pay for clearing the lots, constructing foundation forms, and associated engineering and architectural fees. (Testimony of Fuller) Fuller, by his own admission, failed to perform his contractual obligation to return the initial deposits to Mason, White, and Mitchell. He promises to refund, by the end of October, 1980, any deposit monies due Mason, White, Mitchell, and other persons who entered into agreements to purchase land and construct residences within the two subdivisions. Fuller's failure to perform his contractual obligation to convey lots and construct the promised residences is not due to unwillingness or bad faith on his part, or a motive to avoid his contractual responsibilities. Rather, it is due to serious and complex financial difficulties he encountered in developing the two residential subdivisions. The two events primarily responsible for these financial difficulties were: (1) another party's breach of its contractual obligation to construct road improvements within the subdivisions; and (2) failure of the limited partner in these two ventures, Housing Capital Corporation of Washington, D.C., to furnish, as promised, $650,000.00 in interim development funds. In an effort to complete the developments, Fuller expended virtually all of his personal assets. (Testimony of Fuller) Fuller has engaged in general contracting for over forty years; charges have never before been brought against him in connection with his construction activities. For approximately twelve years he constructed numerous buildings for the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, N.Y. and has a wide range of experience in constructing schools, commercial buildings, residences, and apartment buildings. Since obtaining his Florida license, he undertook and successfully completed a 153-home residential development in Delrey Beach, Florida. His professional livelihood and economic well-being are dependent on his continued ability to engage in general contracting. (Testimony of Fuller).
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an invitation to bid on March 13, 1992. Bid number SB 92-244I involved the disassembly and removal of an existing walk-in freezer and the furnishing and installation of a new walk-in freezer at Coral Sunset Elementary School. The invitations to bid provided in paragraph Y of the Special Conditions: Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in Florida Statutes 120.53 3.(b) shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (sic) Bid specifications were included in the invitations to bid issued on March 13, 1992. Twenty-three bids were solicited. There were five responses. One of the responses was submitted by Choice Restaurant Equipment, Inc. ("Choice"). Choice is a vendor for equipment manufactured by Petitioner, Nor-Lake, Inc. ("Nor-Lake"). Nor-Lake is an out-of-state corporation with manufacturer's representatives in numerous states including Florida. 4, Petitioner, CHD Marketing Group ("CHD"), is the manufacturer's representative for Nor-Lake in Florida. CHD represents no other manufacturer of the product included in the bid response. Choice is a sales agent for CHD and other manufacturer's representatives in Florida. Choice sells the products of a variety of manufacturers but is the exclusive sales agent for CHD pursuant to a verbal agency agreement. Choice timely submitted a bid for bid number SB 92-244I on April 8, 1992, prior to the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. on the same day. The successful bidder submitted its bid by Federal Express at 4:51 p.m on April 8, 1992. Respondent's Department of Purchasing and Stores (the "Department") had stated on March 13, 1992, when the invitations to bid were issued, that bid responses must be received by the Department no later than 2:00 p.m. on April 8, 1992, at the Department's address at 3980 RCA Boulevard/Suite 8044, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410-4276. Prior to April 8, 1992, the Department relocated to a new facility at 3326 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. The new address was posted at the old location and Department representatives were present at the old address to accept walk-in bids. Federal Express first attempted to deliver the successful bid at the Department's old address at 10:30 a.m. on April 8, 1992. Federal Express delivered the successful bid to the Department's new address at 4:51 p.m. At 2:00 p.m. on the same day, The Department announced that all bids were in and opened the bids that had been delivered. The successful bid and one other bid were delivered on April 8, 1992, after the public opening conducted at 2:00 p.m. on the same day. Bids were tabulated on April 9, 1992. Bid tabulations were posted on April 13, 1992, and the successful bid was announced. The successful bid was for $8,174.00. Three bids were lower than the successful bid. Choice's bid was for $7,742.56. The other two lower bids were for $8,020.00 and $6,620.00. All three lower bids were rejected as non- responsive. Choice's bid was rejected because it did not meet bid specifications for 22 gauge steel, thermostatically controlled door heaters, and reinforced steel door panels. CHD filed a Notice of Protest on April 14, 1992, and a Formal Written Protest on April 24, 1992. CHD's protest alleges that: Choice's bid was lower than that of the successful bidder; the successful bid was not timely made; the bids were not opened publicly in violation of bidding procedure requirements; and the bid specifications were arbitrary and capricious, favored one bidder, and that Choice's bid was responsive. Neither a notice of protest nor a formal written protest was submitted by Choice or Nor-Lake. Neither Choice nor Nor-Lake attended the informal protest conference conducted on April 30, 1992. On May 7, 1992, Respondent's Office of General Counsel issued its written notice of proposed agency action. The written notice recommended that the bid be awarded to the successful bidder and that CHD's protest be dismissed for lack of standing. CHD requested a formal hearing on May 14, 1992, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer on May 15, 1992. The bid submitted by Choice was prepared by CHD but signed by the president of Choice. Neither Nor-Lake nor CHD signed a bid or were otherwise bidders of record for bid number SB 92-244I. Neither Choice, CHD, nor Nor-Lake, filed a notice of protest concerning the bid specifications within 72 hours after Choice received the notice of the project plans and specifications on March 13, 1992. The sole basis upon which CHD claims it is substantially affected is the adverse economic impact caused to it by the proposed agency action. The proposed agency action will result in lost sales from this and future transactions. CHD will lose commissions from this and future transactions. The dealer relationship between CHD and Choice will be damaged because Choice will not want to sell a freezer that is not acceptable to Respondent. The marketing strategy developed between CHD and Nor-Lake will be damaged because it is conditioned upon the award of public contracts.
Findings Of Fact It was Stipulated by the parties that the Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest and formal written protest (if section 120.53(5), Fla. Stat. (1986) is applicable) and timely filed a petition for formal administrative hearing. The Petitioner did not receive a written notice of the recommended award of the District as intended by paragraph 9 of the General Conditions of the second invitation for bids, and it did file a notice of protest with seventy-two hours of receiving notification of the District's decision to award the contract to Mid America as intended by paragraph 10 of the General Conditions, P. Ex. 3. It was Stipulated by the parties that the substantial interests of the Petitioner are at stake in this proceeding. The Department of Water Resources is involved in groundwater studies throughout the nineteen Florida counties that comprise the District, and is responsible for the District's drilling program. In the past, the District's waterwells have been in the 500 to 800 foot range, and have been constructed of 4, 6, and 8 inch casing. The Water Resources Department is currently constructing a regional groundwater monitoring network in the nineteen counties. The underlying geological formations differ greatly from county to county, and several water tables often have to be Penetrated before the well reaches the Floridan acquifer. To maintain mud circulation, it is often necessary to case off portions of the well from water table to water table. Moreover, wells are often in unconsolidated formations, and casing is needed to provide support for the hole, Particularly in the upper portions of the well. For these reasons, the District plans to construct step or telescoping wells in the regional groundwater monitoring network. The District expects that it will need to set 16 inch casing in the first eighty feet of some of these wells. In about 1984, by competitive bids, the St. Johns River Water Management District (the District) leased a Speedstar 15-III drill rig from Mid America Drilling Equipment, Inc. This rig was a Size larger than the drill rig that is the Subject of this formal administrative hearing, and had been manufactured in 1978. The District was satisfied with the performance of the larger Speedstar drill rig, and had very few problems with it. District staff became familiar with the operation of the rig. As the lease neared the end of its term, the District began to explore the question whether it should continue to lease, or should purchase its own rig. A member of the District Board Suggested that the District consider acquisition of a rig over a period of years by lease-purchase. This suggestion was adopted by the Department of Water Resources of the District. Due to his familiarity with the Speedstar rig, Mr. Munch decided to use that rig as a basis for bid specifications, but to use the next smaller size, a Speedstar SS-135. Mr. Munch copied the specifications from a Speedstar SS-135 specification sheet as the specifications for the first invitation for bids. Mr. Munch has had no education in engineering or in drill rig design. He has a degree and field work experience in geology, and is a licensed water well contractor. He has been a project manager on projects when outside contractors set 16 inch casing in wells as deep as 2,000 feet, but he has not personally set a 16 inch casing. P. Ex. 1 is the first invitation for bids and specifications for the invitation for bids, as well as the bid of the Petitioner, the George F. Failing Company. This invitation for bids was published on or about August 26, 1986. The invitation for bids provided six bid blanks providing six bid alternatives. The bid blanks appeared as follows: One Year Lease $ /month, renewal $ /month Two Year Lease-purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Three Year Lease-purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Four Year Lease/purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Five Year Lease/purchase $ /year, buy-out $ * * * Suggested Purchase Price $ Less 3 percent for payment in 20 days Four bids were received pursuant to this invitation for bids, including the Petitioner's bid and the bid of Mid America Drilling Equipment, Inc., P. Ex. 7. The four bids were opened on September 11, 1986. Mid America was the only bidder that bid a one year lease with an option to renew. Mid America, the Petitioner, and G & R Machine and Welding, Inc., were the only bidders to bid a lease-purchase. The Petitioners bid was $163,565.00 as an outright purchase price for a Failing model CF-15 and, relevant to the second bid, $5,432.00 per month for a three year lease-purchase, with the rig owned at the end of the three year lease period with no further buy-out payment. The Petitioner did not bid a one year lease. P. Ex. 1. Mid America bid $179,823.00 as an outright purchase price on a Speedstar SS135, and $56,340.00 per year for a three year lease-purchase, with a buy-out price of $61,920.00. Mid America also bid a one year lease at $6,125 per month, with a renewal at $5,288.00 per month. P. Ex. 7. Robert Schenk is the District's Director of the Division of General Services, and as such, Mr. Schenk was responsible for District Purchasing and evaluation of the bids received pursuant to the invitation of bids. Mr. Schenk Prepared an analysis of Several of the bids, including G & R Machine, Mid America, and the Petitioner. P. Ex. Mr. Schenk testified that he felt that the Mid America bid was unclear because of the total amount of the bid calculated over the years. He Said that he considered the Mid America bid for a three year lease-purchase to be ridiculous and out of line because it was $50,000 greater than the outright purchase bid. The bid of the Petitioner for a three year lease- purchase was about $32,000 higher than its bid for an outright purchase. P. Ex. 8. G & R Machine also bid a Speedstar SS-15. Mid America's three year lease-purchase bid was about $35,000 higher than the G & R Machine bid for the same three year lease-purchase. ($230,940.00 compared to $195,664.32.) P. Ex. 8. The bid of Mid America was also high compared to the bid of G & R Machine for a four and a five year lease-purchase, but was comparable for a two year lease-purchase and for an outright purchase. The bid of the Petitioner was $16,000 lower than the Mid America or G & R Machine bids for an outright purchase, was $31,000 lower than the G & R Machine bid and $34,000 lower than the Mid America bid for a two year lease-purchase, and was Slightly higher than the G & R Machine bid on all other bids. The bid of the Petitioner was substantially lower than the Mid America bid on all bids analyzed on P. Ex. 8. Although the Mid America bid was high, it was not an unclear bid. The bid of Mid America was clear and unambiguous. P. Ex. 7. Mr. Schenk thought that the Petitioner's bid was the clearest bid received in the first invitation for bids. Apparently on the same day as the bid opening, which was September 11, 1986, Mr. Schenk had one of his assistants telephone Mid America to ask that it clarify its bid. In response, on the same day as the bid opening, September 11, 1986, Mid America sent the District a letter, P. Ex. 9, which effectively lowered its bid for a three year lease-purchase by $36,612.00. This letter was ultimately not considered by the District in the evaluation of the bids. On September 23, 1986, four staff members of the Department of Water Resources, including Mr. Munch and Barbara A. Vergara, Director of that Department, recommended by memorandum to Mr. Schenk that the Mid America bid for a Speedstar SS-135 for an outright purchase price of $179,823.00 be accepted. These staff members were of the opinion that the drill rig bid by the Petitioner "did not meet all of the bid Specifications due to slight manufacturing differences." But they were also of the opinion that "[t]hese differences may not be critical to the performance and capabilities of the equipment." P. Ex. 10. The staff comparison of the Mid America bid and the Petitioner's bid included calculations for rental costs due to the differing delivery times of the equipment, and calculated that the Mid America bid had a net cost of $184,435 compared to the Petitioner's bid having a net cost of $182,013. Attached to the staff recommendation of September 23, 1986, was a comparison of the three drill rigs by specifications. The comparison used the incorrect specification sheet for the Mid America rig, and thus contained the following errors: the rig bid by Mid America had a single sheave, 3 part block, not a double sheave, 4 part block; the rig also had a working hook load of 20,000 pounds, not 32,700 pounds. Two to four days after September 11, 1986, (the date of the letter from Mid America changing its bid for a three year lease-purchase) Robert Auld, the Florida Branch Manager for the Petitioner, learned that such a letter had been requested, written, and received by the District, and called District staff to protest. Mr. Schenk thereafter apparently concluded that solicitation and receipt of the bid change from Mid America had been procedurally erroneous because he testified that as a result of all of the discussion and criticism that surrounded that event, on the second invitation for bids he concluded that he was procedurally unable to contact any of the bidders to request clarification of bids, even though he then thought that the Petitioner's bid was unclear. Mr. Schenk decided to reject all the bids from the first invitation for bids before Mr. Auld's telephone call. P. Ex. 15, p. 10. But he did not communicate this decision to the staff of the Department of Water Resources before they wrote their memorandum that was initiated through the chain of command on September 23, 1986. Mr. Schenk initially decided to reject all of the bids because the bidders had not all bid on all of the requested alternatives. Later, other reasons for rejection of all of the bids became apparent. Another major reason for rejection of all of the bids was because the specifications were drawn from the Speedstar SS-135 specifications, and unfairly eliminated the Petitioner's rig. Mr. Auld admitted that the Failing CF-15 did not meet the specifications of the first invitation for bids because the Failing CF-15 did not have an 8 1/2 inch rotary table, but was of the opinion that it met all other specifications. Mr. Schenk also rejected all of the bids because of the irregularity of having solicited and received the bid change from Mid America. On October 1, 1986, the District informed all bidders that the bids were all rejected and that the purchase would be again advertised for bids. No protest was filed concerning the first invitation for bids, and it was ruled during the formal administrative hearing that the foregoing facts are admissible as explanatory of the basis for the second invitation for bids, and not as a basis for challenge to the first invitation for bids. Mr. Munch then drafted specifications for the second invitation for bids. This time, he Specified "Speedstar SS-135 or equivalent." Mr. Munch had determined from his experience with the rented Speedstar that the Speedstar SS-135 was capable of fulfilling the needs of the District for drilling. His intention was to allow bids for other types of drill rigs that were the equivalent of a Speedstar SS-135. Ms. Vergara defined the term "equivalent" to mean no differences between a Speedstar SS-135 and the alternative drill rig with respect to doing work in the field that needs to be done by the District. At some time before the second invitation for bids was advertised, or at least before the second bids were filed, the District became Primarily (though not exclusively interested in receiving bids on a three year lease-purchase of a drill rig. Both the Petitioner and Mid America knew this before they prepared their second bids. P. Ex. 3 is the second advertisement for bids and was published on November 6, 1986. The advertisement asks for bids on a "lease-purchase of One Rotary Drill Rig." The attached sheet marked "specifications" stated that what was sought was a "[b]id for purchase or one year lease of a new Speedstar 135 rotary drill rig or at least the equivalent equipment with the following options." Following that were eight technical specifications. The second invitation for bids also specified the following: "Bidder must indicate any and all exceptions to specifications. "Bid shall be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsible bidder whose bid meets all specifications in the Invitation to Bid, including delivery, price and other factors most advantageous to the District." All bidders were to bid using the bid blank attached to the invitation for bids. The bid blank was different from the first invitation for bids apparently with the intent to make bid comparisons easier. The bid blank provided the following alternatives for bids: Purchase Price $ Lease Price $ /Month, first year (renewable) $ /Month, second year (renewable) $ /Month, third year One year guarantee non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of leased $ . Make and Model of Equipment . Manufacturers Warranty . (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ . Location of Maintenance Services . Since the District was then "primarily" (but not exclusively) "interested in" a three year lease-purchase, the bid blank form was incomplete and unclear. Paragraph A) of the bid blank form clearly provides for a bid for an outright purchase only, not a "lease-purchase." And Paragraph B) provides only for a lease without any mention of purchase; Paragraph B) asks for a price by month for the first year, with the notation that the lease is renewable (apparently at the option of the District, a lease price by month for the second year, with the notation again that the lease is renewable (at the option of the District), and a lease price per month for a third year, with no mention of any further renewability. Paragraph B) says nothing about purchase of the drill rig, ownership at the end of the lease term, or the buy- out price at the end of the lease term. Moreover, the rest of the invitation for bids is similarly incomplete and unclear. Although the first page of the invitation for bids states that bids were requested on a "lease-purchase" of one rotary drill rig, the specification sheet attached to the invitation stated the specification that the bid should be "for purchase or one year lease...." P. Ex. 3 (E.S.). The specification said nothing about a three year lease-purchase. P. Ex. 3, the second invitation for bids, was sent to all entities that had submitted a bid in response to the first invitation for bids. These included five companies that were Speedstar SS-135 dealers and the Petitioner. Only two bids were received in response to the second invitation for bids, one from Mid America and one from the Petitioner. The second Mid America bid is P. Ex. 11. The Petitioner's second bid is P. Ex. 4. The bids were opened on November 20, 1986. The opening was attended by Ron Owens, President of Mid America, and Robert Auld. Mr. Schenk announced that the Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. Mr. Schenk may have only intended his announcement of apparent low bid to have been with relationship to the bid for outright purchase. A bid tabulation sheet was prepared. P. Ex. Mr. Schenk also announced that the recommendation by the staff to the District Board as to which company should be awarded the contract would be made at the next Board meeting. At that time, the next Board meeting was January 14, 1987. The Petitioner's bid, typed on the bid blank required by the District, provided in pertinent part the following: Purchase Price $146,976.00 Lease Price $ NO BID /Month, first year (renewable) (OWNED AT END OF SECOND YEAR) $6,885.00 /Month, second year (renewable) (OWNED AT END OF THIRD YEAR) $4,592.00 /Month, third year One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of lease) $NOT AVAILABLE Make and Model of Equipment FAILING MODEL CF-15 Combination Drill GEORGE E. FAILING COMPANY standard Manufacturers Warranty warranty policy will apply, extended for 9 months (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery 120 days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ NO CHARGE Location of Maintenance Services GEORGE E. FAILING COMPANY 2101 Starkey Road Largo, Florida 33541 Mid America Submitted its bid on the bid blank form as follows: Purchase Price $179,823.00 Lease Price $5,241.00 /Month, first year (renewable) $5,241.00 /Month, Second year (renewable) $5,241.00 /Month, third year (SEE CONDITIONS BELOW) One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of lease) $3,000.00 per year Make and Model of Equipment Speedstar SS-135 Manufacturers Warranty 6 months or 1000 hours (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery 21 days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ Included/No Charge Location of Maintenance Services Ocala, Florida * * * CONDITIONS #1. If the lease is written for a guaranteed 36 month period, there will be a purchase option available at the end for $1.00 #2. If the lease is written as a yearly renewable lease and runs 3 consecutive years there will be a purchase option available after the 36th payment for $8,092.00. The bid of Mid America was for a Speedstar SS-135, and thus complied with the specifications in that respect. The bid of Mid America was clear and enable the District to understand what its annual budgetary obligations might be should the alternatives in the bid be accepted. The Mid America bid provided the following three alternatives: Outright purchase for $179,823, which was $32,847 more than the bid of the petitioner of $146,976. Payment of a total of $188,676 over a three year period plus an additional payment of $8,092 at the end of the lease if the lease were to be written as yearly renewable for 3 consecutive years, for a total cost of $196,768. Payment of a total of $188,676 (plus a $1 buy-out option) over a three year period if the lease were to be written for a guaranteed 36 month period. This is the alternative ultimately accepted by the District. After publication of the second invitation for bids, but before the opening of those bids, Ms. Vergara appeared before the District Board to explain the manner in which the invitation for bids had been drafted. In particular she explained that the invitation used a "brand name or equivalent" specification. She further advised the Board that the staff recommended the Speedstar SS-135 as the equipment most capable of handling the drilling needs of the District, and that any equipment purchased must be at least equivalent to the Speed star SS-135. At some time before the opening of the second set of bids, Mr. Munch and his supervisor, Ms. Vergara, traveled to the offices of Mid America and inspected a Speedstar SS-135. The owner and President of Mid America was Present to explain the design advantages of the Speedstar SS-135. He was a Salesman, and had no background in engineering or drill rig design. None of the District staff visited the Petitioner's place of business to inspect a Failing CF-15. Mr. Munch and Ms. Vergara did not see a Failing CF-15 until preparations began for the formal administrative hearing. In a deposition prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Schenk testified under oath that the staff had already decided that they wanted a Speedstar SS-135 rather than a Failing CF-15 based upon the report of Ms. Vergera to the District Board. In a deposition prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Munch testified that he was never asked which rig he would rather have, that the issue was Strictly a cost decision, that he probably would have had no objection to purchase of the Failing CF-15 had it been cheaper than the Speedstar SS-135, and that the Failing CF-15 would probably have done the job needed by the District to be done. On December 12, 1986, Mr. Schenk sent a memorandum to the District Board concerning the purchase of the rotary drill rig. The memorandum advised the Board that the District had received two bids. It then presented five alternatives for the Board to consider. All of the bid alternatives (alternatives 1 through 4) related to the Mid America bid on the Speedstar SS-135, and presented all of the options bid by Mid America. None of the bid alternatives related to the petitioner's bid. The District Board was not advised as to the comparative purchase prices bid by the two bidders (the Petitioner's price being $32,000 less than Mid America's), it was not advised as to the two interpretations of the three year option in the Petitioner's bid, and it was not advised that under the second interpretation of the Petitioner's three year lease-purchase bid, the Petitioner's bid had a net cost, after accounting for delivery time, that was $9,529 less than the Mid America bid. (See finding of fact 60.) Mr. Schenk thought that paragraph B), as modified by the "CONDITIONS" placed on the bid by Mid America, presented an option to "renew" the lease monthly at $5,241 per month, for an annual cost of $62,892. Evidentially, then, Mr. Schenk thought that the word "renewable" pertained to renewal by month. P. Ex. 15, p. 2, para. 2. With respect to this option, nothing is mentioned about purchase. Mr. Schenk also treated the word "renewable" to be intended to be exercised annually, resulting in a three year lease (renewable annually). The differing use of the word "renewable" came as a result of the modifications placed on the bid form by Mid America. The District Board chose option 3, which was condition number 1 on the bid blank submitted by Mid America, (a guarantee 36 months lease with a purchase option of $1.00) with the addition of the words "Subject to the availability of funds." The Second invitation for bids had Stated in Paragraph 3 of the third page that "all lease-purchase agreements must include a nonappropriation of fund Paragraph as required by Florida Statutes." Thus, the condition that the lease be "guaranteed" was modified by the District consistent with the specification of the invitation for bids relating to the appropriation of funds. On the day of the District Board meeting approving a lease-purchase with Mid America, January 14, 1987, the District entered into a contract with Mid America for the lease-purchase of a Speedstar SS-135. SJRWMD Ex. 3. The lease agreement contains a Paragraph allowing the District to terminate the lease upon nonappropriation of funds, Subject to certain conditions. Id., para. 11. In February, 1987, Mr. Auld learned at a trade show in Orlando that the District had awarded the contract to Mid America. Mr. Auld called Ms. Mildred Horton, the Assistant Executive Director of the District, to ask for the reasons why his bid was not accepted. Ms. Horton wrote a letter to Mr. Auld dated February 17, 1987, Setting forth the reasons for the award to Mid America and attaching two amortization Schedules, one for each bid. The letter and attachments is P. Ex. 6. Ms. Horton stated that the Schedules attached were the only ones in existence, to her knowledge. None of the reasons given by Ms. Horton for the rejection of the Petitioner's bid could have been known prior to the opening of the bids. The amortization schedules attached to Ms. Horton's letter had been prepared by Mr., Schenk. The schedule for the Petitioner's bid showed a total cost over a three year period of $224,344, which resulted in an effective interest rate of 31 percent compared to the outright purchase price on the Petitioner's bid of $146,976. The schedule assumes that the Petitioner's bid was for a monthly payment of $6,885 for two years followed by a monthly payment of $4,592 in the third year. P. Ex. 6. Mr. Schenk testified that he considered the possibility that the Petitioner's bid for a three year lease purchase was $4,592 per month for 36 months, and prepared an alternative amortization table based upon that possible interpretation as well as the amortization table attached to the letter sent to Mr. Auld by Ms. Horton described above. P. Ex. 12. Mr. Schenk concluded, however, that the Petitioner's bid should be interpreted as a bid of $6,885 per month for two years and $4,592 for the third year, for a total cost of $224,344. He testified that it was confusing that the Petitioner's bid did not contain a price for the first year, but he also concluded that the price of $6,885 placed on the second line of paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid was intended to be a price for both the first year and the second year. He further testified that the Petitioner's bid may have been more understandable had the word "renewable" been stricken on the bid form. Finally, he testified that he disregarded the additions to the Petitioner's bid form because these were "alterations" to the form, but considered the additions to the bid form by Mid America because these were only "additions." As discussed above, after the Second invitation for bids was published, the District was Primarily interested in receiving bids for a three year lease-purchase. The bid blank in the second invitation for bids, however, failed to provide a clear method for bidders to bid that option. Paragraph B) of the bid blank drafted by the District was defective because it did not in any manner state that a purchase (a transfer of ownership) was included in the "lease" for which a price was being asked, because it failed to state whether the District wanted bids on a one year lease- purchase, a two year lease-purchase, a three year lease-purchase, or only a lease for those periods of time, because the word "renewable" was susceptible of being interpreted as renewal from month to month as well as from year to year, as so construed in Mr. Schenk's December 12, 1986 recommendation to the District Board. Paragraph B) was also defective because it failed to provide a place to show the price of the purchase option at the end of the lease, or zero if there were to be none. Without the "CONDITIONS" attached to the Mid America bid, the filled-in blanks of Paragraph B) on the bid form only resulted in a bid on a lease. Mr. Schenk recognized this as he construed Paragraph B) of the form as only asking for a lease bid when he informed the District Board of option number 2 in his memorandum of December 12, 1986. P. Ex. 13. Since the bid form was defective, it was foreseeable that bidders would have to have added additional words to the bid form to make it sensical. It was also foreseeable that different bidders would take different approaches in trying to draft additions to the form to enable them to bid all critical aspects of a lease that included a purchase at the end of the lease. The bid of the Petitioner should have been construed with this foreseeability in mind. In particular, the failure of the Petitioner to place a price on the first line of paragraph B) (relating to the first year) coupled with the placing of a price at the second year line and the third year line, and the addition of the words "owned at end of second year" and "owned at end of third year" should have been construed as the Petitioner's attempt, like the attempt of Mid America, to cure the ambiguities in the bid form. As discussed above, without such words, a price in the first line of paragraph B) of the bid form would have only been a bid for a renewable lease for one year, with no purchase option. The District argues that it did not ask for a bid on a two year lease-purchase, and that the Petitioner's attempt to bid on that as well as on a three year lease-purchase caused confusion. But the problem is that the bid form, as discussed above, did not ask for any purchase associated with a lease, and asked for prices for a lease that could have either a one, two or three year term based upon the option to renew. It was not unreasonable, then, for the Petitioner to have bid a two year lease-purchase. The interpretation of Petitioner's bid as a bid for a total cost of $224,344 over three years is not reasonable. The interpretation of the Petitioner's bid as providing for a total cost of $224,344 over three years results in an interest cost of 31 percent, a rate of interest that is facially unreasonable. But more important if, as assumed in that interpretation, the District were to enter into a contract with the Petitioner at a monthly charge of $6,885 per month for two years, it would own the Failing drill rig at the end of the second year. This is so because the Same line that contains the price ($6,885) also has the added words "owned at end of second year." If it owned the rig after two years, the District Surely would not continue leasing it for the third year at $4,592 per month. Payment of $6,885 for 24 months would cost a total of $165,240, which reasonably compares to Petitioner's outright purchase price of $146,976, plus the cost of paying over a two year period. Since it was more reasonable to construe line two of the Paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid form as a bid for a two year lease-purchase, the third line should have been given the same construction, that is, to construe the price placed on the line as the price each month for the entire period (here, three years) with ownership automatic at the end of the term. The reasonable interpretation of line 3 of Paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid is for a lease-purchase for three years at $4,592 per month, for a total cost over three years of $165,312, the rig then being owned by the District at the end of 36 months with no buy-out cost. The reasonableness of this interpretation is further supported by the fact that payment of $165,312 on a machine that cost $146,976 to buy outright results in an interest rate for payment over three years of 7.9 percent, which is a normal and usual interest rate that would be expected in a competitive bid. P. Ex. 12. Mid America's bid offered to deliver in 21 days, while the Petitioner offered to deliver in 120 days. Since the District was then renting drilling equipment at $4,612 per month, it would potentially have incurred about one month extra rental ($4,612) on the Mid America bid, and $18,448 for four months extra rental on the Petitioner's bid, or an additional cost of $13,836 on the Petitioner's bid. Including this cost of rental during the potential delivery period, the net cost of the Petitioner's three year lease-purchase bid was $183,760, and the net cost of the Mid America bid alternative that was accepted by the District was $193,289. Thus, with respect to the bid actually accepted by the District, the Petitioner's bid was $9,529 less than the bid of Mid America. During the formal administrative hearing, it appeared from the evidence that the District relied upon the following additional issues, other than price, as the reasons for selection of the Mid America bid: One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on the lease equipment, renewable annually for the term of the lease. A manufacturers warranty of at least 6 months or 1,000 hours. The delivery date. The location of the maintenance Services. All of the foregoing were bid specifications printed on the bid form. P. Exs. 11 and 4. Of these, only the issue of non-routine maintenance was mentioned in the letter of Ms. Horton to Mr. Auld on February 17, 1987. P. Ex. 6. Mid America bid $3,000 per year for non-routine maintenance. The Petitioner Stated on its bid form that this item was "not available." Non-routine maintenance is needed only at the end of the warranty Period. In the industry, its is well understood that non-routine maintenance normally does not apply and is not Purchased until the end of the warranty period. The District had not purchased the non-routine maintenance at the time of the formal administrative hearing. The prices quoted in the bids, pursuant to the invitation for bids, were to have been fixed only for 90 days. Thus, it is uncertain whether the $3,000 bid of Mid America for non-routine major maintenance would still hold. The term "non-routine, major maintenance and repair" was not further defined by the bid form. Although the Petitioner did not bid on non-routine maintenance, it did offer a one year warranty which was six months beyond the minimum specified by the District. Thus, for this six months period only, the Petitioner effectively provided a free non-routine maintenance offer at least to extent of the warranty. But the Petitioner failed to offer non-routine major maintenance for the 24 month period following the first year of the lease. Both bidders complied with the specifications with respect to the manufacturer's warranty, but the Petitioner offered a warranty that was better by six months. The District Board was incorrectly advised that the Petitioner's warranty was only for 90 days (and thus not in compliance with specifications). P. Ex. 13. The delivery date was considered during the hearing only with respect to the cost of rental of equipment until the new rig would be delivered, and thus was an element of net cost discussed above. The Petitioner's delivery date caused its bid to have an additional rental cost of $13,836 as compared to the Mid America bid, but the Petitioner's total net cost still was lower than the Mid America bid, as discussed above. The Petitioner's location of maintenance services was Largo, Florida, and Mid America's location was Ocala, Florida. Mid America's location is approximately 100 miles closer to Palatka than the Petitioner's location. The difference is a difference of about 4 hours in travel time, roundtrip, or only two hours for delivery of a part. Mr. Schenk testified that this factor carried only "some weight." Mr. Schenk did not know how often maintenance at the seller's location might occur, what percentage of maintenance might be in the field rather than in the seller's shop, or the problems that might occur from lack of a part. From the testimony of Mr. Winchester, who was the only rig expert who testified, and the testimony of Mr. Munch regarding the leased Speedstar rig, it appears that maintenance on the rig for major problems should not occur very often, if at all, and that many problems can be corrected in the field. In most cases, parts will have to come overnight by bus. It is inferred that a part from Ocala will arrive no sooner by overnight bus than a part from Largo by overnight bus. Thus, the closer location of the Mid America shop is of little importance on this record. The February 17, 1987, letter from Ms. Horton to Mr. Auld Stated that the failure of the Petitioner to bid on a one year lease was one of the reasons for not accepting the Petitioner's bid. As discussed above, the District was primarily seeking a three year lease-purchase, not a one year lease, and communicated this to the two bidders. Indeed, it was the existing one year lease that prompted the desire by the Board to explore a purchase over time. The District did not enter into a one year lease with Mid America, either. Thus, a bid on a one year lease was not a material or substantial part of the bid specifications. Specification number 2, listed as a desired option, was that the drill rig have a five speed transmission. The Speedstar SS-135 had a five speed transmission, thus giving it a lower first gear, and the Failing CF-15 did not. There is no evidence that the Petitioner could have have offered a five speed-transmission. On the other hand, there is no evidence that a four speed transmission would not effectively meet the needs of the District. The only evidence was that the five speed transmission would have a lower first gear, but there was not substantial evidence that the District would encounter drilling circumstances needing only the lower gear of the Speedstar SS-135. When the rotary table is retracted on the Speedstar SS- 135, the opening is 18 inches in diameter, thus allowing the Speedstar SS-135 to set 16 inch casing. The Speedstar SS-135 otherwise marginally has the power and related mechanical ability to drill and set 16" casing, particularly lighter PVC casing, to depths of 80 feet in about six hours. Drilling the first 80 feet in six hours is very slow in comparison to the normal operation of either the Speedstar SS-135 or the Failing CF-15, and would be more a matter of use of the mud pump to wear away the soil rather than actually drilling the hole. However, the Speedstar SS-135 is in fact being used in Florida by other owners to drill and set 16 inch casing. When the rotary table is retracted on the Failing CF-15, the opening is 14 1/2 inches in diameter, and thus the Failing CF- 15 does not have any capacity to drill or set 16 inch casing. If the District had chosen the Failing CF-15, in those cases in which it needed to drill and set 16 inch casing, it would have to contract out to a larger drill rig to drill and set such casing. In all other respects the Speedstar SS-135 and the Failing CF-15 are functionally equivalent machines, and are considered to be equivalent in the industry. For the most part, the design differences explained by Mr. Munch with respect to the video tape of views of both machines were not differences causing the machines to be not functional equivalents, except as discussed above. The recommendation of the staff of the District to purchase the Speedstar SS-135 would probably have been the same, based upon factors other than price, had the staff considered the bid of the Petitioner to have been $9,529 less than that of Mid America for a three year lease-purchase, as discussed in finding of fact 60. While the District entered into the process of obtaining bids for the drill rig with a preference for a rig capable of performing like the Speedstar SS-135, it did not intend to favor the Mid America Company over the Petitioner, nor did it act in bad faith. At all times relevant to these invitations for bids and award of the contract, the District did not have rules governing purchasing of commodities or governing the notification to interested persons concerning the procedures for contesting a proposed purchase. It did not have any policy or rule requiring that the lowest bid be accepted without consideration of other factors. It did have written policies, SJRWMD Exs. 1 and 2, providing for the following: Purchases in excess of $5,000 must be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation no less than ten days prior to bid opening. The District Purchasing Director may withdraw the entire proposal, and may reject all bids or parts of bids, if the District's interest will be served by that action. Departments or Divisions of the District submitting requisitions must do so with items described in such terms to allow unrestricted bidding and to afford full opportunity to bid to all qualified bidders. Any purchase order made contrary to the provisions of the purchasing policies shall be of no effect and void.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter its final order that the bid of the George E. Failing Company pursuant to Bid Number 87-01, second call for bids, dated November 6, 1986, was properly rejected because it did not meet all specifications of the invitation to bid. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1606BID The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties which have been rejected. The numbers correspond to the numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the George F. Failing Company: 2. The third sentence is rejected because Mr. Munch chose the Speedstar SS-135 as a basis for the Specifications due to his familiarity with the leased drill rig of the same make. 6. Not relevant. 19 and 20. Mr. Auld's testimony that a manufacturer's warranty on a 1985 truck would be less inclusive that on a 1987 truck was hearsay, and cannot support a finding of fact as to that point. Thus, those portions of these proposed findings concerning a 1985 truck are irrelevant. 36. Ms. Vergara did not testify that the planned monitoring wells would be 2,000 feet deep. 38. Subordinate to finding of fact 71. 45. Rejected by finding of fact 42. Rejected by finding of fact 50. There is no evidence that the Speedstar SS-135 bid by Mid America was a display model. The delivery date of the Speedstar SS-135 is not in evidence. Findings of fact proposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District: 4. There is no evidence as to the depths of the proposed monitoring well network, and thus a finding of fact that the depth will be 1000 feet cannot be made. 8. The existence of a buy-out price in the first Mid America bid did not cause the bid to be unclear. 12. The fourth sentence, as to what the District thought the second bid blank "should" contain, is not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is rejected because it is not clear that the bid blank was a "renewable lease-purchase in one year intervals." See findings of fact 34, 55, and 56. 14. The evidence is that the Speedstar SS-135 can set 16 inch casing, not 17 1/2 inch casing. The findings concerning the failure of the Petitioner's bid to give the District the option of being able to "exit the lease" in one year is rejected because that option was securely provided in the invitation for bids, so securely so that it was construed by the District to be an implicit part of the Mid America bid that ultimately was accepted by the District. See finding of fact 50 concerning the non-appropriation of funds condition. Additionally, the findings concerning the inability of the District to construe the bid of the Petitioner to know its first year fiscal obligations are rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 56 through 58. The second sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 34 and 55. The last sentence is rejected by these findings of fact as well; the ambiguity was created by the bid form, not by the bidders. These findings of fact have essentially been rejected by findings of fact 34 and 55. Further, the word "renewable" was not inconsistent with ownership at the end of a two year period because the word "renewable" could be given the construction given it by Mr. Schenk, renewable from month to month. See finding of fact 49. 22 and 23. Rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 34 and 55 through 58. These proposed findings of fact are essentially correct as a matter of law, but are not facts. These findings of fact are rejected by findings of fact 34 and 55 through 58. 27. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact (4) is rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 66. 29. Subordinate to finding of fact 71. 32. While these Proposed findings are true and have been Substantially adopted, the proposed findings are not relevant in view of the stipulations contained in findings of fact 1 and 2. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Henry Dean, Executive Director St Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429 Linda M. Hallas, Esquire 9455 Koger Boulevard, Suite 209 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429
The Issue The two major issues in this case are as follows: Was the failure of Datamaxx to submit resumes of training and maintenance personnel as required by Performance Mandatory No. 10 of the Invitation to Bid a material deviation from the Invitation to Bid such as to render Datamaxx a nonresponsive bidder? If Datamaxx was a nonresponsive bidder, must the contract be awarded to Burroughs, or must DHRS, pursuant to Section 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, have the contract rebid, or seek single source procurement or negotiation approval from the Division of Purchasing?
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: For at least the past 10 years, the DHRS Data Communications Network has been maintained by Burroughs on a sole source basis. At the end of the previous Burroughs Terminal Maintenance contract with Burroughs, the Department of General Services (DOS) asked DHRS to bid the contract in lieu of sole source procurement, it being the belief of DOS that there was competition in this area. On or about September 19, 1986, DHRS published an Invitation to Bid which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on October 20, 1986, for a contract, known as "Burroughs Terminal Maintenance" [Bid No. 86 ATM] regarding maintenance of the terminals of the DHRS Data Communications Network. The Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid contained, among others, the following provisions: The State has established certain require- ments with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this Invitation to Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. Material deviations cannot be waived. (at p. 1) No negotiations, decision, or actions shall be initiated or executed by the bidder as a result of any discussions with any State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Department's Purchasing office may be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the State. Also, only communications from bidders which are signed and in writing will be recognized by the State as duly authorized expressions on behalf of the bidder. (at p. 2) All personnel performing maintenance must be trained to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be completed before the individual is assigned to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be provided to whatever level is necessary to ensure the individual has the required qualifications to perform satisfactory maintenance service on Burroughs equipment listed in Attachment A of this Invitation to Bid. Bidder shall submit with their bid a summary of their Burroughs training program and resumes of personnel who will be performing this training and the resumes of personnel who will be per- forming the maintenance. (at p. 8) Bidder shall certify to the State, at the time the bid is submitted, that bidder has existing established service centers staffed with personnel trained to service the equipment covered by this contract . . . In lieu of this requirement, if bidder does not have existing established service centers, liaison office, and trained personnel, and bidder submits a plan for compliance, the required certification must be given the State no later than two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated starting date of the contract as indicated in the paragraph of this document entitled Calendar of Events. Failure to comply with this requirement shall result in rejection of the bid and award of the bid to the next lowest responsive bidder. The Invitation to Bid was drafted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The only bidders on the contract (other than no- bids) were Burroughs and Datamaxx. DHRS found Burroughs and Datamaxx both to be responsive bidders and posted their bids making them public in the recognized manner of publicizing the bidder to be awarded a bid. Both bids were found to be responsive by DHRS at the time they were made public. The Datamaxx bid was the lowest bid and the Burroughs bid was the next to lowest bid. DHRS staff recommended the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. The Datamaxx bid was approximately $784,000 less than the Burroughs bid. In its bid Datamaxx indicated that it understood and agreed to all provisions of the Invitation to Bid, specifically including those dealing with Mandatory Requirements, Verbal Instruction Procedure, Rejection of Bids, Bid Evaluation, Performance Mandatories, and Certification. Datamaxx submitted the Certification required under the terms of the Invitation to Bid and did not submit a plan for compliance with its bid. Datamaxx never requested in writing that the requirement for resumes be waived, and DHRS never advised Datamaxx in writing that it did not have to submit the resumes. Datamaxx did not submit with its bid the resumes of training and maintenance personnel required under Performance Mandatory 10 of the Invitation to Bid. Performance Mandatory No. 10 required the submission of resumes with the bid, and did not concern an event that would take place after the bid had been let. DHRS considered the requirement for resumes to be a mandatory requirement. The qualifications of the persons who would be performing the maintenance under the contract would have a potentially significant effect on the quality of the maintenance provided. Nothing could be more material to the contract than the ability of the personnel to perform that contract. The difference in the dollar amount of the bids of Burroughs and Datamaxx influenced the decision of DHRS in finding Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder. This was a major reason Datamaxx was found to be a responsive bidder. In evaluating the Datamaxx bid, DHRS went outside the material provided in the Datamaxx bid. Subsequent to the posting of bids, DHRS met with Datamaxx and advised Datamaxx that its initial submission was deficient for not including resumes with the bid, that DHRS had waived the resumes, but that in order for DHRS to continue its recommendation that the bid be awarded to Datamaxx, DHRS had to have the resumes prior to the awarding of the bid. DHRS considered it an error and a deficiency in the bid that the resumes were not furnished. Datamaxx, on November 6, 1986, advised DHRS in a letter to Charles Ray that it would submit a plan which would address, among other things, service personnel resumes by November 17, 1986. DHRS could not have considered Datamaxx's letter of November 6, 1986, in evaluating whether Datamaxx was a responsive bidder, because that letter was not received until after DHRS had already found Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder and recommended that the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. Had Datamaxx not submitted the resumes prior to November 17, 1986, DHRS staff would have recommended that the award of the contract be withdrawn. The performance the State would receive under the contract would directly depend on the qualifications of the persons performing the service and the maintenance, and the resumes would be the only source of information regarding the qualifications of the personnel.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a final order be entered to the following effect: Concluding that the bid submitted by Datamaxx USA Corporation on Bid No. 86 ATM should be rejected on the grounds that it is not responsive, Concluding that the bid submitted by Burroughs Corporation should be rejected on the basis of Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, and, Providing for the agency to issue a second invitation to bid/request for proposals or take other action provided by Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4460B1D The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted with a few minor editorial modifications. The first two lines of paragraph 20 are rejected as redundant. The remainder of paragraph 20 is accepted. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted in substance. Paragraph 3 is rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected in part as irrelevant and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as constituting irrelevant and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The questions presented here concern the entitlement of the Petitioner or Intervenor to be awarded lease rights under the Respondent's proposed Lease No. 590:8026, in that Petitioner and Intervenor have claimed that entitlement to the exclusion of the other party.
Findings Of Fact Respondent invited bid proposals for the provision of approximately 32,000 square feet of office space for its District VIII operation in Fort Myers, Florida. Petitioner, Chuck Bundschu, Inc., and Intervenor, Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company, responded to the bid proposal by offering to provide the office space. Those responses may be found as part of the Composite Hearing Officer's Exhibit. Following the October, 1981, submittal of bid proposals, a bid evaluation committee was appointed by the Subdistrict Administrator for District VIII to consider the bids. In turn, he afforded guidance to that committee on the subject of the evaluation of the proposed bids offered by Bundschu and Walco, the only bidders for the project. The evaluation committee performed the task of weighing the bid proposals, in keeping with evaluation criteria which are outlined in Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual" dealing with the procurement of lease space, which criteria are set forth in a form referred to as "HRSM 70-1, page A1-4-8," which is attached to chapter four of the manual. All criteria used for the evaluation process were drawn from that form with the exception of criterion No. 7, related to staff and client marking which was a product of this bid evaluation effort. (A copy of the HRS manual and forms may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The evaluation committee's summarization utilizing the form criteria and the additional parking criterion may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, which is a replication of the original.) The HRS manual for procuring leased space is a publication of February, 1980, and establishes uniform guidelines by which bid proposals are considered by local officials who are part of Respondent's organization. Nonetheless, the exact weight to be afforded each criterion outlined in the manual is determined by the local evaluation committee. Weighing concerns the subject of awarding numerical values for beach bidder related to the various criteria with a maximum possible score being 100 points. On the basis of the evaluation performed by the committee, the Bundschu total was 88.25 points and the The Walco point total was 82 out of the possible 100 points. Consequently, the evaluation committee recommended that Bundschu be awarded the lease. Mark Geisler, in his capacity as Subdistrict Administrator, for District VIII, concurred in this evaluation as may be seen in his November 6, 1981, transmittal of the bid materials and associated evaluation, which transmittal may be found as pert of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The District Administrator, District VII, in the person of Frances Clendenin, who was acting for the District Administrator, Ivor D. Groves, Ph.D., also recommended acceptance of the Bundschu bid. This position was made known by a memorandum of November 16, 1981. A copy of that recommendation is found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The recommendations spoken to thus far were made known to Lester C. Missman, an official within the Division of General Services of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This division was, at the time of the bid proposals, and is now, headed by Dr. Homer Ooten, whose function within Respondent's organization includes the responsibility to evaluate lease proposals involving the Respondent agency and to make a final decision on the question of the lease award, based upon a review of the local subordinate unit's recommendation. By this, it is meant that the lease by Health and Rehabilitative Services as "user agency" is signed by Ooten based upon a delegation of authority to him through the vehicle of correspondence signed by the agency head. Ooten, upon considering the recommendation of the District Administrator's office, the Subdistrict Administrator and the evaluation committee, did not find fault with the criteria nor the point weighing scheme used in the evaluation process. He did question the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee on the subject of client mileage for those clients receiving services from Respondent in a move from the HRS office in the Bundschu building where they were located at the time, to the building where Walco intended to let property. This was a distance of seven/tenths (7/10) of a mile and based upon the number of clients receiving services, there would be an estimated $100,000.00 in client mileage cost increase. This item was not deemed to be an appropriate consideration by Ooten and was disregarded in his review of the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee. That cost analysis may be found as part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 2, and includes interlineations by Ooten in his opinion on the subject of the cost analysis. That analysis had indicated an overall advantage of approximately $11,000.00 in favor of Bundschu and was premised upon costs related to Item 12 in the criteria, which criterion is cost of moving. It assumed a difference of over $131,000.00 in moving costs, the majority of which costs pertained to client inconvenience ($100,000.00), discounting $120,000.00 plus dollars related to the difference in the bid amount between the Walco and Bundschu bids which bid estimate was in favor of Walco. Ooten's opinion on the subject of the priority of including $100,000.00 plus dollars in clients' travel costs, when considered in the context of point awards under Item 12 in the criteria, lead Ooten to believe that the differential in point awards would not result in a 9.25 value of Bundschu versus a zero value for Walco. In his mind, the differential would be much less. Ooten made his own evaluation of moving costs per se, and through that process determined that approximately $15,600.00 would be necessary for a move into the Walco facility whereas $5,600.00 would be involved in the Bundschu move, which required the expansion of existing space in the Bundschu facility. Based upon an evaluation of the point differential in the rental rate criterion which was a differential of 2, that is 30 points out of a possible 30 for Walco and 28 points out of a possible 30 for Bundschu, Ooten also opined the this was an unreasonable assessment in view of the fact that the Walco bid amount was more than $120,000.00 less than the Bundschu bid. This taken together with the fact that there only existed approximately a $9,000.00 difference on moving costs between Bundschu and Walco, which was in favor of Bundschu, and there having been indicated a 9.25 out of a possible 10 point difference in Item 12 on the question of costs related to moving, led Ooten to believe that the true factual status of criteria Nos. 1 and 12 was not as depicted by the evaluation committee. Per Ooten, with proper assessment Walco would have received a higher point count than Bundschu through the process of applying the bid criteria, as well as being the lower bidder from the point of view of rental rates alone. After several exchanges with the District level personnel of Respondent who had been involved in the lease evaluation process, in which, on two (2) occasions, the local officials continued to support their initial opinion of the propriety of the award to Bundschu, a decision was made at the District VIII level to support the award of the lease to Walco as may be seen in the January 6, 1982, correspondence from the District Administrator to Missman, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. On January 6, 1982, Ooten issued a letter to the District VIII Administrative Services Director indicating the authority to award Lease No. 590:8026, formerly referred to as No. 590:1472, for the benefit of Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company. Having learned of this decision and in keeping with the provision Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, Bundschu, through counsel, indicated opposition to that award on January 12, 1982, followed by a formal petition letter setting forth grounds for the opposition, which petition was filed on January 19, 1982. This series of documents is part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, through copies. Subsequently, Items 4 and 6 in the petition letter were resolved between the parties without the necessity of a hearing and this is borne out by a copy of the February 1, 1982, correspondence from counsel for the Respondent to counsel to the Petitioner, part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing by correspondence from the Assistant General Counsel for Respondent, dated February 4, 1982, a copy of which may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. There followed the intervention of Walter Lee Johnson as a party of record and the hearing was held on April 27, 1982. Petitioner's first contention deals with the idea of discounting the lease value based on the value of the "stream of future lease payments." This theory is contended for through Robert Sizemore, C.P.A., expert witness of the Petitioner. He would call for the discount of lease payments on the theory that present dollars will have a discounted value in the future, as the lease period unfolds. Taking into account the method of payment by the Respondent and the vicissitudes involved in attempting to establish the value of today's dollar at a future time, this theory of discounted dollars at a 10 percent or 12 percent rate per annum in succeeding years is not indicated. Assessment through the legislative appropriations process of sufficient funds to meet lease payment demands is not contingent upon the value of the dollar at any given point in the history of the lease. Therefore, the "stream of future lease payments" concept is inapplicable here. Likewise, trying to project the value of today's dollar at some future date is so tenuous as to be an unacceptable method to evaluate the competing lease proposals. Finally, even if this method was used, a 10 percent discount rate for inflation would leave approximately a $67,000.00 difference in the bid proposals and a 12 percent per annum discount rate related to inflation would leave approximately $52,000.00 difference in the bid proposals, in favor of the Walco bid. Petitioner has contended that Respondent failed to properly account for direct moving expenses. In that regard, the calculations made by Ooten on the question of moving expenses as reported above are accepted as fact. As a third claim, Petitioner has alleged the agency s disregard for recommendation of its evaluation committee in making the lease award. While the initial recommendations of the evaluation committee and staff were disregarded, the District Administrator eventually accepted the point of view of the Division of General Services within the Respondent's Department. Moreover, even if the local officials within the Respondent's Department had not accepted Ooten's viewpoint, the initial evaluation committee's development of criteria was flawed and the Ooten perception was correct, leading to a decision in favor of Walco. Finally, the contention by Petitioner that the agency did not seek adequate input from third parties affected by the relocation of the facility was not demonstrated through testimony. The method for review of the proposed lease was acceptable and to the extent that it required an appreciation and response to the needs of others not directly involved in the lease process, it has been amply afforded. Evaluation was in keeping with Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual, HRSM 70-1, fourth chapter" and the award is based upon concurrence of the Division Director of the General Services Division of HRS pursuant to that chapter. Through argument, counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the fact that in the initial evaluation process set forth in the sixth criterion, superior points of 2.5 for Walco as opposed to 2.25 for Bundschu had been awarded, when in fact the narrative summary of the reasons for such awards indicate an advantage to Bundschu. Even if the .25 points were allowed in the favor of Bundschu, this would not change the result.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 26th day of February 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Frank J. Polacek, V, committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner March 15, 2006, DBPR Case Nos. 2005-036101, 2005-035843, 2004-056690, 2005- 045647, and 2005-034560, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Ch. 689, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Frank J. Polacek, V, is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Polacek's license number is CG C059603. At all times material hereto, the status of his license has been "Current, Active." At all times material, Mr. Polacek was certified as doing business as Endeavor Development, Inc (hereinafter referred to as "Endeavor"), a Florida corporation. Endeavor possessed a certificate of authority as a qualified business organization. The Department has jurisdiction over Mr. Polacek's license. Dalton Design, Inc.; Department Case No. 2004-056690. On June 29, 2004, Terri Ferrando, owner of Dalton Design, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Dalton Design"), entered into a contract with Mr. Polacek, acting as Endeavor (hereinafter referred to as the "Dalton Design Contract"). Pursuant to the Dalton Design Contract, Mr. Polacek agreed to renovate a bathroom of an apartment owned by a client of Dalton. The apartment is located in Delray Beach, Florida. Dalton Design agreed to pay Mr. Polacek $15,871.00 in exchange for his services. Mr. Polacek failed to include notification of the existence and availability of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the Dalton Design Contract. See § 489.1425(a), Fla. Stat. As contemplated by the Dalton Design Contract, Dalton Design paid $7,935.50, or 50 percent of the total contract price, to Mr. Polacek as a deposit. The deposit was paid via check dated June 29, 2004. A small of amount of work, consisting of demolition, was commenced on the Dalton Design Contract by Mr. Polacek. The demolition work was the only work performed by Mr. Polacek. The work performed by Mr. Polacek was significantly less than the amount he had been paid by Dalton Design. On or about May 16, 2005, Mr. Polacek abandoned the Dalton Design Contract when he wrote a letter to Ms. Ferrando and Dalton Design. Mr. Polacek stated the following in the letter: Please acknowledge this written notice that as a result of hurricane frances we will be unable to provide Dalton designs [sic] or their related customers with construction services this will be effective immediately and a partial refund of construction moneys will be refunded within one week. The refund was never made, despite efforts of Ms. Ferrando to contact Mr. Polacek by telephone, in writing, and in person. The Dalton Design Contract provided that "August 20, 2004, is the last day for work, and everything must be completed at that time." Because Mr. Polacek failed to perform work on the project and in light of his termination letter, Ms. Ferrando arranged to have the project completed by another contractor. That contractor performed the same work formerly agreed to by Mr. Polacek. The total costs of completing the Dalton Design Contract work was $16,877.33 and was paid by Dalton Design. Damages sustained by Dalton Design as a result of Mr. Polacek's abandonment of the Dalton Design Contract include the $7,935.50 deposit plus the amount of $1,006.33 paid to complete the project in excess of the original contract price ($16,877.33 minus $15,871.00) or a total of $8,941.83. The Department incurred costs investigating Case No. 2004-056690 of $616.88. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polacek failed to obtain the necessary permits or inspections for the work performed on the Dalton Design Contract. Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Association; Department Case No. 2005-045647. In August 2004, Richard Brooks, the manager of the Palm Beach Biltmore Condominium Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Biltmore"), entered into a contract with Mr. Polacek, doing business as Endeavor (hereinafter referred to as the "Biltmore Contract"). The Biltmore Contract provided, in pertinent part, that Mr. Polacek would provide the following services to Biltmore: Propose to remove and replace two matching exterior access ladders to elevator service shafts. Remove all existing steel support brackets and prepare new surface for the installation of the new aluminum ladders. . . . Provide and install new 16' custom fabricated alluminum [sic] ladders same locations with no powder coated finish. In exchange for the foregoing services, Biltmore agreed to pay Mr. Polacek $5,000.00, "50% of the total sum due upon agreement; 50% of total sum due promptly upon completion." Biltmore paid Mr. Polacek $2,500.00 via check on August 18, 2004. Despite having been paid half the Biltmore Contract price, Mr. Polacek performed none of the services he had agreed to perform. Mr. Brooks made several efforts to communicate with Mr. Polacek by telephone and mail, but was unsuccessful. Mr. Polacek abandoned the Biltmore Contract for well in excess of 90 days. Mr. Polacek failed to refund any amount of the $2,500.00 down-payment paid to him by Biltmore. Thus Biltmore suffered damages of $2,500.00. The Department incurred costs investigating Case No. 2005-045647 of $266.33. A. Carter Pottash; Department Case No. 2005-034560. On August 9, 2004, A. Carter Pottash, M.D., entered into a contract with Dr. Polacek, doing business as Endeavor (hereinafter referred to as the "Pottash Contract"). The Pottash Contract provided, in pertinent part, that Mr. Polacek would remodel three condominium apartments owned by Dr. Pottash, converting the three apartments into one living space. In exchange for his services Mr. Polacek agreed to provide under the Pottash Contract, Dr. Pottash agreed to pay Mr. Polacek $170,821.00, "50% of the total due upon agreement; 35% of total sum due at 50% of completion; 15% of total sum due upon completion." Mr. Polacek failed to include notification of the existence and availability of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the Pottash Contract. See § 489.1425(a), Fla. Stat. As contemplated by the Pottash Contract, Dr. Pottash paid Mr. Polacek a total of $155,322.50, or 90 percent of the total contract price, between August 19, 2004, and October 22, 2004. The payments were made via check and wire transfer. Mr. Polacek commenced work on the Pottash Contract by performing demolition work, installing drywall, and performing some but not all of the finishing work. After November 1, 2004, no work was performed on the Pottash Contract by Mr. Polacek. Between November 1, 2004, and January 5, 2005, having invested a significant amount of money in the project, Dr. Pottash made numerous unsuccessful attempts via telephone, personal visits, and in writing to contact Mr. Polacek. As a result of the work Mr. Polacek did perform, he incurred financial obligations to sub-contractors. Some of the obligations were not paid by Mr. Polacek, resulting in three Claims of Liens being filed against Dr. Pottash's property. The liens, each one for $2,166.50, were filed by T & F General Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "T & F"). T & F had performed some of the finishing work on the project. On or about March 22, 2005, Mr. Polacek abandoned the Pottash Contract when he wrote a letter to Dr. Pottash, in which he stated the following: Please acknowledge this written notice that ENDEAVOR DEV. INC. will no longer be performing any construction related services to you at the Palm Bch. Biltmore. By law I am bound to cancel all my permits or transfer them to your new contractor. I will inform the Palm Bch. Bldg. Dept. in writing. I am truley [sic] sorry for the problems we have had between us. I want to do whatever is possible to resolve this situation in your favor. Please respond if you are willing. Mr. Polacek did nothing to resolve his failure to perform. Nor did he make any refund of the moneys paid to him under the Pottash Contract, which exceeded the amount paid by Dr. Pottash to Mr. Polacek. Due to Mr. Polacek's failure to perform, Dr. Pottash had to hire other contractors to complete the project. He did so, acting as his own general contractor, completing the project in essentially the same manner contemplated by the Pottash Contract. Dr. Pottash incurred costs to complete the Pottash Contract totaling $90,280.77. These costs were paid by checks ($58,716.48) and credit card ($31,564.29). Dr. Pottash also paid a total of $3,653.50 to remove one of the three T & F liens. The total cost of completing the Pottash Contract incurred by Dr. Pottash was $93,934.27. Damages sustained by Dr. Pottash as a result of Mr. Polacek's abandonment of the Pottash Contract total $78,435.77, calculated as follows: Total Contract Price: $170,821.00 Amount Paid: 155,322.50 Amount To Be Paid: $ 15,498.50 Amount Paid To Complete: $ 93,934,27 Amount To Be Paid: 15,498.50 Total Financial Harm: $ 78,435.77 The Department incurred costs investigating Case No. 2005-034560 of $565.61. Alexander Rentz and Diane Jackson; Department Case No. 2005-036101. On January 13, 2005, Alexander Rentz and Diane Jackson, entered into a contract with Mr. Polacek, doing business as Endeavor (hereinafter referred to as the "Rentz/Jackson Contract"). The Rentz/Jackson Contract provided, in pertinent part, that Mr. Polacek would make repairs to their Lake Park, Florida, home caused by hurricane damage. In exchange for Mr. Polacek's services, Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson agreed to pay him $26,346.10, "1/3 upon agreement/ 1/3 at 50%/ 1/3 at complete." On January 14, 2005, an addendum to the Rentz/Jackson Contract was executed by Mr. Polacek whereby he agreed to remove and replace carpeting and padding. In exchange for these services, Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson agreed to pay an additional $1,520.00. Mr. Polacek failed to include notification of the existence and availability of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the Rentz/Jackson Contract. See § 489.1425(a), Fla. Stat. Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson paid Mr. Polacek a total of $13,933.05 via three checks issued on January 13, 2005, February 1, 2005, and February 11, 2005. Mr. Polacek commenced work on the Rentz/Jackson Contract by partially taking down a wooden fence on the property. After taking down the fence, no work, not even the removal of the fencing material, was performed on the Rentz/Jackson Contract by Mr. Polacek. On February 22, 2005, after efforts to get Mr. Polacek to return to the job failed, Mr. Polacek wrote a letter to Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson in which he abandoned the Rentz/Jackson Contract, stating: Please acknowledge this written notice. Since we have not heard from you w/ a decision on whether to proceed w/your job we can only assume you want to terminate the contract. Out last conversation on 2-15-05 Ms. Jackson was irate and threatened to sue our Co. if we could not produce roofing shingles. All supply Co's are on a back log and shingles are being allocated. We do not controll [sic] the production of shingles and we warned you of this problem at the start of our engagement. Fax us a letter of termination and the total of all $ will be returned in 30 days. Mr. Polacek's explanation concerning the unavailability of shingles, even if it had been supported by evidence at the final hearing, which it was not, fails to explain why none of the other work called for in the Rentz/Jackson Contract was performed. Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson did not at anytime terminate their contract. Instead, they made numerous efforts to get Mr. Polacek to carry out the terms of their agreement. Efforts to discuss the matter with Mr. Polacek were ultimately unsuccessful. Due to Mr. Polacek's failure to perform, Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson were required to hire another contractor, Built Right Construction, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Built Right"), to complete the project. The same services contemplated by the Rentz/Jackson Contract were ultimately performed by Built Right. The contract price for Built Right's services, including contract addendums, totaled $33,293.95. This amount was paid via checks by Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson. Damages sustained by Mr. Rentz and Ms. Jackson as a result of Mr. Polacek's abandonment of the Rentz/Jackson Contract totaled $19,360.90, calculated as follows: Total Contract Price: $27,866.10 Amount Paid: 13,933.05 Amount To Be Paid: $13,933.05 Amount Paid To Complete $33,293.95 Amount To Be Paid: 13,933.05 Total Financial Harm: $19,360.90 54. The Department incurred costs investigating Case No. 2005-036101 of $457.00. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Polacek failed to apply for any permits required by the Rentz/Jackson Contract or that Endeavor was not in compliance with fictitious-name statutes. Nancy Sarro; Department Case No. 2005-035843. On April 17, 2005, Nancy Sarro, entered into a contract with Mr. Polacek, doing business as Endeavor (hereinafter referred to as the "Sarro Contract"). The Sarro Contract provided, in pertinent part, that Mr. Polacek would remodel the Sarro residence located in Jupiter, Florida. In exchange for Mr. Polacek's services, the Sarros agreed to pay Mr. Polacek $23,919.75, "50% of total sum upon agreement; 25% of total sum at 50% complete; 15% of total sum at 75% complete; 10% of total sum at 100% complete." Mr. Polacek failed to include notification of the existence and availability of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the Sarro Contract. See § 489.1425(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Sarro paid Mr. Polacek a total of $11,039.87, or 46 percent of the total contract price, via check issued April 17, 2005. Mr. Polacek commenced work on the Sarro Contract by demolishing a small wooden deck at the rear of the Sarro residence and removing the front door of the residence, leaving the residence without a front door. After taking performing the foregoing work, no further work was performed on the Sarro Contract by Mr. Polacek. On May 16, 2005, after efforts to get Mr. Polacek to return to the job failed, Mr. Polacek wrote a letter to Ms. Sarro in which he abandoned the Sarro Contract, stating: Please acknowledge this written notice that Endeavor Dev. Inc. will no longer be providing construction services to you at . . . . My attorney will contact you to discuss the matter of our deposit. Do not attempt to contact Ms. Jessica Jolley or her family members regarding this matter. They are going to press charges against you for harassment. Endeavor Dev. Ind. Has had no in-tent [sic] to defraud or abandone [sic] your job and Ms. Jolley is not an employee of the Co. nor did she recieve [sic] anymoneys from you so please leave my girlfriend out of this matter. I will be contacting you via my attorney. Ms. Sarro made attempts to contact Mr. Polacek, but was unsuccessful. At no time, however, did Ms. Sarro abandon or otherwise attempt to terminate the Sarro Contract. Mr. Polacek subsequently sent a second letter to Ms. Sarro promising that the money paid as a deposit on the Sarro Contract would be refunded. Mr. Polacek did not, however, return any moneys to Ms. Sarro or complete any further work on the Sarro Contract. Damages sustained by Ms. Sarro as a result of Mr. Polacek's abandonment of the Sarro Contract totaled $11,039.87. The Department incurred costs investigating Case No. 2005-035843 of $368.76. Incompetency or Mismanagement in the Practice of Contracting. Mr. Polacek caused damages on the five contracts at issue in this case totaling $120,278.37. He did so without explanation to the individuals for whom he had contracted with.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department: Finding that Frank Joseph Polacek, V, committed the violations alleged in Counts I, IV through VII, IX through XII, and XV through XXV of the Administrative Complaint; Dismissing Counts II, III, VIII, XIII, and XIV of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative fine in the total amount of $26,000.00; requiring that Mr. Polacek pay restitution on the five contracts equal to the amount of damages found in this Recommended Order; requiring that Mr. Polacek pay $2,275.58 as the costs of the investigation and prosecution of this matter; and that his license be permanently revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 20th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey J. Kelly, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Frank Joseph Polacek, V 5245 Center Street Jupiter, Florida 33401 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0032366. On March 29, 1979, Respondent, doing business as Bert Kinast Construction Co., entered into a contract with Gary and Harriet Nelson to construct a residence for the sum of $65,122. On April 15, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit stating that all bills for materials and labor performed as of that date for the construction of the Nelson residence had been paid. Respondent signed the affidavit for the express purpose of obtaining a draw payment for construction performed and, as a result of the affidavit, did receive a draw payment of $9,765.30. At the time Respondent signed the affidavit, Panama Machinery & Supply Co. was owed $193.98 for material furnished to Respondent for the construction of the Nelson residence. On June 4, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit stating that all bills for materials and labor performed as of that date for the construction of the Nelson residence had been paid. Respondent signed the affidavit for the purpose of receiving a draw payment for construction performed and, as a result of the affidavit, did receive a draw payment of $22,792.70. At the time Respondent signed the affidavit, he owed Panama Machinery & Supply Co. $1,249.94. During August, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit stating that all bills for materials and labor performed for the construction of the Nelson residence had been paid. At the time Respondent signed the affidavit, certain materialman and subcontractors who furnished labor and material for the Nelson construction project were not paid, to wit: Panama Machinery & Supply Co., Coastal Insulation, West Florida Natural Gas Company, Culligan Water Services, Inc., Dixie Window Co. and Rachel's Lighting & Home Accessories. Respondent violated Section 1115.7 of the 1979 Edition of the Standard Building Code by not providing adequate head room in the stairwell at the Nelson residence. On or about August 3, 1979, Respondent entered into a contract with John C. and Barbara L. McHaffie to construct a residence for the sum of $105,475. On or about October 11, 1979, Respondent endorsed an instrument, specifically a check, acknowledging that all bills for labor and materials furnished for the McHaffie residence had been paid in full. Respondent endorsed the check to obtain payment for construction he had performed to that date. At the time Respondent signed the check containing that acknowledgment, certain material-men and subcontractors were unpaid, to wit: Buckley's Plumbing, Moore Concrete Products, William Smith and Panama Machinery & Supply Co. On or about November 20, 1979, Respondent endorsed an instrument, specifically a check, acknowledging that all bills for labor and materials furnished for the McHaffie residence had been paid in full. Also on November 20, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit entitled "Partial Release of Lien on Progress Payment," stating that all bills for labor and materials furnished for the construction of the McHaffie residence were paid in full. Respondent endorsed the check and signed the affidavit in order to obtain a construction draw and did, as a result, obtain the construction draw for labor and materials used in the construction of the McHaffie residence. At the time that Respondent endorsed the check and signed the affidavit, certain materialmen and subcontractors were not paid, to wit: Parker Heating & Cooling, Culligan Water Services, Inc. , Moore Concrete Products, Overhead Door Company of Panama City, Inc., Coastal Insulation, Panama Machinery & Supply Co., G & H Building Materials and William Smith. Respondent received $50,937.50 which was to be used by Respondent to pay for materials and/or labor provided by various materialmen and/or subcontractors for the construction of the McHaffie residence. Certain materialmen and/or subcontractors were not paid from the monies received by Respondent for that purpose, to wit: Parker Heating & Cooling, Culligan Water Services, Inc., Buckley's Plumbing, Moore Concrete Products, Overhead Door Company of Panama City, Inc., Coastal Insulation, Hodges Lumber, Panama Machinery & Supply Co., G & H Building Materials and William Smith. On August 17, 1979, Respondent obtained permit number 5260 from Bay County, Florida, to perform the McHaffie construction. Respondent represented on the application for the above-referenced permit that his estimate of the building costs for the McHaffie residence was $57,250. Since the contract for the McHaffie residence was for $105,475, the price of the building permit would have been nearly $160 more since Bay County charges $3 permit cost per every $1,000 construction cost. During his construction of the McHaffie residence, Respondent violated Sections 1603 and 1706.8(1) of the 1979 Edition of the Standard Building Code in that the concrete floor in some areas was less than three and a half inches thick and caulking or flashing was not installed around the sliding glass doors. On or about November 25, 1981, Respondent was convicted of passing a worthless check, in violation of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes. Respondent's worthless check was given by Respondent to West Building Materials on or about March 25, 1981, as payment for building materials.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint, suspending Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor; for a period of three years, imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 and placing Respondent on probation for three years upon reinstatement of his license, with the terms and conditions thereof to be set by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire J. K. Linnan, Executive Director 547 North Monroe Street, Construction Industry Licensing Suite 204 Board Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Berthold Kinast 1244 Airport Road Panama City, Florida 32401 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. It was formed in October, 1973 and is in the business of building bridges throughout west/central Florida. It is an independent construction company which specializes solely in bridge and fender construction. Its business relies solely on contracts from public authorities, especially the Respondent herein. On March 19, 1984, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Petitioner and its president, Gerald H. Stanley were convicted of violating Title 15, United States Code, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, for participating in a conspiracy to rig bids by DOT on June 27, 1979. Petitioner was fined $50,000.00 and Mr. Stanley was fined $20,000.00, ordered to perform 200 hours of community service and placed on three years unsupervised probation. Petitioner did not renew its Certificate of Qualification to bid on Florida bridge projects when it expired on or about April 30, 1984. However, on June 12, 1984, both Petitioner and Mr. Stanley filed a Petition for a determination that they are eligible to apply for and hold a Certificate of Qualification under the provision of Section 337.165(2)(d), Florida Statutes, alleging such reapplication to be in the public interest. Marine Structures, Inc. adopted a formal, written antitrust compliance policy in July, 1984, and the record fails to show any instance of bid rigging or antitrust involvement since the one incident in June, 1979. Because of the limited number of companies involved in the road and bridge construction business, the existing companies, who were formerly involved in bidding misconduct, must, of necessity, deal with each other, but there is no indication or reason to assume that such necessary dealings will result in future misconduct. In addition to the written antitrust compliance policy referenced above, Marine has also taken remedial action to assure that all of its employees conduct their business activities in strict compliance with the law and the rules and regulations of both the state and federal governments. Due to Marine's inability to bid on DOT contracts, it has suffered and continues to suffer extreme financial hardship. In its past dealings with DOT, it has performed quality work and has cooperated fully with the Department. DOT indicates it has not been made aware of any particular circumstances involving Marine's or Mr. Stanley's participation in the instant bid rigging incident which would make that incident any more detrimental to DOT than any of the bid rigging conspiracies by the 26 other companies which have been reinstated by the Department. These 26 companies which have been reinstated, submitted themselves to DOT's independent investigations and agreed to comply with the safeguards required in their individual cases to help to assure that contract crimes would not occur on Department projects. Mr. Stanley, on behalf of Marine Structures, Inc., has offered the same assurances. In a letter dated May 1, 1985, to the Secretary, Department of Transportation, the Honorable Jim Smith, Attorney General of the State of Florida, indicated that though Respondent has, in a confidential sworn statement to attorneys for the State, denied any involvement in bid rigging activities other than in connection with that of which he was convicted in federal court, the State investigation, in the opinion of the Attorney General, raises substantial doubt as to the truth of Mr. Stanley's denials of misconduct. The Attorney General indicates that in an effort to resolve this apparent inconsistency, Mr. Stanley was asked, through his counsel, to take a polygraph examination which he refused. Mr. Stanley denies having refused to take the polygraph at any time. Further, the Attorney General relates that Marine Structures, Inc. has not offered to pay any amount of damages to the State, yet Mr. Stanley contends that he has never, to this day, been asked to make any reimbursement or restitution to the State. Mr. Stanley, on behalf of the Petitioner, does not deny that he committed error and that this error constituted an offense against the state and federal governments. He tells a story, however, regarding it which puts it in a somewhat less serious light than is described by the State. According to Mr. Stanley, he gave a bid figure to two other contractors, who he had previously asked to subcontract in his bid, over which they should bid in order to assure Petitioner of having the lowest bid of the three on this particular contract. Both other contractors, Mr. Carroll and Mr. Conner, submitted bids which were higher than that of Petitioner as did a four potential contractor, Square G, and notwithstanding this, Petitioner's bid was lower than the State estimate. In light of this factor he contends that his misconduct, while technically a violation for which he was tried and convicted, did not cost the State one extra cent. He regrets having done it and would not do it again. Both Carroll and Conner, the two other contractors involved with Petitioner in this incident, pleaded guilty and were convicted, but both have been reinstated as eligible bidders on State work. As to the letter of the Attorney General, Mr. Stanley contends that the comment regarding his veracity relates to a situation involving his testimony before the Attorney General's staff about the Citrus County project. Though he had been advised he would be asked about that specific project, in reality, the questions he was asked related to a different project in Alachua County on which he had bid but which involved no bid rigging on his part. Mr. Stanley contends he told his interrogators what he knew but they were not satisfied as to his knowledge regarding another bidder by the name of Hewitt. His denials of any knowledge of Hewitt's bid were not believed and Mr. Stanley feels he was somewhat threatened by members of the Attorney General's staff who reportedly indicated they would keep him off the bidder's list for some time and would "break" him. He contends that he has cooperated fully with state and federal prosecutors not only because of his desire to be reinstated, but also because the terms of his federal probation require him to cooperate fully. He has, in fact, met with state and federal attorneys on two occasions without being subpoenaed, has made his records available to investigative authorities, and has made copies of any documents desired by the investigators. Other than the one incident involved herein, Mr. Stanley contends that neither he nor his company have ever been involved in any other bid rigging situation. He has given statements to both the Florida Attorney General's office and the Antitrust Division on many occasions other than those referenced in the paragraph above. He has given testimony to a U.S. grand jury and the documents and files which he released to the investigative agencies were released prior to his being granted any immunity from State prosecution by the Attorney General. In short he has cooperated fully with state and federal authorities without holding back any information and will continue to do so even if he is reinstated. He feels, therefore, that it is unnecessary for his reinstatement to be withheld as a threat over his head to coerce testimony from him regarding Mr. Hewitt. Admittedly, neither his personal fine nor that assessed against the company have been paid. He has not, however, been dunned for payment and this is just as well because having been barred from bidding on State business, he is finding it difficult to meet his monthly bills much less pay $70,000.00 in fines. As to the purpose behind the State's manner of handling those companies identified as being involved in bid rigging, the Attorney General very clearly established the action philosophy in a statement made to Florida Trend Magazine on May 29, 1984. In the press release in question he stated: "If we forced these companies into bankruptcy we would not be cleaning up the industry, we'd be abolishing it, putting thousands of employees on the streets and destroying competition in a multi-million dollar industry in which the State is a major purchaser . . . . By obtaining the cooperation of settling defendants we greatly facilitated botch the investigation and the willingness of subsequent defendant to . . . (settle)." Respondent has not shown by any evidence that Petitioner was any worse in its misconduct than any other bidder which has already been reinstated, nor has it exhibited any justification for treating Petitioner more harshly than others.
