Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on a construction project referred to as Florida Atlantic University Modulars. The ITB required a base bid and bids on five alternates to the base project. Each bidder was instructed that it must bid on the base project and on each alternate for its bid proposal to be considered responsive. On March 19, 1990, Addendum 1 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was an informational addendum and advised the date, time, and location of the posting of the award recommendation. Addendum 1 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 21, 1990, Addendum 2 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was also an informational addendum and advised as to a non- mandatory, pre-bid conference to be held March 27, 1990. Addendum 2 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 30, 1990, Addendum 3 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This addendum advised that the date and time for the bid opening had been changed to April 9, 1990, at 2:00 p.m. Addendum 3 also contained modifications, explanations and corrections to the original drawings and specifications which impacted the cost and scope of the project. Immediately above the signature line on the cover page of Addendum 3 was the following: This document must be returned in it's [sic] entirety with the bid. Please sign below to verify that you have read and understand all the changes. Item 2 on page ADD-1 of Addendum 3 required each bidder to submit its per unit price structure with its response to the ITB and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: ... The unit price shall not be included in Base Bid. Submit a separate sheet with bid package. The following instructions are given in Paragraph 1(c) of the Instructions to Bidder: NO ERASURES ARE PERMITTED. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The instructions are repeated in Paragraph 1 of the General Conditions of the ITB: EXECUTION OF BID: ... No erasures are permitted. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids, or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The following is contained as part of the Instructions to Bidder: Failure to complete, sign, seal and return the required documents will result in rejection of your bid. Any questions should be directed to Susan Kuzenka, (305) 761-7460, Purchasing Department, Broward Community College. (Emphasis in the original.) Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions portion of the bid package provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 8. AWARDS. As the best interest of Broward Community College may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received ... On April 9, 1990, Petitioner submitted a bid to Respondent in response to the ITB. Petitioner had received the complete bid package, including all instructions and addenda to the bid package. At the pre-bid conference held March 27, 1990, an employee of Respondent emphasized to the attendees that it was necessary for the bidders to return Addendum 3 in its entirety. Petitioner did not attend the non-mandatory, pre-bid conference. The base bid submitted by Petitioner was $1,085,790.00. The base bid of Double E Construction Co., the next low bidder and the bidder to whom Respondent intends to award the contract, was $1,113,300.00. Petitioner's bid for each of the alternates was lower than that of Double E Construction Co. Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum 3 as instructed. On page four of the bid package Petitioner acknowledged that it had received Addendum 3, and it signed and returned the cover sheet to Addendum 3 under the language quoted in the foregoing Paragraph 4. Respondent considered this an important requirement because it wanted to prevent a bidder from later claiming that it had not received Addendum 3 or that it had received information different than that contained in Addendum 3. Petitioner made a correction to its bid for Alternate Number 3 found on page 5 of 13 of Petitioner's bid. Petitioner's bid for this alternate was $88,000. In the space for the written amount of the bid, Petitioner's president inserted by hand the words "Eighty-eight Thousand". In the space for the numerical insertion of the bid he initially wrote the sum $125,000 (which was the amount of Petitioner's bid for Alternate 4). He struck through the figure $125,000 and wrote above the stricken figure the figure $88,000. He did not initial his change. Respondent has never accepted changes to price quotations which were not initialed because it is concerned that uninitialed corrections on bids may result in challenges to the integrity of the bid process and may expose its staff to charges of collusion from a disgruntled bidder. Pioneer did not include a unit price structure in its bid as required by Addendum 3. The unit price structure is an informational item that is not separately considered by Respondent to determine the lowest bidder on this project. On April 6, 1990, Petitioner's estimator on this bid telephoned Susan Kuzenka regarding the unit price structure sheet to inquire as to the format that should be followed in submitting the unit price structure. Ms. Kuzenka is named in the Instructions to Bidder as the person in Respondent's purchasing department to whom questions about the bid process should be directed. Petitioner's estimator was told that the unit prices would be required to be submitted by the successful bidder at the pre-construction meeting after the bids were opened, but that the unit price structure need not be submitted with the bid. Petitioner's president verified this information on April 9, 1990, prior to the bid opening, during a telephone conference with the project engineer employed by Respondent for this project. In reliance on the information that was supplied by Respondent's agents, Petitioner did not submit its unit price structure sheet with its bid. Following its examination of all bids, the bid of Petitioner was disqualified on three grounds. The first reason cited by Respondent was that Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum (3) as required. The second reason was that Petitioner did not initial a correction to a quoted price figure. The third reason was that Petitioner did not include the unit price structure as required in Addendum (3). Petitioner thereafter timely protested its disqualification and the intended award of the contract to Double E Construction Co. Petitioner contends that the reasons cited by Respondent for its disqualification are minor irregularities that should be waived by Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the third reason should not disqualify it because Petitioner acted in reliance upon the instructions of Respondent's agents in not submitting the unit price structure along with its bid package. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Broward Community College, enter a final order which denies the bid protest of Petitioner, Pioneer Contracting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2. 6 and 7 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 10. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached because of the clear instructions contained in Addendum 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last two sentences of paragraph 5 are supported by the evidence, but are not adopted as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. All proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part. Copies furnished: Eric L. Dauber, Esquire Beyer & Dauber Suite 5300 2101 W. Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 James D. Camp III, Counsel Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Janet Rickenbacker Director of Purchasing Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing the following relevant facts are found: GENERAL BACKGROUND On May 25, 1979, the respondent, through its Division of Purchasing, issued its invitation to bid (ITB) entitled "Plain Bond and Magazine Finish Bond Copying Machines" to sixty-five (65) companies. The ITB proposes to establish an annual contract (from October 1, 1979 through September 30, 1980) under which all state agencies may acquire an indefinite amount of copying machines using a choice of four acquisition plans. No awardee under the contract is assured of any specific quantity. It is contemplated that all copiers purchased by a state agency will he purchased under the contract, and each category of copier machine listed in the ITB reflects the specific needs of the various agencies. In order to acquire equipment covered under the proposed contract, an agency would simply issue a purchase order and send certification to the respondent's Division of Purchasing. No prior authorization would be necessary. If an agency desired to acquire a copying matching not covered by the state contract, it would have to apply to the respondent for an exception and receive verification from the respondent that the exception met the needs of the agency. Between May 25, 1979, and August 22, 1979, the respondent held two prebid conferences and published five addenda to the ITB. The ITB establishes approximately eighty (80) categories of award for plain bond copiers and for magazine finish copiers. These copiers are categorized into types according to features and into classes according to machine speeds and copy volumes. Each category contains four available acquisition plans: monthly rental, annual rental, two-year lease and outright purchase. The ITB proposes a contract award in each category to the vendor responding to the technical specifications with a copier offering the lowest cost per copy. Thus, the basis for evaluation of each responsive bidder was cost per copy, and the ITB provided a cost formula. On September 10, 1979, twelve vendors submitted responses to the ITB. These twelve included the petitioner and the four intervenors. The bids were opened on September 12, 1979. As noted above, the bidding process was structured for competitive award, and the basis for evaluation was cost per copy of responsive bids. Under the competitive award method, when the respondent fails to receive either qualified bids or two or more bids, it weighs the options and then decides to either negotiate with the bidders or to reject all bids and rebid the contract. DGS did not receive qualified or two or more responsible bids in all categories in this instance. Due to the time constraints imposed by the near expiration date of the prior annual contract, respondent elected to communicate with some of the bidders in an attempt to obtain withdrawal or modification of the variations or conditions contained in their responses. These communications were conducted at a time when all bidders had knowledge of what other vendors had bid. When evaluating the bid responses of petitioner, respondent found that in six different respects petitioner had qualified its bid in a manner inconsistent with the specified bid terms and conditions. After discussion and correspondence, three of these qualification were subsequently withdrawn or deleted by petitioner. The remaining three pertained to variations from the ITB with respect to Xerox's pricing plan for the annual and two-year acquisition methods; the removal of machines by Xerox for failure to comply with guidelines for supply use; and the service of machines in remote areas. When the bids were evaluated and the bid prices were verified by respondent, Xerox's supply costs were recalculated and Xerox's bids were disqualified in the outright purchase category, for the 9200 Model and for the 3450 Model. By memorandum dated October 18, 1979,the respondent recommended the award of contracts In 73 categories to eight vendors. The petitioner was included in the eight, but only subject to the withdrawal of those terms and conditions in conflict with the ITB. OUTRIGHT PURCHASES In the outright purchase method of acquisition, Xerox did not insert on its bid sheets a dollar figure indicating the price of the machine hid. Instead, petitioner inserted an "X" in the blank next to the outright purchase acquisition plan. Xerox's bid package did include a 100-page catalog which, on page 69, contained a list of equipment purchase prices. The bid sheet form included in the original ITB contained a dollar sign at the beginning of the four blanks for the four different acquisition plans. One of the addendums to the ITB included a revised bid sheet, and bidders were instructed to use only the revised form. This bid sheet had no dollar signs by the four acquisition method blanks, though the form contained dollar signs on many other blanks. Ms. Ruth Eberhard, a purchasing contract specialist with the respondent, testified that the dollar sign on the revised bid sheet form in the outright purchase category was inadvertently removed when the form was revised. Mr. John Isensee, an employee of Xerox who assisted in preparing the bid response, testified that he telephoned Ms. Eberhard and inquired how to complete the acquisition plan blanks on the bid sheets. According to Mr. Isensee, he was instructed to place an "X" to indicate the method of acquisition. Respondent proposes to disqualify every one of petitioner's outright purchase bids because petitioner did not insert the purchase price of the machine on its bid sheet. Had these bids not been disqualified, it is estimated that Xerox would have received awards in three or four different categories. Ms. Eberhard, who was assigned the duty of verifying figures on the bid sheet and evaluating the bids for the lowest cost per copy, could not verify the petitioner's cost per copy without the purchase price of the machine appearing on the bid sheet. It was her testimony that she could not look beyond the bid sheet for information to insert figures not contained therein when verifying prices per copy. This is consistent with the terms and conditions of the ITB, which expressly admonishes bidders not to rely on catalogs and price lists. Page 4 of the special conditions of the ITB provides, under the heading of "Bid Page," that "GSA catalogs, price lists, and copies of vendor purchase and/or lease contracts outlining terms and conditions are not acceptable." Ms. Eberhard testified that no other bidder in the outright purchase acquisition method failed to insert the machine cost on their bid sheets, though one bidder did insert the machine price elsewhere on the page. The petitioner presented testimony that the acquisition price of the machine could be ascertained from the information listed on the bid sheet by performing a four-step mathematical process. The result could then have been verified by comparing it with the equipment prices listed in the catalog. Ms. Eberhard did not consider using this method because it was her duty to verify the price per copy and not the purchase price of the machine. The cost per copy could not be verified without the purchase price. It was further her opinion that even using the prices contained in the catalog, she could not verify the machine acquisition cost per copy with the information provided by petitioner on its bid sheet. The machine cost information cannot be correlated with other information on the bid sheet in accordance with the cost formula contained in the ITB. SUPPLY COSTS The ITB contains a provision relating to the computation of supply costs which are to he inserted on the bid form, and are used to calculate the ultimate cost per copy. Bidders were to compute their supply costs either on the manufacturer's brand or by using the prices contained in the then-existing state contract. The ITB further provides that "the volume price used by the vendor to compute supply cost shall be based on the monthly median volume of the type and class bid." According to the formula contained in the ITB, Xerox did not enter the correct supply costs on its bid responses. Instead of using tie monthly median volume for paper, Xerox used quantity discount prices available only in purchases of 1,000 cartons or more. It did this in order to offer the state the benefit of volume discount. The paper supply costs inserted by petitioner affects the amount of its bid. No other vendor utilized a volume discount price as opposed to the monthly median volume price. In accordance with her duties to verify costs, Ms. Eberhard recomputed the supply costs submitted by Xerox to reflect the volume price based on the monthly median volume of the type and class bid. While Ms. Eberhard could not use outside sources to insert information omitted on the bid sheet, she did use other information to verify figures supplied by the bidder. This recomputation had the result of raising the prices Xerox bid for supplies so that Xerox was no longer the low bidder in approximately four categories. 9200 MODEL Xerox bid its 9200 Model in five categories. The respondent recommends rejection of these bids on the basis that the 9200 is not a walk-up convenience copier, but is instead print shop equipment requiring a dedicated operator. This model has been tested and acquired by state agencies for use as a sophisticated, high speed duplicator which must be run by a dedicated operator. With one exception, Model 9200 is being used by the state in a print shop operation with a dedicated operator. The Model 9200 was originally marketed by Xerox in 1975 as a duplicator with a dedicated operator. It is capable of producing 7,200 copies per hour and is less expensive in cost per copy than other models. The main difference between the 9200 Model and walk-up convenience Model 5400 is speed, with the 9200 Model having greater sorting capacity, a more comprehensive logic system and the ability to deal easier with multiple documents. The operating buttons on the 9200 Model are not complicated. The 9200 may be used as either a duplicator or a copier, depending upon the nature of the work required and the pricing plan selected. The amount of training for its operators depends upon its usage as a duplicator or as a convenience, walk-up copier. If used as a copier, the training is approximately two hours or the same as other convenience copiers manufactured by Xerox. If used as a duplicator in a print shop operation, the training of a dedicated operator would require approximately two days. The Department of Corrections acquired a Model 9200 in August of 1978. It was initially acquired as a high speed, high volume machine with an inmate trained as a dedicated operator. When the inmate was paroled, the machine was used in the central office as a convenience, walk-up copier. The 9200 Model is currently being used in the central office of the Department of Corrections by some thirty (30) different people a week and is currently fulfilling the Department's copying needs. There was no evidence adduced at the hearing that the bids of Xerox with respect to its 9200 Model constituted the lowest offered bids in those categories. 3450 MODEL The ITB requires testing and approval of all items bid prior to the time and date of the bid opening. Testing is to extend for a period of twenty (20) working days. Page 3 of the 1TH provides under the heading of "Equipment Approval" that In the event evaluation and acceptance of untested machines has not been accomplished prior to the bid opening date and time, such machines shall not be eligible for an award." The mandatory nature of this requirement was further addressed in question and answer number 9 attached to the ITB. Xerox bid its 3450 Model in two different classes of plain bond copying machines. The Xerox bid was the only bid received by the respondent in Group I, Type III, Class 2A, and it was bid at a lower price than the machine recommended for award in Group I, Type III, Class 3A. The machine did not arrive in time to complete its testing due to a trucking strike during its travel. The bid opening date was September 12, 1979, and the Model 3450 completion of testing and approval did not occur until September 18, 1979. For this reason, the Model 3450 was disqualified for consideration by the respondent. At least two other bidders either opted not to bid their equipment due to insufficient time for testing or went to extreme expenses to comply with the testing requirements. OTHER VARIATIONS FROM THE ITB The catalog rental plans of Xerox vary from the ITB conditions with respect to firm pricing and terms of rental. Under the ITB, an agency acquiring a copier on annual lease at any time during the contract year is entitled to twelve months of firm prices from the date of purchase. The same is true under the two-year lease plan. Contrary to these conditions, the Xerox bid contains extensive fiscal option plans and extended term plans which could include price increases and, if not renewed at the option time, liquidated damages to Xerox. Under the terms and conditions of the Xerox bid, an agency cannot purchase equipment under the annual or two-year lease plans with the assurance of firm- pricing and no liquidated damages or removal charges. The ITB provides that the bidder must maintain or have access to facilities and personnel capable of servicing equipment anywhere in the state within four hours after notification. The Xerox bid reserves the right not to accept installation or service in areas which are remote or not readily or adequately serviced by Xerox. The term "remote" is not defined by Xerox in its catalog. The Xerox bid reserves to Xerox the right to cancel its contract in whole or in part upon 30 days prior written notice. The ITB mandates that contract provisions prevail for at least 180 days after the effective date of the contract, and then allows cancellation after 30 days prior written notice.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered declaring that Xerox Corporation failed to submit a low responsive bid in the categories provided in the Invitation to Bid. It is further RECOMMENDED that an Order be entered holding that: the Department properly disqualified the Xerox bids in the outright purchase plan of acquisition; the Department properly recalculated the supply cost figures in the Xerox bid; the Department improperly disqualified the Model 9200 on the ground that it is not a walk-up convenience copier. However, due to the unresponsiveness of other portions of Xerox's bid (see paragraph 5 below) and a lack of evidence that Xerox submitted a low bid on Model 9200, the Department was justified in disqualifying the Xerox bid for Model 9200; the Department properly disqualified the Model 3450; and the terms and conditions of the Xerox bid with respect to the annual and two-year lease methods of acquisition, service of equipment and 30day cancellation reservation constitute material deviations from the ITB, and thus the Xerox bid is unresponsive. Respectively submitted and entered this 29th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John Radey and Honorable George Firestone Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquires Secretary of State Holland and Knight The Capitol Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Hill Gunter Tom Beason and State Treasurer Spiro T. Kypreos, Esquires State of Florida Office of General Counsel The Capitol Department of General Services Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Room 457, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture Thomas J. Guilday, Esquire State of Florida Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson The Capitol Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph Turlington Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Commissioner of Education 1030 East Lafayette Street State of Florida Suite 112 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip S. Parsons, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison and Kelly Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donald M. Middlebrooks, Esquire 1400 Southeast First National Bank Building Miami, Florida 33131 Mr. Thomas A. Brown Executive Director State of Florida Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Bob Graham Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact 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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., and Corporate Interiors, Inc., (Petitioners) is the lowest responsible bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Respondent) for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building, or in the alternative, whether all bids should be rejected as urged by The Harter Group (Intervenor).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received three bids, including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor, and one no bid. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and neither Petitioners nor Intervenor were determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. However, the Petitioners' bid was lower than that of the bidder to whom the Respondent proposes to award this contract. Petitioners' bid was $932,502.39, Intervenor's bid was highest at $1,101,509.90, and the bid of lowest responsible bidder, Haworth, Inc., was $1,072,286.50. The first reason given by Respondent for its determination that Petitioners' bid was not responsive to the bid specifications is that it did not include an amount for sales tax. Intervenor also did not include sales tax in its bid, but Haworth, Inc., which was determined by Respondent to be the lowest responsible bidder, did include sales tax. However, there was no dispute at hearing that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System, and that Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The second reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it omitted a required page from the approved form which was to be used to list those items in the bid proposal that were not in strict compliance with the Respondent's specifications. Petitioners admit that the required page numbered 00310-7 was not included in their bid, but maintain that it was not necessary to include this exact page since all items in their bid do meet specifications, and since a statement to this effect was included elsewhere in the bid. The lowest responsible bidder, as determined by the Respondent, did include this required page with a statement thereon that "all items comply". Intervenor also included this page listing 11 items in its bid which differed from the specifications. The purpose of this required page is to allow the Respondent to have a uniform, clearly identifiable place in each bid proposal where it can look to determine if the items in that bid meet specifications, without having to check every page of each bid. The third reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it included numerous pages of unit costs which were not called for in the specifications, without any explanation as to their meaning or the purpose for which they were included in the bid. Section 4.1.1 of the bid specifications, found at page 00100-11, makes it clear that no bid form other than that which is set forth in the specifications will be accepted, and specifically states that bidders are not even to retype the form on their letterhead, but are to simply fill-in a copy made from the form in the specifications. The Petitioners admit that their bid includes additional, unexplained information that was not called for in the specifications. A final reason given by Respondent at hearing for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it was accompanied by a bid bond, required by Section 4.2.4 of the specifications, in the name of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., while the public entity crime affidavit, required by Section 2.1.5, was subscribed to by Corporate Interiors, Inc. Petitioners' bid did not include a resolution or other evidence of authority that Corporate Interiors, Inc., had authority to submit a public entity crime affidavit on behalf of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., or that the affidavit submitted was valid as to Kimball. Thus, while Petitioners maintain that their bid was jointly filed on behalf of the manufacturer, Kimball, and the vendor, Corporate Interiors, their bid includes a bond from the manufacturer only, and a crime affidavit from the vendor only. Section 1.8 of the specifications, found at page 00100-2, specifies that the bidder is the person or entity that submits a bid. Petitioners urge that theirs is a joint bid, but they have failed to submit a joint bond or affidavit. Section 5.2.1 of the specifications allows the Respondent to reject any bid which fails to include a required security, or other required data. The bid which was determined by the Respondent to be the lowest responsible bid contains no technical flaws, errors or omissions, and the proposal meets all specifications for this project. The Respondent properly posted notice of its intent to award this contract to Haworth, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. Under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, the Respondent has the right to waive "any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and to accept the Bid or Bids which, in (its) judgment, is in (its) own best interest." Respondent chose not to waive any of the irregularities in the Petitioners' bid. This decision was made, in part, because of Respondent's previous experience with Petitioners in their installation of similar systems for Respondent at the Walter Pownall Service Centers in which there had been problems involving service during installation, coordination of the installation work, and verification that invoices received from Corporate Interiors did not exceed the bid base price, and that all items being paid had actually been received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' and Intervenor's protests of its intent to award a contract for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building to Haworth, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2863BID Petitioner and Intervenor filed letters, but no proposed findings of fact upon which rulings could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. 3. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 4. Adopted in Finding 6. 5. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 6. Adopted in Finding 6. 7. Adopted in Findings 6, 8. 8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. 10-12. Adopted in Finding 6. 13. Adopted in Finding 4. 14. Adopted in Finding 3. 15. Adopted in Finding 5. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 7. 18. Adopted in Finding 1. 19. Adopted in Finding 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Sue Olinger 1284 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
Findings Of Fact In July 1988, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) seeking proposals to lease approximately 26,000 square feet of space for offices and client services in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. The ITB was the second issued, following the Department's determination that the first ITB did not result in an acceptable bid. Page 15 of the 16 page bid submittal form is entitled "Evaluation Criteria" and contains a list of weighted factors which are to be used in the evaluation of bids. In the second ITB, paragraph 3(b) of the criteria stated, "[P]rovisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other." (emphasis supplied) At approximately the same time as the Department's issuance of the second ITB, several meetings occurred related to concerns generated by the response to the first ITB. One meeting took place between Nelson P. Davis (the unsuccessful bidder in ITB #1) and Department representatives, including James Peters, HRS's District One Manager for Administrative Services. Davis currently leases to the Department, two adjacent buildings sited at 417 Racetrack Road, Ft. Walton Beach which comprise approximately 4,000 square feet less than the Department is now seeking. Davis' bid in response to the first ITB included utilization of a third building to meet the Department's space needs. 1/ During the meeting which included Peters, Davis, and others, it became apparent that there was confusion over the meaning of the word "location" in paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria. Peters understood the word to mean "building" while Davis understood the word to mean an area which could be the site of more than one building. Following the Davis-Peters meeting, other meetings occurred at which Department officials considered the issue. While some representatives of the Department believed that the word "location" was synonymous with "building," others believed the use of "location" to be ambiguous. To clarify the Department's preference related to number of buildings, an amended page 15 of the bid submittal form was issued on July 2, 1988. The amended form, entitled "Evaluation Criteria" states in paragraph 3(b), "[P]rovisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building... Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other." (emphasis supplied.) The amendment was issued at the direction of James Peters and was approved by Charlene Schembera, the District I Administrator. The amendment to page 15, paragraph 3(b), is a reasonable effort by the Department to clarify their intent in previous use of the word "location." The assertion by Davis that the change was made at the instigation of James Peters in order to prohibit Davis from successfully submitting a responsive bid of three buildings is not supported by the evidence. While James Peters has expressed on at least one occasion a desire to avoid entering into further business arrangements with Davis, he has stated that his personal opinion would not influence his participation in the bid solicitation process. The evidence did not indicate that his participation in the decision to issue an amended paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria was based on his negative personal opinion regarding Davis, nor did the evidence indicate that any other person involved in the process had negative opinions about Davis. Further, although some Department officials testified that a bid which contained more than two buildings would be deemed non-responsive and disqualified from consideration by operation of the amended paragraph 3(b), such a position probably is not tenable, but is not at issue in this proceeding in that the Department has not yet acted on bids submitted in response to the second ITB. The Department has valid reasons for attempting to concentrate its personnel and client services in a single building, or in as few buildings as is possible, 2/ however the Invitation to Bid does not restrict bidders in such a manner. The sole expression of the preference for a single building, or for not more than two buildings, is expressed in paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria on page 15. The amendment to page 15 of the bid submittal form does not appear to bar the submission by Davis or by any other bidder of a responsive proposal containing more than two buildings. Page 15 is clearly entitled "Evaluation Criteria." The criteria are nine weighted "award factors" upon which "all bids will be evaluated." Paragraph 3(b), as one factor for consideration in the evaluation process, expresses a preference for a single building containing the required aggregate square footage. The paragraph further advises that proposals will be considered but fewer points awarded for proposals containing not more than two buildings closely located. The weighting factor for paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria is five percent of total possible points. The clear indication of the amended paragraph is that proposals which contain more than two buildings will receive no points under 3(b). The Department's position would disqualify as non-responsive a bid of three buildings based solely on an evaluation factor worth five percent of the total available points. On the other hand, a bid containing two buildings, separated by not more than 100 yards, would apparently be responsive and would be evaluated, even if the two buildings were divided by a major highway or other substantial obstacle. The Department's proposed position is not logical, but is not raised herein since it has not yet been applied in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing Case No. 88-4392BID. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T1285 to Intervenor Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. ("K & R").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On May 14, 2008, the Department released its bid solicitation for Contract T1285. The proposed contract was for the construction of a one-way pair through Lake Alfred, including new construction, reconstruction, milling and resurfacing, widening, drainage improvements, lighting, signalization, signing and pavement marking and landscaping on State Road 600 (U.S. 17/92). Polk County, the location of the project, lies in the Department's District 1. Qualified contractors, including Mid-State and K & R, received an electronic disk containing the solicitation, bid blank, plans and specifications for Contract T1285. The letting date for this project was June 18, 2008. Bids were to be submitted on or before that date via Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. No party submitted a protest of the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The work to be performed on Contract T1285 included the installation of limerock road base to be paid for in accordance with line item 0175, Optional Base Group 09 ("Base Group 09"). The bid documents included a set of "Supplemental Specifications." Section 6 of the Supplemental Specification was titled "Control of Materials." Subsection 6-3.3, titled "Construction Aggregates," provided as follows: "Aggregates used on Department projects must be in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-103."2 Under the heading "Developmental Specifications" is a February 15, 2008, revision to the Construction Aggregates subsection that provides: Subarticle 6-3.3 (Page 54) is expanded by the following: 6-3.3.1 Department Directed Source for Aggregates: For this Contract, obtain aggregates for use in limerock base from the following vendor: Vulcan Construction Materials LP. Upon award of the Contract, provide the vendor and the Department a schedule of project aggregate needs. Once a schedule has been provided to both the Department and vendor, the Engineer will issue written authorization, with a copy to the vendor, for the purchase of aggregates from the vendor. This authorization is required before aggregates will be released by the vendor. Pick up the required aggregate such that the project schedule will be maintained. Payment to the vendor by the Contractor will be due upon receipt of the materials pursuant to the Department's Vendor Contract No. BDH50. This rate is the unit price agreed upon by the Department and the vendor and will be made available to bid proposal holders at the time of bid at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/aggregate /aggregate.htm. The Department will make payment to the Contractor for the aggregates on progress estimates as a part of the bid unit price for the appropriate pay items. The rate is subject to change and adjustments for such changes will be made to the bid unit price of the appropriate pay items. Disputes with the vendor concerning aggregate supply will not be cause for Contract time adjustments, time suspensions or monetary adjustments to the Contract amount. The Contractor will be solely responsible for providing the necessary advance notice to the vendor and other coordination to obtain timely aggregate supply for the project. The import of Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 was that all bidders would be required to obtain the limerock needed for Base Group 09 from a single vendor, Vulcan Construction Materials LP ("Vulcan"). The winning bidder would agree to pay Vulcan in accordance with a separate contract negotiated between Vulcan and the Department. The hyperlink provided in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.13 led to a document called "Aggregate Guidance" produced by the Department's State Construction Office. The front page of the Aggregate Guidance document contained "Bidder Information" consisting of a spreadsheet setting forth the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base and limestone coarse aggregate, with the price varying depending on the date and port of delivery. Between January and June 2008, the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base from both the Port of Tampa and Port Canaveral was $16.93. The Aggregate Guidance page contained additional hyperlinks with the following titles: "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," "Aggregate Vendor Contract," "Aggregate Vendor Projects List," "Aggregate Vendor Authorization Letter," "Aggregate Vendor Contract Frequently Asked Questions," and "Aggregate Price Adjustment Sheet." Alvin Mulford is the vice-president of Mid-State who, along with his estimator, put together his company's bid for Contract T1285. Mr. Mulford testified that his company has been bidding on Department work, and that he has never before seen a provision similar to Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Mr. Mulford directed his estimator to obtain clarification from the Department, to be sure that the bidders were required to purchase the limerock base from Vulcan. One reason for Mr. Mulford's concern was the "exorbitant" rate charged by Vulcan in comparison to other vendors. The restriction to a single supplier was so abnormal, and that supplier's rate was so out of line with the market, that Mr. Mulford decided to seek guidance from the Department through the question and response internet bulletin board provided by the Department for its projects. The question posed by Mid-State was as follows: Does the contractor have to use Vulcan materials for the limerock base at a rate of $16.93 per ton as stated in the Developmental Specifications 6-3.3.1? If so from which location is the material to be picked up? Is it also true that payment to the vendor (Vulcan Materials) will be due immediately upon receipt of the materials? I wanted to clarify this issue as it is unusual for the contractor to be limited to the use of only one vendor. The Department's response was as follows: The unit rate for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Pickup locations for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Payment should be issued by the Contractor to the Vendor (Vulcan Construction Materials LP) upon receipt of the materials as defined in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Because the Department's response did no more than redirect him to the Department's website, Mr. Mulford decided to look at the website in more detail. He investigated the hyperlinks, including the Vulcan contract with the Department. When he clicked on the hyperlink titled "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," he found a document that provided as follows, in relevant part: Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage by Districts With the execution of the contract with Vulcan Construction Materials LP, contract number BDH50, Vulcan has committed to provide aggregate in the types and quantities defined in the contract (attached). The process for this contract in Districts 1, 5, and 7, is as follows: Include in the projects identified in the attached spreadsheet the appropriate special provision beginning with the July 2007 lettings. The District Specifications Engineer and District Construction Office will need to coordinate this effort. There are two special provisions for the purpose of notifying construction contract bidders of the Department's intention toward the aggregate. The first special provision is the mandatory version that will direct the bidder to obtain aggregates for the specified work from Vulcan. The second special provision provides the bidder an option to obtain its aggregates from Vulcan. * * * After these projects have been awarded, the contractor is required to notify FDOT and Vulcan a schedule of its aggregate needs for the project. After receiving this schedule, FDOT's Resident Engineer will issue written authorization to the contractor, with copy to Vulcan. This authorization is required before Vulcan will release aggregate to the contractor. Payment to Vulcan will be from the contractor. FDOT will pay cost of aggregate on progress estimates as part of the contractor's bid price for the work. The contractor is required to include in its bid price for the work the cost of the aggregate at the Vulcan rate. The Vulcan rate will be posted on the FDOT State Construction Website showing the rate. When adjustments are made to the Vulcan rate, FDOT will make adjustments in the construction contract unit price. . . . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Mulford testified that he understood the underscored language in the hyperlinked document to be a directive to the bidders and therefore a mandatory requirement of the bid specifications. He did not ask the Department for further clarification because he believed the requirement was clearly stated in the hyperlinked document. David Sadler, the director of the Department's office of construction, testified that the hyperlinked document was developed by his office to offer guidance to the districts as to the concept behind and use of the aggregate vendor contract. The document was not a part of the bid solicitation document. Mid-State's bid price was $7,429,398.44. Mid-State's price for Base Group 09 was $619,645.80, or $19.30 per square yard. This price reflected the Vulcan rate for limerock base of $16.92 plus tax and Mid-State's costs for the work associated with Base Group 09. 19. K & R's bid price was $7,370,505.24, or $58,893.20 lower than the bid price of Mid-State. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $256,848.00, based on a stated unit price of $8.00 per square yard for limerock base. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $362,797.80 lower than that of Mid-State, accounting for more than the differential between the overall bids of Mid-State and K & R. Marcus Tidey, Jr., K & R's vice president in charge of its Florida division, testified that K & R was well aware that the Vulcan price for limerock base was $16.93, and that K & R understands its obligation to pay that price to Vulcan should K & R be awarded Contract T1285. Mr. Tidey testified that at the time of bid submission, he cut K & R's bid price to $8.00 per square yard as a competitive strategy to win the contract. Mr. Tidey made a conscious decision that K & R would absorb the difference between $8.00 bid price and the Vulcan price of $16.93. Mr. Tidey testified that K & R needed to win this job in order not to have its crews and equipment sit idle during the economic downturn, and therefore decided to take all of its markup, roughly $250,000, out of the bid. He could have made the $250,000 cut on any item or items in the bid, but decided on Base Group 09 because the limerock base was a big item and therefore easy to cut by a large amount. Mr. Tidey also testified that the contract provides a $400,000 incentive payment for early completion of the job, meaning that K & R will be able to work "faster and smarter" and make up for the price reduction at the end of the job. Mr. Tidey testified that he obtained the Vulcan prices from the Department's website as instructed by Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. He did not click on the hyperlinks, which appeared to reference the contract between the Department and Vulcan and therefore was of no concern to him. The Department and K & R dispute Mid-State's assertion that the underscored language of the hyperlink set forth in Finding of Fact 15 was a requirement of the bid specifications, based on Mr. Sadler's direct testimony and the underlying illogic and unfairness of requiring bidders to seek out hidden specifications. The Department and K & R concede that if the bid specifications did in fact require the bidders to include in Base Group 09 the full costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan, then K & R's bid is nonresponsive. Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 directed bidders to the Department's webpage for the purpose of obtaining the current Vulcan rate quote. It did not instruct the bidders to investigate the hyperlinks or to assume that the information contained therein was mandatory. Absent an instruction to bidders to review the information contained in the hyperlinks, the Department could not make such information mandatory without placing less curious bidders at a competitive disadvantage. The Department had no intent to play hide-and-seek with the bid specifications in the manner suggested by Mid-State. In addition, K & R points to three line items of the bid specifications in which the Department eliminates competition, instructing the bidders not to bid and inserting a fixed unit price and bid amount for all bidders as to those items. K & R reasonably asserts that the Department was fully capable of treating Base Group 09 in the same fashion, had it intended to require the bidders to pass through to the Department all the costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan. However, the Department supplied the bid quantity (31,106 square yards) and left it to the bidders to determine the price per unit they would bid. K & R's bid was responsive. Nothing in the bid specifications prevented K & R from absorbing part of the cost of the Vulcan limerock base and passing the savings on to the Department, or required bidders to pass on to the Department the full costs of complying with the bid specifications regarding Base Group 09. The sole remaining issue is whether K & R's bid, though facially responsive, was materially unbalanced. The Department routinely conducts reviews of bid line items that appear "unbalanced," i.e., for which there appear to be significant differences between the price bid and the Department's cost estimate, in order to determine whether the price difference is due to a quantity error by the bidder. The Department's review confirms that the bid quantity specified on the bid blank is accurate. If a quantity error is found, the bids are recalculated using the bidders' unit prices and the correct quantities to determine whether the bid rankings would change. A bid for which there is a discrepancy between the bid and the Department's estimate is termed "mathematically unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid that affects the ranking of the low bid is "materially unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid is acceptable, but a materially unbalanced bid affords the bidder an unfair competitive advantage and must be rejected. The Department followed its usual procedure in analyzing the K & R bid to determine whether it was unbalanced. Philip Gregory Davis, the Department's state estimates engineer, testified that there were some unbalanced items in the K & R bid, but no quantity errors that would have changed the ranking of the bids. Richard Ryals, the project designer who conducted the unbalanced bid review, testified that the quantities were correct for Base Group 09. As noted above, K & R's low bid for Base Group 09 was an intentional strategy, not the result of a quantity error. K & R's current bonded capacity qualification with the Department is $258 million in contracts at any one time. K & R posted a bid bond, and has more than enough capacity to comfortably perform this contract. There is no economic danger to the Department in accepting K & R's low bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Mid-State's formal written protest and awarding Contract T1265 to K & R. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether a contract for a perimeter security system at Calhoun Correctional Institution and Holmes Correctional Institution should be awarded to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 1994, Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid, Bid No. 94-INST-6197, the ("ITB"). The ITB requested bidders to submit bids to supply materials for perimeter security systems and to provide training for the installation and maintenance of the systems at Calhoun Correctional Institution and Holmes Correctional Institution. Responsive bids had to include materials and training necessary for Respondent to install and maintain the security systems. Bids had to be filed no later than February 10, 1994. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted bids along with three other bidders in a timely manner. The ITB required bidders to hold a Florida alarm contractor's license. Intervenor does not hold such a license. However, the ITB defines the term "bidder" to include an individual, firm, partner, or corporation. Intervenor's bid contemplated that it will supply the materials required in the ITB. Another company that holds a Florida alarm contractor's license will provide the training required for Respondent to install and maintain the security systems. Intervenor and the other company responded to the ITB as partners in a single bid that provides a single price for all materials and training required by the ITB. Intervenor's bid complies with the terms of the ITB and is responsive. Respondent notified Intervenor of its intent to award the contract to Intervenor as the lowest responsive bidder. Intervenor's bid is approximately $14,000 less than Petitioner's bid. Petitioner is the second lowest bidder. Respondent's interpretation that the ITB allows materials and training to be supplied separately by Intervenor and its partner is a reasonable interpretation that is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The intent and purpose of such an interpretation is to encourage flexibility that may result in savings to the state. The provision of materials and services by separate companies in Intervenor's bid will, in fact, result in substantial savings to the state. The terms of the bid does not create an unfair advantage for Intervenor. The term bidder is defined in the bid documents to include a partner and a corporation. Florida law expressly exempts Intervenor from the requirement for an alarm contractor's license if Intervenor merely supplies materials and does not fabricate or consume the materials in performing the work of a contractor. Section 489.503(10), Florida Statutes. Therefore, only Intervenor's partner is required to hold an alarm contractor's license, and, in fact, Intervenor's partner holds the requisite license. Respondent's interpretation of the ITB is consistent with applicable law. Any other interpretation of the ITB by Respondent would have purported to impose a stricter licensing requirement than that imposed by the legislature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's written formal protest be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of April, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 April, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-5., 7-8. Accepted in substance 6. Irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as recited testimony Accepted in substance 11.-13. Rejected for the factual and legal reasons stated in the Recommended Order Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact All of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Beth Atchison, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Teresa Hurtado Schaefer, CEO FSM, Inc. 3559 S. W. 69th Way Miramar, FL 33023 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Michael G. Kanche, Jr. Southwest Microwave 2922 South Rosevelt Street Tempe, Arizona 85282-2042
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed at the time of hearing, the parties agree that bids for contract No. E-4450, the contract in issue here, were opened by the Respondent in Fort Lauderdale on October 11, 1991. Bids were received from five bidders including the Petitioner, Power, and the low bidder, Certified. Based on its evaluation of the bids submitted, on October 18, 1991, Respondent posted an intent to award the contract to Power Sweeping Services, Inc., Petitioner herein. However, thereafter, on October 22, 1991, the Department received a formal protest from the low bidder, Certified, challenging the intent to award. After review of the substance of Certified's protest, Respondent notified all bidders that it would be reposting its intent to award on November 5, 1991, and on that date, did repost, indicating an intent to award the contract in question to Certified, the low bidder. Thereafter, on November 14, 1991, Petitioner timely filed its formal protest, having filed its initial intent to protest on November 6, 1991. The bid blank, which was issued to all prospective bidders at the pre- bid conference held in this matter for a contract to involve mechanical sweeping on Interstate Highway 595 from its eastern terminus to Southwest 136th Avenue, including interchange ramps at I-95, I-595, and State Road 84, contained as a part thereof a notice to contractors which, at page 1 of 4, (page 1 of the 36 page bid package), contained a notation that for contracts of $150,000.00 or less, the bidder would be required to submit, as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payments bond: a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or a copy of the contractor's certificate of qualification issued by the Department. This note specifically states that "failure to provide the following required evidence of bonding", as indicated above, with the bid proposal would result in rejection of the contractor's bid. Petitioner submitted a notarized "letter of commitment to issue bond" dated October 8, 1991, by Burton Harris, attorney in fact and resident agent for American Bonding Company. Certified submitted with its bid an un-notarized letter from Mark A. Latini, bond manager with Bonina - McCutchen - Bradshaw Insurance to the effect that "Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should CPM be low and awarded the referenced contract." Five bidders submitted bids. Certified was the low bidder with a bid price of $61,474.85. Florida Sweeping, Incorporated was second low bidder with a bid of $67,388.16, but that bid was rejected because an addendum was not noted. Petitioner was third lowest bidder with a bid of $72,290.65. Because Certified's bid as initially submitted did not contain the required notarized letter from the bonding company, its bid was initially rejected. Thereafter, however, Certified's president, Mr. Hanousek, who prepared Certified's bid, and who attended the pre-bid meeting, called the Department's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. As a result, he submitted a notice of protest and a subsequent protest to the denial of Certified's bid. A hearing on Certified's protest was not held. When Joseph Yesbeck, the District's director of planning and programs, who was at the time serving as acting district secretary in the absence of the appointed secretary, was contacted by Mr. Hanousek. He reviewed the file and met with Ms. Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts and the contracting staff to see what was happening. At that point Ms. Martin explained why Certified's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. When the District secretary came back, Mr. Yesbeck briefed him and recommended that based on the information he had received from the District and Department attorneys, the failure to submit the notarized letter should be considered a non-material deviation and the Certified bid be determined the low responsive bidder. The reasons for this were that the absence of the notary did not really give any competitive advantage to Certified and that ordinarily defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. When the District secretary, on the basis of the information provided by Mr. Yesbeck, decided to repost the contract, Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed Certified's disqualification and left it as the low bidder. None of the other rejected bidders, including Florida Sweeping and bidder Number 5, which was rejected because its bond proposal was not of a proper character, were advised that they could come in and correct the defects with their bond letters. According to Ms. Martin, the notice to contractors requiring a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the requirement to post a 5% bid guarantee was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants, so that the bidder does not actually have to post the bond in question. The notarization requirement was put in by the Department but neither Ms. Martin nor any other witness testifying on behalf of the Department was able to indicate why the bond certification had to be notarized. Historically, when the Department has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter it has been rejected, and in Ms. Martin's experience, she has never known of a protest based on such a denial since she began working with contracts in July, 1988. When she reviews the bids, she reviews the bonding letter for its content as well as seeing whether it is notarized. Here, her reason for initially rejecting certified's bid was solely that the bond commitment letter was not notarized. The decision to reject was not hers alone, however, since she also checked with the District General Counsel who initially advised her that Certified's bond commitment letter was no good. Apparently, counsel changed his position upon discussion of the matter with Mr. Yesbeck and the Department's General Counsel since, according to Mr. Yesbeck, both counsel recommended subsequently that the absence of the notarization not be a disqualification. Further, according to Ms. Martin the requirement for the notarization has been utilized by District 4 since 1987 with all bids requiring it notwithstanding Mr. Hanousek's testimony that he has never seen the requirement before in any of the 6 successful contract's he has had with the Department before. In that regard, however, he admits this is the only contract he has had with District 4. Ms. Martin does not know if the notarization requirement is used in other Districts and no evidence as presented by any party to clarify that issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered setting aside the determination that Certified Property Maintenance's bid on Contract No. E4450, Job No. 869069108 was the low responsive bid. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 28th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 28th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-7592BID The following constitute my ruling on all Proposed Findings of Fact pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes submitted by the parties hereto. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the finding that Certified's bid complied in every respect except the notarization. The assurance by the bonding company was not unqualified but conditioned upon Certified being awarded the contract. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for last sentence regarding which see 3., supra. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE INTERVENOR: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce M. Cease, Esquire 2720 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33135 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ray Hanousek President Certified Property Maintenance 3203 Robbins Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issues concern the question of the responsiveness of Intervenor's bid to the invitation to bid (ITB) 92-66BC. If the Intervenor is not responsive, then Petitioner asserts that it should be awarded the contract as the second ranked bidder. In particular Petitioner alleges that there are certain irregularities in the response by the Intervenor and that they constitute material deviations from the bid requirements. They are in turn: Whether Intervenor failed to submit its price on the second addendum bid sheet as required or to acknowledge that its bid was being submitted in accordance with Addendum No. 2. Whether Intervenor failed to include its references with its bid response. Whether Intervenor failed to fill in the space on the bid form calling for cash discount terms. Whether Intervenor failed to fill in the space on the bid form calling for delivery days. Whether Intervenor failed to initial changes or corrections to its price quotation.
Findings Of Fact On September 14, 1992, Respondent mailed ITB No. 92-66BC to prospective bidders. The ITB called for "A bid for supplied items related to HRS data processing operations-Florida Project." Within the ITB was given the following explanation concerning bid items and bid prices: ITEM Unit Bid NO. Quantity Description Price 1 each IBM 4234 Print Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 30 each IBM 4202 Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 50 each IBM 4019 Laser Toner (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 650 each IBM 2380/2381 Print Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 5 boxes Continuous Self-adhesive (per month) Labels $ ea. (labels are blank with no printing) overall size 5 3/4" x 6" including pin feed holes, label size 5" x 17/16", white labels, 1,000 per box $ per 1 each IBM 6262 Mylar Film Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 650 each IBM 6262 5 Mil. Ribbon (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 8 boxes IBM 3800 Toner (3/box) (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 1 roll IBM Splicing Tape (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. 2 boxes IBM 3800 Developer (2/box) (per month) (no substitutes) $ ea. On September 24, 1992, Addendum No. 1 was prepared related to the items that were being bid. It stated: The purpose of this Addendum #1 to the above referenced HRS bid invitation is to: (a) Clarity the individual IBM product specifications with IBM stock numbers (b) increase the quantity for item #1, and (c) extend the bid opening date. These changes are as follows: ITEM Unit Bid NO. Quantity Description Price Increase quantity IBM 4234 Print Ribbon of IBM 4234 Print Auto-Inking Ribbon (Auto-Inking) IBM Stock #1380160 from 1 ea./mo. to "30 ea./mo.". $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4202 Ribbon as previously IBM Stock #1040150 specified $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4019 Laser Toner High Yield IBM Stock #1380200 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 2380/2381 Print Ribbon IBM Stock #1040930 $ ea. Same Quantity Continuous Self-Adhesive Labels $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 Mylar Film Ribbon IBM Stock #1040400 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 5 Mil. Ribbon High Contract IBM Stock #1040300 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 3800 Toner IBM Stock #1669122 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM Splicing Tape IBM Stock #4165880 $ /cn. of 72 rolls Same Quantity IBM 3800 Developer 2/box IBM Stock #1162223 $ /box Addendum No. 1 also moved the bid opening date from September 24, 1992, until September 30, 1992. Addendum No. 2 was issued on September 28, 1992, concerning bid items. It stated: The purpose of this 2nd Addendum to the above referenced bid invitation is to incorporate the "packaging" (3 per box) on item #8 and to add/clarify the individual "units" on which "Unit Bid Prices" shall be based. These changes are as follows: ITEM Unit Bid NO. Quantity Description Price Increase quantity IBM 4234 Print Ribbon of IBM 4234 Print Auto-Inking Ribbon (Auto-Inking) IBM Stock #1380160 from 1 ea./mo. to "30 ea./mo.". $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4202 Ribbon as previously IBM Stock #1040150 specified $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 4019 Laser Toner High Yield IBM Stock #1380200 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 2380/2381 Print Ribbon IBM Stock #1040930 $ ea. Same Quantity Continuous Self-Adhesive Labels $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 Mylar Film Ribbon IBM Stock #1040400 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 6262 5 Mil. Ribbon High Contract IBM Stock #1040300 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM 3800 Toner IBM Stock #1669122 $ ea. Same Quantity IBM Splicing Tape IBM Stock #4165880 $ /cn. of 72 rolls Same Quantity IBM 3800 Developer 2/box IBM Stock #1162223 $ /box The second addendum changed the bid opening date to October 9, 1992. Petitioner and Intervenor received the addenda. Notwithstanding the attempts at clarification concerning the bid items, Item No. 6 continued to be problematic in that the description of the ribbon type was Mylar Film; however, the stock number shown opposite the item identified was for nylon ribbon. Respondent intended to purchase Mylar ribbon. Intervenor was made aware that the agency desired Mylar ribbon by its Item No. 6. This information was imparted before the bid opening. Although William F. Cox, Respondent's employee who was responsible for the ITB has no specific recollection of discussing the problem about Item No. 6 with a representative from Petitioner's corporation, John C. Lyons, a representative for Petitioner's corporation does recall a discussion. Lyons' understanding in conversation with Cox was that disposition would be made concerning item 6 after a winning vendor had been selected, that disposition having to do with rectification of the confusion surrounding the item description and stock number. Prior to bid opening Cox had reached as many bidders as he felt time would allow him to contact concerning the problem with Item No. 6. Time was of the essence in that the contract which Respondent had with the existing vendor who supplied the items sought by the ITB was expiring and the federal government from whom funding for this activity was being received was insisting on moving the project forward. This reason for bidding was to change from a sole source purchasing arrangement to a purchase under competitive bidding. The existing vendor was a sole source and the ITB was designed to substitute competitive bidding for that approach. Cox was unsure how he would deal with responses pertaining to Item No. One alternative was that if he had two responsive bids which included reference to Mylar ribbon that would suffice. Another option would be to throw out Item No. 6 and consider the award on the basis of the other nine items. Intervenor bid Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6 together with a number of other vendors who submitted responsive bids for Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6. Petitioner bid nylon ribbon on Item No. 6. All ten vendors who submitted responses were found responsive to the ITB. Because Intervenor had bid Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6 and other vendors had also bid Mylar ribbon on Item No. 6, Cox elected the option to leave Item No. 6 in the price quotation for determining the ranking for vendors. The decision to award the overall contract was decided on the basis of price in the aggregate for the ten items in question. Although Petitioner had bid nylon ribbon on Item No. 6, this was to the Petitioner's advantage in comparison to other vendors concerning the price competition. The reason for this finding is that nylon ribbon is a less expensive ribbon than Mylar ribbon. When the bids were opened on October 9, 1992, the basis for assessing compliance with the terms of the ITB was controlled by the terms of the ITB; Chapter 287, Florida Statutes; Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, as interpreted by Mr. Cox without benefit of any additional guidelines which Respondent may have established for assessing responsiveness. That approach was not irregular. The price quotations for line items within the bid blank offered by Intervenor were set out in the ITB and Addendum No. 1. Addendum No. 2 was not attached. Petitioner attached both addenda to its response and set out the prices on the addenda. Petitioner did not set out the prices on the ITB. Notwithstanding the failure to submit Addendum No. 2 with its response, Intervenor was aware of its requirements when submitting its response. While it is the ordinary expectation that Addendum No. 2 would have been submitted, this oversight does not constitute a material deviation from the requirements set out in the ITB. The basic description of the ten items that were being bid remained consistent beginning with the ITB and continuing through the addenda. An examination of the price responses by the Intervenor when compared to Petitioner's responses and those made by other vendors does not lead to the conclusion that the failure to use the blank for Addendum No. 2 compromised the Intervenor's response. This finding is made with the knowledge of the language under general conditions to the ITB referring to sealed bids where it says "all bid sheets and this form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope. . . . Bids not submitted on attached bid form shall be rejected. All bids are subject to the conditions specified herein. Those which do not comply with these conditions are subject to rejection." Because of what Mr. Cox perceived as possible confusion by the vendors concerning the number of attempts to clarify the terms of the items to be bid, he did not feel that a vendor should be penalized for not recording the price quotations on the addenda. This perception is acceptable. Finally, additional evidence concerning the underlying similarities between the initial invitation to bid and the addenda is borne out by the fact that both the Petitioner and Intervenor in recording the price quotations in two places in their responses were consistent in those quotations. Included within the ITB was a section entitled "Background Statement." It stated: The computer related supplies which will be purchased from this bid/contract will be used by the department's data center in Tallahassee and statewide district service centers in the timely provision of a range of critical client services. The ability of the department's statewide data processing network to deliver these services in a responsive manner is critical to the very livelihood of many of these individuals. For this reason, the department will require that responding vendors provide a minimum of three (3) company references and provide other pertinent information, as required, to substantiate that the company is capable by experience and resources, to fulfill the provisions of this contract in a timely, competent and professional manner. The requirement for providing three company references was not one which made it incumbent upon the vendor to submit the references with the response to the ITB. The ITB is silent on the use of the information concerning references, that is to say the verification of those references and how that might be achieved. The vendor is only responsible for providing the information. Respondent may then use the information in any manner it desires. Although it is the ordinary practice of the Respondent to check the references prior to posting the intent to award, nothing in the ITB makes it incumbent upon the Respondent to do so and the vendor will not be held accountable for the Respondent's failure to comply with its customary practice by not checking the references prior to the posting of the intent to award. Intervenor did not provide the references with its response to the ITB. When Cox reminded Intervenor that it had not provided the references, the references were faxed to Cox on the day that the results concerning the ITB were posted. Two of the three references were checked on the day of posting following the posting. The third reference was not available to confirm the suitability of this vendor to supply the bid items in question. Moreover, the items being bid were from a single manufacturer, IBM. The vendors who were participating in the response, including Petitioner and Intervenor, were companies who had business affiliations with IBM that allowed necessary access to the bid items being sought. In summary, there was no requirement to provide references with responses and Intervenor did supply information about its references in a timely manner and the treatment of those responses by Respondent was appropriate. Within the general conditions to the bid is language to the affect that "all corrections made by bidder to his bid price must be initialled." Intervenor in Item No. 5 found within the basic bid blank and Addendum No. 1 changed bid by obliterating information and substituting the price $3.95 per box. This was an irregularity. The manner in which the irregularity was addressed by Mr. Cox minimized its influence and caused it to be other than a material deviation from the terms of the ITB. When Mr. Cox opened the Intervenor's response and discovered this change to Item No. 5 which had not been initialled he held up the response and said, "I have a bid with a change here I want to show it." This was presented in front of other vendors who were in attendance at the bid opening. Petitioner was not in attendance. A member of Respondent's staff other than Cox also saw this display and heard the remarks. This approach demonstrated that the Respondent had not made the changes in the person of its employee and by inference verified that the change had been made by the Intervenor. The nature of the change does not leave ambiguity concerning the intention by the Intervenor in that the prior entry on Item No. 5 within the basic invitation to bid blank and Addendum No. 1 had been obliterated leaving only the price quotation in the amount of $3.95 thus this problem is a minor irregularity and not a material deviation from the terms concerning the ITB. The delivery time contemplated for providing the bid items was ten working days by shipment FOB destination. This was as announced in Paragraph Although the front page to the ITB carries with it a blank for recording the delivery date where it says "delivery date will be days after receipt of purchase order", it was not necessary for a vendor to fill that number of days in. The reason is that the number of days had already been established by the terms of the ITB and no latitude was presented to a vendor to suggest otherwise. If a vendor chose to fill in the ten days required by Paragraph 11 by placing the number ten on the lead sheet to the ITB, this was a redundant act. Likewise on the lead sheet to the ITB is found a blank for recording the "cash discount terms". Reference to cash discount terms was not a specific requirement within the ITB, especially as it relates to a comparison of responses by the vendors in deciding who would be awarded the contract. Therefore, the failure by the Intervenor to record its cash discount terms on the lead sheet to the ITB in a setting in which Petitioner had offered such information is not a deviation from the requirements set out in the ITB. Under general conditions at Paragraph 4.b. concerning discount, it is stated "cash discounts for prompt payment shall not be considered in determining the lowest net cost for bid evaluation purposes." Nothing in the remaining text found in the ITB was contrary to that statement. The price difference between the responsive bid by the Intervenor and the responsive bid by the Petitioner was $102 in a setting in which Intervenor had the lowest price and Petitioner had the second lowest price.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, recommended that a Final Order be entered which dismisses the bid protest of the Petitioner and awards the contract to Intervenor, together with costs in the amount of $764. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-6824BID The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the last subparagraph to Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. The last subparagraph to Paragraph 5 is rejected as the reason for deciding that the Intervenor had complied with the requirements for references. Paragraph 6 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion related to Mr. Lyons and his understanding of what must be done in making changes through the initialling process. Mr. Lyons insights do not set aside the perception that the failure to initial by Intervenor was a minor irregularity. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found. As to Paragraph 8, the fact that Mr. Cox did not make a specific determination about Item No. 6 related to the response by the Petitioner did not disadvantage the Petitioner in a way that should cause a change in the outcome. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts Paragraphs 1 through 8 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 10 through 28 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Pelham, Esquire Pennington, Wilkinson & Dunlap, P.A. 3375-A Capital Circle, N.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert L. Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Cody, Jr. IT Products, Inc. 5303 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John C. Lyons, Senior Account Manager 321 West Exchange Street Akron, OH 44302 Associated Computer Stipulations 1801 North Meridian Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 SAI/Delta, Inc. Suite 1014 670 North Orlando Avenue Maitland, FL 32751 Best Line Office Machines, Inc. Post Office Box 37381 Pensacola, FL 32526-0381 FRC Office Products Post Office Box 10163 Jacksonville, FL 32247-0163 Matrix Data Corporation Post Office Box 36150 Cleveland, OH 44136 Center Office Products 625 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32304 Computer Solutions/Connecting Point 4405 Bayou Boulevard Pensacola, FL 32503 Forms Management, Inc. Post Office Box 4004 Tallahassee, FL 32315
