Findings Of Fact Respondent, through its Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 123-395-98-C Rebid, seeks to award a 12-month contract for, the purchase of electronic data processing cards. Bids were opened on November 10, 1981, at which time Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. However, Respondent disqualified Petitioner's bid because Data Specialties Mart did not have a corporate charter number and had no manufacturing capability on the bid opening date. S. F. Holdings, Inc., is a Florida corporation, Charter No. 637983. Data Specialties Mart is a division of this corporation and has been assigned Vendor No. 00417 by Respondent. Confusion over Petitioner's identity arose from the section on Respondent's ITB where the vendor name is to be entered. Petitioner placed the name "Data Specialties Mart, Inc.," (non-existent as a corporation) in this block. Petitioner did, however, enter the S. F. Holdings, Inc., charter number and the Data Specialties Mart vendor number in adjacent blocks. A letter attached to the bid describes Data Specialties Mart as a marketing division of S. F. Holdings, Inc. Although this letter did not have as its purpose correction of the above error, it did provide the clarification Respondent should have sought. Furthermore, this relatively minor discrepancy could have been resolved through contact with the Petitioner. Petitioner stated by letter dated November 9, 1981, (attached to its bid) that "The cards will be produced through our Lakeland, Florida manufacturing facilities (formally [sic] known as National Electronics Computing Supplies, Inc.)." Respondent investigated the claimed ownership and determined that Petitioner did not possess the manufacturing facility on the bid opening date, November 10, 1981, as represented. Petitioner's president, who signed the letter, believed he would acquire the facility at a November 16, 1981, bankruptcy proceeding and thus claimed the facility for bid purposes. Although Petitioner did acquire the factory as anticipated, it possessed no manufacturing capability on the bid opening date.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom and Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William P. Beck, Esquire Department of General Services 457 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas R. Brown, Executive Director Department of General Services Room 115, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues presented for determination at the hearing are as follows: 1/ Whether respondent Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) abused its discretion or acted in bad faith, arbitrarily, capriciously, or under a misconception of law in rejecting all bids received on the subject project on December 21, 1977. Whether the decision of the respondent D.O.T. to reject all bids was made in violation of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, F.S. s286.011.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By a "notice to contractors" dated November 24, 1977, the respondent D.O.T. advertised that it would receive bids on December 21, 1977, from qualified contractors for various construction and maintenance programs. The project which is the subject of this proceeding was contained in this notice, identified as "Gadsden County: Federal Aid Project No. I-10-3(31)157 Contract II (Job No. 50001-3423) SR 8 (I-10)." This project involved the paving of a certain stretch of Interstate Highway 10 in Gadsden County, which stretch was the last remaining unopen portion of I-10. In addition to a short summary of the contents of the project the notice on this project contained the following language which was underlined and capitalized in the notice: NOTE: A PRE-BID CONFERENCE ON THIS PROJECT WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1977, AT 10:00 A.M. IN ROOM 301 OF THE HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, 605 SUWANNEE STREET, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA. ALL POTENTIAL BIDDERS WILL BE RE- QUIRED TO ATTEND. NOTE: ON-THE-JOB TRAINING WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. Mr. Henry Eugene Cowger, deputy state construction engineer for the D.O.T., made the initial decision to require attendance at a prebid conference for this project, although he himself did not draft the language used in the notice. Cowger felt that a prebid conference would be valuable to bidders and the Department due to the uniqueness of this particular project with regard to the requirements concerning maintenance of traffic and work progress. More specifically, the contract called for a close working relationship and cooperation with the first stage contractor on this stretch of road. The first stage contractor is respondent/intervenor White. Also, it was anticipated that the project would be opened in sections with unusual traffic requirements so that the entire project could be utilized in a limited fashion. Mr. Cowger instructed William F. Ray, the Department's area construction engineer, to arrange for and conduct the prebid conference. No specific instructions were given to Mr. Ray as to which provisions of the contract were to be discussed at the conference. Cowger felt that Ray was knowledgeable with the project and therefore that he needed no instructions. The prebid conference was held as scheduled on December 14, 1977. Representatives of six different construction companies attended, including a representative from respondent White Construction Company. Through neglect or oversight, petitioner Couch did not attend the conference. A memorandum to the file from Mr. Ray indicates that the following occurred at the conference: A statement was made at the beginning of the meeting by W. F. Ray that nothing said by any person at the meeting would change or modify any part of the contract documents. Certain portions of the special Provisions per- taining to maintenance of traffic and limitations of work areas were read and discussed. It was agreed by those present that the intent of these Specials Provisions was clear and under- standable. Mr. McRae of H.D.W. stated that the unknown delay times built into this project would result in much higher than normal bids and his company would probably not enter a bid. After a short discussion of the terms of the contract, the meeting was adjourned. The conference lasted from thirty to forty-five minutes. At the hearing, Mr. Ray related the questions he could remember which were asked by the contractors. It was admitted that virtually all of the provisions and expectations, unique or otherwise, were fully spelled out in the contract documents. Most of the inquiries at the conference related to the absorption of certain maintenance and traffic costs and responsibilities between the contractor and the D.O.T. In each instance, it was disclosed that the D.O.T. would be responsible for these unless the contract specifically provided otherwise. Questions regarding the sequence of operations and the phasing of the work with the first stage contractor were not specifically answered by D.O.T. representatives. Of the three contractors who submitted bids on the subject project on December 21, 1977, only respondent/intervenor White had attended the December 14th rebid conference. Joseph F. Villadsen, petitioner's engineering division vice president, had visited the site of the project and had studied the contract provisions, which appeared clear to him. In numerical order, the bids submitted on December 21, 1977, were as follows: $1,410,730.72 - - petitioner Couch $1,514,272.63 - - respondent/intervenor White $1,579,168.72 - - Contee Sand and Gravel Company, Inc. The respondent has an Awards Committee composed of five executives from the D.O.T. This Committee generally meets once a month to review bids and make a recommendation to respondent's Secretary on the award of contracts for some thirty-five to fifty projects per month. Although Secretary Webb has the authority to make an independent decision and/or to reject the recommendations of the Awards Committee with regard to the acceptance of bids, he could not recall ever having done so. On the afternoon of December 21, 1977, the same day as the bids were received, Mr. Jay Brown, respondent's director of road operations and chairman of the Awards Committee, learned from two representatives of White that the apparent low bidder, petitioner Couch, had not attended the prebid conference. He thereupon called together those members of the Awards Committee who were in the building at that time to discuss what should be done. Brown also counseled with P.E. Carpenter, the division administrator for the Federal Highway Administration, to determine the extent of the federal participation in funding if a bid other than the low bid were accepted. Awards Committee members Brown, Sill Ekey, Peter J. White and Willis Armstrong met on December 21 and 22, 1977. In reaching a determination as to their recommendation to the Secretary, the committee members considered three alternatives -- awarding the contract to Couch as the apparent low bidder, awarding the contract to White as the next lowest bidder and as the only bidder who attended the prebid conference or rejecting all bids received and readvertising for new bids. Each alternative was considered a viable one by the committee members. Although the members felt that the requirement of attendance at a prebid conference was a reasonable requirement due to the uniqueness of the project, no inquiry was made as to what actually transpired at the conference. Nor was any inquiry made as to a reason for petitioner's nonattendance. It was the unanimous decision of those Committee members present that it would best serve the interests of the State to reject all bids and proceed to readvertise. This decision to recommend rejection and readvertisement was based upon several reasons. The prime consideration was that this project involved the last remaining unopen link in Interstate Highway 10 and time was of the essence. It was felt that if the contract were awarded to Couch or to White, there would be litigation causing delay to the completion of Interstate 10. The Committee members were also concerned with the significant amount of difference between the bids of Couch and White. Rejecting all bids appeared to the Committee members to be the "cleaner" way to go. Mr. Brown testified that the D.O.T. does not generally accept the bid where only one bid is received. Here the apparent low bidder and the highest bidder were considered irregular for failure to attend the prebid conference. Thus, the Department was left with only one bid. Through Mr. Brown, Secretary Thomas Webb, Jr., was telephonically notified of the recommendation of the Awards Committee. Mr. Webb concurred with the Committee's recommendation because he was concerned with a possible delay to the project due to litigation were the bid to be awarded to either Couch or to White. Thereafter, the bidders were notified by telegram that all bids on the project had been rejected due to the failure of the low bidder to attend the prebid conference, and that the project would be readvertised. On December 29, 1977, Couch filed a "complaint" with the D.O.T. requesting a hearing pursuant to F.S. s120.57 on the issue of whether the D.O.T. lawfully rejected Couch's bid on the subject project. By Order dated January 9, 1978, Secretary Webb denied Couch's request for a hearing. This denial was appealed by Couch to the District Court of Appeal, First District, and White Construction Company was made a party to that proceeding. After numerous motions were filed and oral argument was had, the District Court, by Order dated February 24, 1978, relinquished jurisdiction for a period of sixty days and remanded the case to the D.O.T. for the purpose of providing Couch a s120.57(1) hearing. The District Court stayed the D.O.T. from awarding the contract for the subject project. Prior to the Orders of the District Court, the D.O.T. readvertised the project, calling for a prebid conference on January 11, 1978, and the receipt of bids on January 12, 1978. This time, attendance at the conference was announced to be "expected," rather than "required." At the hearing, the D.O.T. divulged that attendance at prebid conferences would no longer be required or mandatory in order to avoid the problem inherent in the instant proceeding. Both Couch and White attended the January 11th prebid conference and submitted bids on January 12th. Couch's bid was identical to its December 21, 1977, bid. White submitted a bid approximately $40,000.00 below the bid of Couch. The D.O.T. receives bids on approximately 420 to 550 construction projects a year. During the past ten years, only seven other prebid conferences with required attendance have been held. In those instances, the language contained in the notice was different from the language used in the subject notice. On three occasions the language used was: "ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS MUST ATTEND THIS PRE-BID CONFERENCE AS BIDDING DOCUMENTS WILL NOT BE ISSUED TO CONTRACTORS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY REPRESENTED AT THIS MEETING." On three occasions the language was: "ATTENDANCE WILL BE MANDATORY FOR THOSE INTENDING TO BID ON THIS PROJECT.? On one occasion the language was: "ATTENDANCE WILL BE MANDATORY FOR THOSE INTENDING TO SUBMIT A BID ON THIS PROJECT." The situation where the apparent low bidder has not attended a required prebid conference has never before arisen.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the D.O.T.`s decision to reject all bids and readvertise the subject project be affirmed and upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida (“SBBC”) improperly awarded a contract pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 21-244H for “Photo ID Card and Printing System Supplies” (“ITB”) to Intervenor, Identicard Systems, Inc. (“Identicard"). Petitioner Plasco, Inc. ("Plasco") contends that the recommended award to Identicard is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the specifications of the ITB. The resolution of the ultimate issue turns on whether the uninitialed corrected figures contained within Plasco’s bid response for both the unit price and the total cost of Item 1(N) were a material deviation from the bid specifications requiring rejection of the bid.
Findings Of Fact SBBC desired to procure photo identification card and printing systems supplies to prepare identification cards for school district employees, students in selected schools, and outside vendors. SBBC has adopted School Board Policy 3320 which governs its purchasing of goods and services. On or about April 30, 2001, SBBC released the ITB. General Condition 1(c) of the ITB stated in pertinent part: EXECUTION OF BID: . . . If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure or use an opaque correction fluid. All corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid even when using opaque correction fluid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. . . . General Condition 2 of the ITB stated in pertinent part: PRICES QUOTED: . . . Give both unit price and extended total. Prices must be stated in units to quantity specified in the bidding specification. In case of discrepancy in computing the amount of the bid, the Unit Price quoted will govern. . . . General Condition 7 of the ITB stated in pertinent part: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder. . . . All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. Special Condition 3 of the ITB states as follows: AWARD: Bid shall be awarded by GROUP to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC may need to order an individual component within a group. All items within a group must have an individual cost. Failure to state the individual cost for an item within a group will result in disqualification of the group. Bidder should carefully consider each item for conformance to specifications. In the event that one item in the group does not meet the specifications, the entire group will be disqualified. On June 7, 2001, Plasco, Identicard, and seven other companies submitted responses to the ITB. After receiving the bid responses, SBBC’s Purchasing Department examined and computed the figures submitted by each bidder for each item listed in the Bid Summary Sheets. For each item, a quantity figure had been supplied by SBBC in the bid specifications. The bid was structured so that the specified quantity would be multiplied by a unit price furnished by the bidder on its Bid Summary Sheets. The bidder was also required to furnish a total cost for each individual item in its Bid Summary Sheets. The bids submitted by both Identicard and Plasco contained a number of uninitialed corrections. Although such uninitialed corrections violated General Condition 1(c), the SBBC properly deemed such errors to be immaterial in every instance where only one figure per specified Item was tainted by a violation of this General Condition. For example, where a particular component of the bid required the bidder to specify a unit cost and a total cost for the quantity of goods specified in that particular component, the SBBC was willing to perform the mathematical calculation necessary to confirm the correctness of the uninitialed figure. As applied to this particular type of uninitialed correction, SBBC staff would multiply or divide the quantity specified in the ITB by the "untainted" number provided by the bidder to confirm the correctness of the uninitialed corrected figure submitted in violation of General Condition 1(c). The Bid Summary Sheet submitted by Plasco for Item 1(N) contained a different violation of General Condition 1(c), to wit, it contained two uninitialed corrected figures. The corrections were accomplished through the use of correction fluid. Plasco's Bid Summary Sheet with respect to Item 1(N) stated in pertinent part as follows: UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST * * * FARGO ACCESSORIES N. 3 each 81524 Thermal Printhead $389.35 ea $1,168.05 for Cheetah/Cheetah II/ Pro/Pro-L/Presto! Quatro/ Presto! System The Unit Price of $389.35 as well as the Total Cost of $1,168.05 for Item 1(N) set forth in Plasco’s bid was a corrected price and was not initialed by the person signing the bid on behalf of Plasco. Notwithstanding this "double correction," it was possible within the four corners of Plasco's bid to verify the unit price of the Item and thus to confirm, mathematically, a total price. The Item in question, a printhead, was the subject of four additional bid items. In each instance, Plasco bid $389.35 per printhead, a number which matched Plasco's corrected figure in Item 1(N). SBBC was not misled by Plasco's failure to initial either or both corrections in Item 1(N). Correctly using Plasco's uninitialed corrections as set forth in Item 1(N), SBBC accurately performed the calculations necessary to verify Plasco's bid; therefore the Bid Summary prepared by SBBC staff accurately reflected that Plasco was the low bidder at $93,449.68. The responses to the ITB were reviewed by school district staff on or about June 7, 2001. The so-called "double correction" in Item 1(N) was SBBC's sole basis for its decision to reject Plasco's low bid, and to recommend that Identicard's next lowest bid of $100,720.12 be accepted. At no time relevant to this case did SBBC have a written policy which compels that any bid containing two uninitialed corrections be excluded from consideration. The evidence establishes that SBBC was able to and in fact did accurately account for the individual numbers contained in Item 1(N), as well as any and all other numbers affected by the numbers supplied by Plasco in response to Item 1(N). Under the facts of this case, Plasco's error in failing to initial the corrections in Item 1(N) was immaterial. SBBC maintains that it must enforce its unwritten policy of excluding bids containing two uninitialed corrections within a single item in order to protect the integrity of the bid process. There is no evidence that the integrity of the bid process in this case was compromised in any way. No good faith argument was made that there was any type of collusion or improper conduct in connection with this bid. Instead, the evidence establishes that Plasco's bid was responsive and responsible in all material respects, inasmuch as SBBC staff was able to accurately ascertain, to the penny, the amount of Plasco's low bid. Plasco timely filed its Notice of Protest with SBBC on June 18, 2001. Plasco timely filed a Formal Written Protest with SBBC on June 27, 2001. Pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and School Board Policy 3320, SBBC provided an opportunity for Plasco to meet with the agency’s Bid Protest Committee in an attempt to resolve the protest by mutual agreement. The Bid Protest Committee conducted a duly-noticed public meeting with Petitioner Plasco on July 9, 2001. Upon consideration, the Bid Protest Committee rejected the protest of Plasco and upheld the recommendation to award the bid to Identicard.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County, Florida, enter a Final Order awarding the ITB to Plasco, and, upon submission of documentation contemplated in the parties' stipulation regarding costs, assess costs of this action in Plasco's favor in its Final Order pursuant to School Board Policy 3320, VI (n). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell W. Berger, Esquire David L. Ferguson, Esquire Berger Singerman 350 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1000 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Steven H. Feldman, Esquire Broward County School Board K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer, Maynard & Neel, P.A. Bank of America Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Dr. Franklin Till, Jr., Superintendent Broward County School Board K.C. Wright Administration Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's bid is the lowest and the best and whether it is responsive concerning bid specifications, as amended by one addendum, issued by the Respondent as an Invitation to Bid (ITB).
Findings Of Fact On September 21, 1993, the University issued an ITB for Project 2230 calling for replacement of a fire alarm system at the Museum. The bids were scheduled to be opened on October 28, 1993, at 1:30 p.m. A project manual was written incorporating the "Simplex" addressable fire alarm system in the specifications, but substitutes were permitted in the ITB. Specifications did not sole-source Simplex. The project manual allows for substitutions providing for "fire alarm system equal to Simplex . . .". The project manual provides that "if bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid proposal form (Bid Form 00310-1) the manufacturer's name and catalog number. Bidder shall submit at the time of bidding, cut sheets, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications." The bidder is also required to explain in detail the reason why the proposed equivalent would meet the specifications. The specifications also provide that "bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to quote an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form." Thus, if a bidder did not indicate any alternate system in its bid and did not indicate any written intent to quote an alternate system, then it would be presumed by the University that the bidder would comply with the Simplex specifications and that would be deemed responsive. The advertisement for the ITB was submitted on September 22, 1993, to be published on October 1, 1993 but, instead, was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 8, 1993. Mr. Sontag, the Senior Purchasing Agent at the University, opined that that allowed sufficient time for bidders to respond. Irene Thomas is a Senior Clerk at the University Physical Plant Purchasing Office. She works for A.J. Sontag. Mr. Sontag has been with the University for six years and has prior purchasing experience. The project manual provides the address for obtaining copies of the proposed contract documents, including addenda, as the Physical Plant Purchasing Building No. 705, on Radio Road, in Gainesville, Florida. The project manual requires that in order to receive consideration, bids must be made upon forms provided therefor, properly signed, and with all items filled out. Potential bidders could get a bid package by calling Ms. Thomas and requesting one for pick-up or for mailing. Additionally, the bid package was transmitted to the "Dodge Room", which is a clearing house or depository for contracting plans whereby contractors interested in bidding on public projects may learn of the projects and obtain the relevant bid documents, plan specifications, and the like. The Dodge Room provides the specification manual, any addenda, and the drawings. The ITB general conditions were not a part of the bid package sent to the Dodge Room. The Petitioner learned of the project through the Dodge Room and obtained a set of plan specifications for the installation of the fire alarm system from that source. Mark Thomas Kerrin is the President and founder of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) in electrical and fire contracting by the Department of Management Services (DMS) for four to five years. The Petitioner has never been invited by the University to bid on the project, although it has a practice of inviting MBE contractors to bid on projects. The University was not aware that the Petitioner was an MBE until they were so informed by Mr. Kerrin. For unknown reasons, the Petitioner was not in the most recent issue of the directory of MBE contractors, which the University employed in identifying potential MBE bidders. The pre-bid meeting for the project was held on October 7, 1993 at Building 700, on Radio Road, on the University campus in Gainesville, Florida. It was not a mandatory meeting, but Mr. Kerrin testified that he attended the pre-bid meeting. He arrived a few minutes late, however, because he had some difficulty finding the site and because he had a job to perform for a customer of the Petitioner in Gainesville on that day. By the time he arrived, the pre- bid meeting was nearly over, and the sign-in sheet, whereby attendees at the meeting signed to show their attendance, had already been taken up. Mr. Kerrin felt no need to sign, showing his attendance, since the meeting was not mandatory in any event. Mr. Kerrin described in his testimony the matters that were discussed at the pre-bid meeting after the time he arrived. He described much of the discussion as involving questions about the Edwards fire alarm system. He also described the discussion concerning a "remote annunciator panel", a certain type of electrical wire conduit (wire mold), phasing in of the new system and the use of a temporary system during installation of the new system. The consulting engineer, Lynn Hodge, who promulgated the technical specifications for the project, was at the meeting. In his testimony, he confirmed that the remote annunciator panel, conduit, phasing in of the new system and use of the temporary system were discussed at the pre-bid meeting in order to alert prospective bidders so that they would be aware of those items desired by the University for inclusion in the project. The potential bidders attending the meeting were advised that those items might be included in an addendum to the project manual. Mr. Hodge assumed that these potential bidders would reflect those items in their bids. Mr. Kerrin testified that he met A.J. Sontag, the Senior Purchasing Agent, at the conclusion of the pre-bid meeting. He states that he introduced himself to Mr. Sontag and gave him a business card. Mr. Kerrin advised Mr. Sontag that his business is an MBE and he inquired as to why he had not been sent an ITB by the University. Mr. Kerrin also advised Mr. Sontag at that time that he intended to bid on the project, not as a subcontractor but, rather, as a prime contractor. Mr. Sontag, however, denies attending the pre-bid meeting on October 7, 1993 or meeting Mr. Kerrin prior to the bid opening, which occurred on October 28, 1993. Mr. Sontag testified that at the time of the pre-bid meeting, he was opening a bid for a different project at his nearby office. He acknowledged, however, that he could have walked to the pre-bid meeting on the Museum project at issue, which was only a short distance away. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Maxwell Petzold of PCR, Incorporated, a chemical manufacturing business located in Gainesville, Florida. He confirmed that Mr. Kerrin had come to his place of business in October to perform some testing, because his company was having some difficulties with its security and fire alarm system. The Petitioner, in turn, submitted evidence in the form of a computer printout, from its business records, concerning activity with respect to the equipment of PCR, Inc. in Gainesville, Florida. That printout shows that Mr. Kerrin personally tested PCR's equipment in Gainesville, Florida, on October 7, 1993, the day of the pre-bid meeting. It is found that Mr. Kerrin was in attendance at the pre-bid meeting in the manner he described. On the day after the pre-bid meeting, October 8, 1993, the ITB was advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University has no written procedure concerning the issuance or dissemination of addenda to ITB's. On October 21, 1993, the addendum was transmitted to the physical plant office for dissemination to those interested in bidding on the Museum alarm project. On October 22, 1993, the 22-page addendum to the bid document was transmitted by telefacsimile (fax) to most prospective bidders. Other prospective bidders were telephoned and picked up a copy at the physical plant office. The fax cover letter accompanying the addendum stated "failure to acknowledge your addendum could constitute rejection of your bid." All but two pages of the addendum were non-technical in nature. The technical changes in the addendum principally provided for the installation of the remote annunciator panel. The remote annunciator panel provides the same read-out capability and control capability as the main panel, but was to be in a supervised location easily found by the fire department when responding to calls. Other technical changes provided for a transitional monitoring system, while the old alarm system was being replaced and also a minor specification concerning use of wire molding, as opposed to common round electrical conduit. On October 26, 1993, Mr. Kerrin was again in Gainesville, Florida, to test the equipment of his customer, PCR, Inc. See Mr. Kerrin's testimony at pages 156-157 of the Transcript and Petitioner's Exhibit 25 in evidence. While in Gainesville, Florida, on that day, Mr. Kerrin stopped at the University to attempt to ascertain why the Petitioner was not given information on other bidding opportunities and to see if there were any addenda or changes to the specifications of the project in question. Mr. Sontag advised him that no addendum had been issued, although his office had distributed the addendum to other prospective bidders four days earlier. Mr. Sontag testified that he was in Tennessee on the day the addendum was issued. It was issued from his office, by those acting in his stead. The Petitioner's bid is for the Notifier alarm system in the amount of $74,500.00. Preston's bid was for $80,510.00 using the specified Simplex system. Shine submitted a base bid of $82,460.00 with a $15,000.00 deduction if the Edwards system was used, which resulted in a bid of $67,460.00. The Edwards system was determined to not comply with the specifications; however, and that fact is undisputed in this proceeding. Thus, Shine's bid in the amount of $67,460.00 was unresponsive, was not awarded, and is not contested. Fire Alarm also bid the Notifier system, and its bid was for $78,459.00. The Petitioner attached literature describing the Notifier system (Notifier AFP1010) to its bid form. Both Mr. Kerrin and his secretary, Mary Johnson, who helps him prepare bids, testified that the "cut sheets" or informational literature concerning the Notifier alarm system was attached by staples to the Petitioner's bid form. The Notifier system was ultimately determined by the University, in its evaluation process, to equal the Simplex type of equipment specified in the bid specifications. It, therefore, was the "equivalent" of Simplex. Mr. Sontag, the Senior Purchasing Agent, described the normal procedure for opening bids. On October 28, 1993, the bids were opened with the contending bidders, including Mr. Kerrin, being present. The bid opening procedure began with the contending bidders signing their names on the reverse side of the bid tabulation sheet. Each bid was then opened and read aloud by Mr. Sontag and recorded by his Senior Clerk, Ms. Irene Thomas. After each bid package was opened, it was laid on a stack of bid packages on Mr. Sontag's desk. After all bids were opened, Mr. Sontag testified that he provided each attendee with a copy of the bid tabulation sheet. He then turned the original bids over to the Senior Clerk, Ms. Thomas, who photocopied them. This is a normal procedure in each bid opening that Mr. Sontag's office handles. Mr. Sontag testified that he had no specific recollection of any specific bid opened that day, although he knows that he opened all of them, including the Petitioner's bid. In any event, he turned the bids over to Ms. Thomas after they were all opened and entered on the bid tabulation sheet. Concerning the process of photocopying the bids, Mr. Sontag testified that no staples were removed from the bids when they were copied, instead the pages were merely folded over for copying of each page. He reiterated his testimony, several times, that no pages are unstapled in the process of copying bid forms and that no staples are removed in making copies of bids, in the interest of the time required in unstapling bids for copying each individual page. Later, however, when Mr. Sontag again testified at the hearing, he retracted his statements that bid forms are copied without removing staples. Ms. Thomas, the Senior Clerk who copies bid forms approximately 95 percent of the time, had testified and confirmed that, indeed, it is normal practice to actually remove staples attaching bid documents during the copying process. Additionally, Ms. Thomas testified that Mr. Sontag would have no way of knowing how bids were copied since he is not present during the copying process. Copies of the bid packages made by Ms. Thomas are then transmitted to the Department of Architecture and Engineering for evaluation. In the bidding situation at issue, Donald C. Jennings, the Assistant Director of Purchasing, took the copies of the bids and the bid tabulation sheet. Mr. Jennings was Acting Project Manager in the absence of John Jones. Mr. Jennings was present at the bid opening. On the same day as the bid opening, Mr. Jennings prepared a tabulation of the bids and submitted it to the Project Manager, John Jones, with a memorandum. The bid tabulation sheet submitted by Mr. Jennings to Mr. Jones listed beside the name of each bidder the amount of the bid and the type of alarm system bid by that proposed vendor. The Petitioner's entry on the tabulation has beside the name of the Petitioner on the tabulation sheet the word "Notifier". The official bid tabulation retained by Mr. Sontag did not list the Petitioner as having bid the Notifier system. It did not list Fire Alarm Service Corporation as having bid the Notifier system either, although there is no dispute that Fire Alarm did bid the Notifier system. The original bid form of the Petitioner, produced by the University at hearing, (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), shows several staples had been removed from the form, including the staple on the back page where a "cut sheet" describing the type of system bid, would have been attached. Mr. Kerrin and his secretary, Ms. Johnson, both testified that the cut sheets for the Notifier system had been attached to the Petitioner's bid form when it was submitted. Their testimony is corroborated by the evidence showing that Mr. Jennings had in his possession a tabulation of the bids, which he transmitted to Mr. Jones on the same day as the bid opening, which indicates that the Petitioner was bidding the Notifier system. Thus, it is found, and the preponderant evidence establishes, that the Notifier system cut sheets and description of the Notifier system were submitted with the Petitioner's bid. The testimony of Mr. Kerrin and Ms. Johnson to this effect is accepted. Once delivered to the University, the Notifier information or cut sheets were removed for unknown reasons or inadvertently lost, (although a number of University witnesses testified to never having seen any extra cut sheets lying around their offices, that testimony is not probative of any finding that the cut sheets were not submitted with the bid). Further, in this regard, on November 16, 1993, Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Jennings a memorandum inquiring "how did you know ESP was bidding Notifier system?" Mr. Jennings replied the following day, in writing, that he knew "from their bid." Since the Petitioner's bid form itself did not specify the Notifier system, Mr. Jennings should only have learned this from the attached literature or "cut sheets." Mr. Jennings acknowledged in his testimony that the Petitioner was still under consideration for the bid award more than a month after the bids were open. The University's concern at that time was apparently whether the Petitioner had actually bid the Notifier system and not that the Petitioner had failed to acknowledge the addendum to the ITB. The University maintained that the Petitioner did not attach the descriptive literature or cut sheets concerning Notifier to its bid to show that it complied with specifications. The University, however, did not request of the Petitioner any descriptive literature as to Notifier to determine whether it equalled the bid specifications, but it did consult by telephone and in writing with Fire Alarm Service Corporation regarding the Notifier system, which Fire Alarm had also bid. Eventually, through these contacts, the University concluded that the Notifier system met the specifications. The preponderant, credible evidence shows, however, as found above, that the University, through Mr. Jennings at least, was aware that the Petitioner was bidding the Notifier system on the same day the bids were opened. Initially, in the evaluation process, the award was recommended to be given to Preston, which had bid an amount of $80,510.00. Then, when the Notifier system was approved as complying with the specifications, the award was recommended to be given to Fire Alarm Service Corporation, which bid $78,459.00. This was in spite of the fact that the University at that time knew that the Petitioner had bid the Notifier system, as well, and knew that the Petitioner's bid was in the amount of only $74,500.00. Ultimately, Fire Alarm Service Corporation was disqualified because it failed to meet the MBE requirements regarding "good faith effort". The bid evaluators at that point then recommended that the award go back to Preston, although its bid was $6,010.00 more than the Petitioner's bid. The Petitioner was disqualified by the University for allegedly not attaching the descriptive literature concerning the Notifier system and for failing to acknowledge the addendum to the ITB. The University's specification documents associated with the ITB indicate that "failure to acknowledge your addendum could constitute rejection of your bid." This language indicates that rejection of a bid for failure to acknowledge the addendum was discretionary and not an automatic disqualification in the view of the University, according to its specification. However, the University's Associate Director of Architecture and Engineering, Mr. C.P. Tate, rejected the Petitioner's bid when he learned that the Petitioner had not acknowledged the addendum. Mr. Tate was aware that the addendum had been promulgated but did not draft it nor had he read or reviewed it. He was not shown to have known whether failure to acknowledge the addendum amounted to a material deviation from the specifications of the ITB, especially in the instant situation, where the the Petitioner had not been given a copy of the addendum. Mr. Hodge, the Project Engineer, testified that all potential bidders at the pre-bid meeting would have known that the remote annunciator panel was a necessary part of the project and would have included the cost of the panel in their bids. In fact, the annunciator panel was a legal requirement of the State Fire Marshal's Office, in its enforcement function concerning the relevant fire safety statutes and rules. Mr. Kerrin was at the pre-bid meeting and testified that the Petitioner, in fact, included the cost of the remote annunciator panel and related materials and equipment in its bid. Moreover, Mr. Kerrin believed that the remote annunciator panel and a temporary monitoring capability, to be installed during the replacement of the permanent fire alarm system, was required by law, as also shown by Mr. Hodge's testimony. Mr. Kerrin therefore considered that to be implicit in the original bid specifications themselves. The wire mold, which was the other chief technical portion of the addendum, is a relatively inexpensive item which many contractors keep on hand. Mr. Kerrin considered that element of the technical changes posed by the addendum to be of negligible cost. Mr. Hodge, in his testimony, stated that the estimated cost of the remote annunciator panel and other technical changes contained in the addendum would amount to approximately $8,000.00. He testified that the remote annunciator panel itself, including the cost of the panel plus the cost of installation, would be approximately $5,000.00 and the related technical items in the addendum would amount to $2,000.00-$3,000.00, for a total of approximately $7,000.00-$8,000.00. Petitioner's Exhibit 39 in evidence, however, concerning which Mr. Kerrin testified, is a letter by Mr. Hodge himself, dated September 2, 1993, which shows that he estimated the remote annunciator panel to only cost approximately $1,300.00, as opposed to $5,000.00. In fact, Mr. Kerrin testified that the remote annunciator panel and the related items in the addendum would cost approximately $1,500.00. He included such costs in his bid. In light of this evidence and in careful consideration of Mr. Hodge's testimony, together with the September 2, 1993 letter, authored by Mr. Hodge, concerning the purported cost of the remote annunciator panel, as well as Mr. Kerrin's testimony, it is determined that Mr. Kerrin's testimony is more credible. It is accepted over that of Mr. Hodge in these particulars. Thus, the actual established cost of the technical items contained in the addendum would amount to somewhat less than 2 percent of the bid price submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bid price, in turn, was $6,010.00 less than that of Preston, the recommended awardee. University personnel in the Purchasing, Physical Plant and Architecture and Engineering Offices are well familiar with Preston as a Gainesville-based business. Mr. Hodge knows certain personnel at Preston personally, sees them around town, and has recommended them to others for jobs, although he does not know them socially. Preston has received a great many jobs, both competitively-bid jobs and those which were submitted "on quote" because they were below the monetary threshold requirement for competitive bidding. In fact, during the period from December 22, 1992 through October 5, 1993, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit 8 in evidence, Preston did more than 30 jobs of all types for the University, both competitively-bid and non- competitively-bid jobs. Since the Edwards system was never considered to be responsive, which is undisputed, Shine was disqualified as not meeting bid specifications. That left the Petitioner as the lowest remaining bidder. Later in the evaluation process, Fire Alarm was disqualified for not meeting MBE requirements or the good-faith requirement to use 21 percent minority subcontractors. Thus, the practical result was that by disqualifying the Petitioner, or not approving the Notifier system at all, Preston would receive the bid. It is particularly noteworthy that later in the evaluation process, when the University determined that the Notifier system met specifications, it elected not to award to the Petitioner but, rather, to Fire Alarm Service Corporation because it had bid the now-compliant Notifier system, and its bid was slightly over $2,000.00 cheaper than Preston's. That award decision might have stood had Fire Alarm not been disqualified for the problem concerning MBE status, referenced above, even though the University was aware on the day of bid opening that the Petitioner was, in fact, bidding the Notifier system, as well, with a bid almost $3,000.00 cheaper than Fire Alarm's bid. Mr. Kerrin complained in his testimony of the University failing to notify him of bidding opportunities even since the bid opening in question. After the bid opening, Mr. Hodge and other purchasing employees and agents of the University were well aware of his MBE status. Mr. Sontag explained in his testimony that the Petitioner had not been invited to bid on any projects in the year since the Museum project at issue was bid because "we haven't done any alarm system work since this." Mr. Sontag's testimony is contradicted by that of Mr. Hodge, who acknowledged doing other fire alarm addition projects through Mr. Sontag's office since the bidding at issue in this case. The Petitioner was informed of one project and bid on it. It involved an alarm system for the P.K. Yonge High School, operated by the University. The owner decided, however, to cancel that project. The bid invitation was withdrawn so that no award was made to any vendor in that situation. In summary, the preponderant weight of the evidence, the credibility of which has been weighed and determined by the Hearing Officer and which has thus culminated in the above Findings of Fact, shows that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner was the lowest, responsible bidder. Its bid was responsive to the bid specifications. The knowledge to determine that the Petitioner was the lowest, responsible bidder, and that its bid was responsive to the specifications, was available to the University at the time the various award decisions to the other vendors were made in the free-form stage of this process. Nevertheless, the University elected to make an award to a bidder who was not the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.
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 RECOMMENDED that the University of Florida reconsider its bidding decision herein in a manner wholly consistent with the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and enter an award of the subject bid accordingly. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1995.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before January, 1989, The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide for social services in Haines City, Florida. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease of 9041 square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3%. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given by advertisement in four central Florida newspapers. HRS had prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS' requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of % (Weighting: 30) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 5) Associated moving costs i.e. furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc. (Weighting: 0) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 5) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 20) Facility Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 20) Provision 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 15 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100% The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: rental rates environmental factors efficient space layout The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to several hundred people every month. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the influx of people. Because of servicing so many people, factors two and three received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by Intervenor, Unirealty Services, Inc. (bid A), and Petitioners, Messrs. Matthews and Walker (bid B). The bids were opened February 20, 1989, and Mr. Michael T. Akridge, former Facilities Services Manager, District VI HRS, determined both bids were responsive. At the time the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had an option contract to purchase the subject facility, and an authorization from the optionees (two principals of Intervenors) for Unirealty to act as their agent. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committee's choice of lowest and best bid. The purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Six individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. The bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Unirealty was the "lowest and best." The bid evaluation committee consisted of six representatives of the Department who visited each bidders' site and questioned the bidders' representatives. Each of the committee members worked with or supervised HRS programs that were to be located in the leased space. The solicitation for bids provided each bidder, among other things, with the bid evaluation criteria, a 100 point scale, which the committee used to evaluate the bids. Each committee member's evaluation scores were averaged and totaled to score Petitioners at 90.8, and Unirealty at 83.9. Each committee member gave a higher score to Unirealty. The three major bid evaluation criteria were FISCAL COSTS, LOCATION and FACILITY. Under the FISCAL COST criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioners received 30 points out of 30 possible, and Unirealty got 23.1. For Renewal Rates, Petitioners got 5 out of 5 possible points, and Unirealty received 3.7 points. No points were awarded for Moving Costs. The evaluation committee did not assess points for Rental or Renewal Rates. These were scored by Michael T. Akridge, bid manager, based on a present value analysis of bidders' proposed rates. Mr. Akridge did not give the Committee the points for Rental and Renewal Rates until after they had completed their evaluations of the LOCATION and FACILITY criteria. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Central Area-- 10 points--with both bidders receiving 9.3; Public Transportation--5 points-- which both bidders received; and, Environmental Factors--20 points--out of which Petitioners received 12.8 points and Unirealty 20 points. The Environmental Factors sub-category included building physical characteristics and surrounding area and their effect on the efficient and economical conduct of Department operations. Unirealty received a higher score than Petitioner because the committee believed its building had a better appearance, and was in better shape. The area surrounding the building was more open, while Petitioners' building was in a less desirable neighborhood with a bar or liquor store and bus station nearby which could create problems for clients because of transients. It had far more window space which creates a better work environment, and allows staff to be watchful of clients and their children outside, and the windows would be tinted. The windows at Petitioner's site were limited and no more could be added. Unirealty had more adjacent parking spaces, with handicapped parking closer to the building, and part of it was fenced which provided added protection to clients and staff. Petitioners' site had adjacent businesses whose patrons were using some of the parking spaces which the committee felt could create a problem. The Unirealty building could have an outside food stamp issuance facility which would be far more accessible to clients and to make the lobbies less crowded. It had an existing alarm system. It did not have side streets adjacent to the building, thus there would be less traffic congestion and therefore safer for clients; and, it had outside gathering areas where clients could go to smoke. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, Petitioners received 11.8 points out of 20 for Layout/Utilization and Unirealty received 19.7 points; for Single Building, both bidders received 10 points out of 10 possible. For the Layout/Utilization sub-category Unirealty received more points because its building configuration was more flexible and conducive to design of interior space, with less maze effect. The members of the committee each testified that it was important that the Unirealty building had no support poles to get in the way as they did in Petitioners' building. The support poles in Petitioner's building created a safety problem for clients and inhibited the location of desks and corridors. At Unirealty's site each worker could have a window, and mechanical and service areas could be put in the center of the building, with a playroom for clients' children. It provided a better restroom location near the front of Petitioner's building and lobby areas, and clients would not have to wander through work areas to get to the restrooms. Unirealty's building provided better control of clients' movements and thus better security. Members of the committee also upgraded the Unirealty building because its pitched roof was less likely to leak and its air conditioning was zoned thus providing better air quality and temperature control. At Unirealty there was better ingress and egress, and entry ways could be added. This could not be done at Petitioners' site. The Unirealty building could have different entrances for each HRS program, with separate lobbies for each program with less client congestion and better control. During the Committee members inspection of the sites they were told of an existing security alarm system already in place at the Unirealty site and were told that system would remain in place. When asked, the Petitioner's representative was unsure if his client would install a similar system at their site. A security system for the entire building was not included in the bid specifications, and it was improper for the committee to give Unirealty extra points for this unsolicited item. The proposed lease agreement calls for 9041 square feet of office space and a minimum of 66 parking spaces. Unirealty offered 72 parking spaces and Petitioner offered 75. The committee awarded more evaluation points to the Unirealty site based on future expansion capability of the building and the existing additional on-site parking spaces which were visible at the site at the time of inspection. The committee erroneously believed that the extra square footage of building space and extra parking spaces would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was not in the bid specifications and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The evaluation committee included the improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the Unirealty property. The two improper factors cannot be considered here. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was clearly to award the lease to the Intervenor. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Petitioners presented greater problems for design and flexibility due to the rectangular configuration of the building. The other consideration was that the physical characteristics of the Unirealty site and the surrounding area were considered far superior to the Petitioner's site. A close review of each evaluation sheet and the testimony of each committee member at the hearing shows that the improper factors were not so heavily weighted as to invalidate the committee recommendation. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after inspection of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Intervenor's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Intervenor's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. Over an eight year period the Petitioner's rental cost was significantly lower than the Intervenor's. However, it is clear the legitimate considerations of the committee were crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder. The conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. After the committee recommendation was scored and tabulated, Mr. Akridge requested the committee chair, Ms. Gail Newell, to prepare a draft letter of the proposed bid award. This was done in collaboration with the other committee members. Mr. Michael T. Akridge then prepared the bid award letter for the signature of the Administrative Services Director based on the draft letter. In it the two improper considerations were mentioned. The authority to award the lease to Unirealty was approved on March 8, 1989, by King W. Davis, Director of General Services for HRS based on the bid award letter, dated February 26, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:2057 to Unirealty Services, Inc., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39 (in part), 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 81, 83 (in part) are adopted in substance in so far as material. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 37, 73, 74, 80 are rejected as conclusions of law. Paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 44, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 72, 75, 778, 82, are rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66 are rejected assubordinate or immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1-17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Matthews, Jr. 2405 Hideaway Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire HRS District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Neal A. Sivyer, Esquire Paul J. Ullom, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P. A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact During the summer of 1994, the Department of Management Services (DMS) began to develop an invitation to bid (ITB), to establish a state contract for the purchase of client server systems. The contract included microcomputers, network/file servers, workstations, workstation servers, and peripherals. The future contract would replace the current state contract between AmeriData and DMS. The process utilized by DMS to establish the ITB included meetings with state users and representatives of the microcomputer vending community. In particular, the pricing methodology for the ITB was developed from user conferences, vendor meetings and pre-bid conferences. DMS had many goals it wished to achieve under the new ITB for computers. These goals included making a wider range of products available to the user agencies, obtaining computer products at better prices than under the current contract, making a more diverse line of commodities available, obtaining the participation of third party vendors and making third party vendor products available. In particular, DMS wanted to enable agencies to purchase integrated "computer systems" consisting of computers with standard and upgradable components at the same discount price as a computer alone when those components are simultaneously purchased with the computer as a system or as computer system bundles. This effort resulted in the drafting of an Invitation to Bid dated September 26, 1994, which was circulated to known vendors for question and comment. The ITB of September 26, 1994 called for bids for statewide support levels I and II for microcomputers, desktop, deskside and portable (Tables 2.1 and 2.2) and for network/file servers (Table 3.0). These items were to be bid as percentage mark-up from dealer cost. Workstation and workstation servers (Table 4.0) and peripherals, (monitors, printers, plotters, network cards, etc.) (Tables 5.1 through 5.9) were to be bid as percentage discounts from the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP). Additionally, if vendors desired to submit a price list for the balance of a vendor's product line, such "balance of line" peripherals were to be offered under the same pricing schedule (a single whole number discount from the MSRP) as the peripherals category (monitors, printers, etc.) which described the balance of line item. The term "balance of line" as used in the ITB was intended to allow a product line vendor to submit a price list on the manufacturer's line of peripherals as well as third party peripherals. In other words, a vendor offering the IBM line of microcomputer systems under tables 2.1, 2.2 and 3.0 could submit a price list for the IBM line of peripherals (monitors, printers, plotters, etc.) under a balance of line price list for tables 2.1, 2.2 and 3.0, and submit a price list for third party peripheral products (Epson printers, Samsung monitors, etc.), under tables 5.1 through 5.9. The initial ITB generated many questions. DMS prepared written responses to the questions it received from various prospective bidders. On November 9, 1994, DMS held its Client/Server System Pre-Bid Conference. The conference was attended by various company representatives who were prospective bidders. The prospective bidders included representatives John Reneger and Lytt Noel from Vanstar Corporation, Dale Kennedy from AmeriData, and Mark Holt and Roy Wade from IBM. At that Pre-Bid Conference the attendees were given 41 pages of questions and the responses to those questions that had been prepared by DMS. Based on questions and comments raised at the November 9, 1994, Pre-Bid Conference, DMS issued Addendum number 2 on November 21, 1994. Addendum number to the ITB contained the bid specifications, attached copies of the pre-bid attendance list, copies of the pre-bid questions and answers, and a list by item of ITB changes. It also contained a document entitled Complex Issues for Follow-up. Later, Addendum number 3 was issued on December 21, 1994, and Addendum number 4 was issued January 10, 1995. Addendum number 3 added two more eligible bidders of products. Addendum number 4 changed the bid opening date to January 11, 1995. On January 11, 1995, the bids were opened. Later the bid tabulation with proposed awards was posted. Vanstar bid two percent cost plus on the product line for IBM microcomputers and offered twelve percent cost plus as its prices for balance of line peripherals. AmeriData bid four percent cost plus for the IBM product line of microcomputers and offered four percent cost plus as its prices for balance of line peripherals. Because Vanstar was the low bid for IBM microcomputers, DMS proposed to award the contract to it. Addendum number 2 was the final substantive addendum to the initial ITB. For purposes of this case, Addendum number 2 was virtually identical to the initial ITB. However, Addendum number 2 changed the pricing methodology for the balance of line items in Paragraph 2.0, on page 19 of the Specifications for the Client Server Systems from discount off manufacturer's suggested retail price to "the same pricing schedule (cost plus) as the microcomputer systems," for that product line. In this case, the microcomputer systems were for the IBM product line. The ITB clearly stated that the balance of line price lists would not be considered in the evaluation or award of the bids. In fact, in response to a specific question on balance of line, DMS in Section T-1, page 25, stated that balance of line items would not be used for evaluation purposes. The ITB specified that DMS intended to negotiate the balance of line items if the price submitted by the vendor was determined to not be competitive. The ITB generally stated how the negotiations would take place. However, the ITB did not define what competitive prices were. On the other hand, it was clear that a contract for balance of line items may not be awarded. The ITB provided on page 10 of the Special Conditions, under balance of line: The Balance of Line price list provisions of this bid/contract are provided for the convenience and benefit of the contract users as well as the awarded vendors. The Division of Purchasing will review and compare balance of line price lists to determine if prices are competitive. Should it be determined by the Division of Purchasing that the balance of line price lists of the awarded contractor are not competitive, the contractor will be given an opportunity to resubmit a negotiated competitive price list. If the contractor is unable or chooses not to reduce prices for Balance of Line products, the Balance of Line will not be awarded. The above language in the ITB was intended to serve as a Notice of Intent to Negotiate. However, DMS did not post the Notice of Intent to Negotiate in the office of the Division of Purchasing as required in Rule 60A- 1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, the evidence did not show compliance with any of the other provisions of the Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. The procedure of negotiating the balance of line item with the awarded contractor was further clarified in the question and answer section of Addendum No. 2. On page 19, at P-6, in response to a question requesting explanation of the balance of line items, DMS stated that the Division of Purchasing would review and compare balance of line items to determine whether they were competitive and, if the prices were not competitive, DMS could negotiate with the contractor who was awarded the bid on the microcomputers. At page 8, question E-1, DMS further stated in part that "if the Balance of Line price list submitted as part of Sections 2.1 and 2.0 as specified is not competitive for similar items bid in Section 5.0, then "Balance of Line" prices will be negotiated or excluded from the award for that bidder." Moreover, if the negotiations, should fail, no negotiations will be conducted with any other bidder and no contract for the balance of line items would be entered into. There was no requirement in the ITB that a vendor submit balance of line price lists. The ITB at page 9 stated in part "vendors who bid and are awarded microcomputer systems may offer a Balance of Line." (Emphasis supplied). In short, the balance of line price list was not a bid under the ITB but served to supply information to DMS on the prices of peripherals which would most likely be used for comparison with other bidder's prices on the same peripherals. The award of any balance of line/peripheral contract was not part of the award of ITB 9-250-040-B, but was to be part of a separate process involving negotiation with a specific vendor. AmeriData was aware that submitting a price list for balance of line items was optional and, if it submitted a price list for balance of line items, the information would not be used to evaluate the winning bid for microcomputers under the ITB. The type of negotiations for balance of line identified in the ITB is unique and has never been attempted by DMS in the past. DMS admitted that in selecting this method it did not consider the fact that approximately ten to eleven million dollars out of twenty million dollars in sales or about 50 percent of the sales volume for IBM products from the 1994 contract were for IBM peripherals. Additionally, because the process is new, DMS at the time of hearing, had not decided the specifics of how the negotiations would be conducted, but believes there will be more steps and methodology involved in the actual negotiations, if it occurs, with the successful bidder than are actually documented in the ITB. DMS believes that any negotiations must be in compliance with Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code, Negotiations After Bid which establishes parameters on the procedures for negotiating contracts for the purchase of commodities or contractual services. However, DMS also believes that the negotiations, if they occur, will be a more informal process than the negotiations mandated under Rule 60A-1.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. In any event, whatever negotiations DMS proposes should comply with Florida Statutes and Rules beginning with the posting of Notice in the office the Division Rule 60A-1.018(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, the development of a vendor list with rankings Rule 60A-1.018(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, etc. Given the preliminary status of the negotiation procedure, its brief outline in the ITB and the posting of the ITB cannot form the basis of an intent to negotiate. DMS did not receive any written objections to DMS's plan to award the contract on the bids received for microcomputers under 2.1 without regard to the price list for balance of line items. Likewise, DMS did not receive any written objections to the proposal to negotiate balance of line items with the winning bidder on the microcomputers. However, since the balance of line price lists were not a bid and were not "specifications" in a bid which enable a bidder to receive the bid award, the 72 hour protest time for bids does not apply. On the other hand, since the negotiation procedure is separate from the bid award, the procedure is not properly part of a bid protest under Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Additionally, protestations of the negotiation procedure should comply with Rule 60A-1.018(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which permits protests of the agency's decision to negotiate once a Notice of Intent is posted. The Notice has not yet been posted. Therefore, consideration of the scanty and tenuous plan for negotiations outlined in the ITB is not ripe for consideration. Throughout the ITB, there are predominantly two pricing schemes utilized for microcomputers, peripherals and balance of line items. The two pricing schemes are calculated as a percent discount from the manufacturer's suggested retail price or as a percent discount from the dealer's cost. For example, in the section of the bid, on pages 24 and 25 relating to printers, DMS requires that a person submitting a bid for balance of line items be bid "at the same discount or greater discount rate as the printers." In Section 5.5 relating to input devices, DMS likewise requires that the balance of line be submitted "at the same discount or greater discount rate." In the portion of the ITB relating to microcomputers in Sections 2.0 and 2.1, the ITB requires that the balance of line be offered under the same pricing schedule (cost plus) as the microcomputer systems category of the bid. Under tables 5.2 and 5.5 of the ITB the price lists for balance of line are to be computed using the same percentage rate. In short, the language permits a different percentage mark-up to be submitted on balance of line items as on microcomputers as long as the same pricing scheme or schedule is used, i.e., cost plus as opposed to discount off MSRP. However, Roy Wade, the IBM segment owner for government in the State of Florida, who attended the pre-bid conference and worked with AmeriData on its bid, had several conversations with AmeriData about whether the same percentage had to be used for both microcomputers and balance of line. In fact, there was a difference of opinion in the IBM office as to whether you could use the same or different percentages on the balance of line items and the microcomputers. Mark Holt, in the IBM office and who also attended the pre-bid conference, was of the opinion that a bidder could use different percentages in the balance of line items and the microcomputers. Roy Wade was of the opinion that the same percentage had to be used. Mr. Wade, at the request of AmeriData, met with Mr. Melvin of DMS at Mr. Melvin's office to seek oral clarification regarding pricing of the balance of line items. Mr. Wade testified that Mr. Melvin told him the same percentage mark-up had to be bid. However, Mr. Melvin did not recall making such a statement to Mr. Wade, and did not remember meeting with Mr. Wade during that time period. The normal procedure for visitors to the DMS Division of Purchasing is to sign in. The sign in log does not show any entry for Mr. Wade for this period. In fact, the only date, relevant to this proceeding, for which Mr. Wade signed in was January 5, 1995. During the hearing Mr. Wade stated that it was not uncommon for him to fail to sign in. However, in his deposition Mr. Wade stated that during this time period he visited DMS 5 to 10 times, but failed to sign in on only "a couple" of occasions. Mr. Wade stated that after his meeting with DMS, he again discussed the percentage issue with AmeriData. Mr. Wade relayed what Mr. Melvin had allegedly told him. Mr. Wade encouraged AmeriData to get verification directly from DMS. After this conversation, AmeriData met with DMS personnel on December 21, 1994, on another issue. AmeriData did not ask any questions regarding whether the same percent mark-up had to be used for balance of line and microcomputers. Later around January 5, 1995, AmeriData had a telephone conversation with Mr. Comer of DMS. During the conversation, Mr. Comer allegedly told AmeriData that the same percentage had to be bid. However, Mr. Comer has no recollection of such a statement. Mr. Comer also testified that he was not aware of the percentage issue in January, 1995. Given the discrepancies in the testimony regarding these oral conversations, these oral conversations are simply too vague to credit any alleged statements made by DMS personnel during those conversations, especially since IBM, which entered a separate bid on products under Section 4.0 of the specifications through Mark Holt, bid a separate percentage for balance of line items. Moreover, as indicated earlier, the ITB contains no language specifically stating that the same percentage must be used for balance of line items as for items contained in Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 3.0. While there is language that states that bidders must bid a single whole number percentage mark-up (cost plus) on page 18, the language referring to the balance of line items states only that "such balance of line peripherals shall be offered under the same pricing schedule (cost plus) as the microcomputer systems category of this bid/contract." (Emphasis supplied) However, even if the alleged oral statements by DMS personnel are given credit, the ITB, as provided in all DMS bids, also contained a set of general conditions, Paragraph 7 of which states as follows: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis supplied) AmeriData, was aware of this provision, but never submitted a written question to DMS regarding the ITB in question. Likewise, at no time did Mr. Wade or AmeriData seek any written clarification from DMS. In short, any oral statements made by DMS regarding the percentage issue is not binding. AmeriData was not justified in relying on such oral statements and should have sought written clarification from DMS. Finally as indicated earlier, the price lists for balance of line items were not part of the bid evaluation process. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the percent mark-up for balance of line should be the same. The balance of line percent mark-up does not play a role in the award of ITB 9-250-040-B. The information only goes to the negotiation procedure which is separate from the award of ITB 9-250-040-B. Such optional information submitted for a separate procedure cannot be used to invalidate the award of a bid where that optional information plays no role in the bid evaluation process. As indicated earlier, with regard to regular items bid under Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 3.0, bidder's were to bid a percentage mark-up from dealers cost. Page 11 of the ITB under the hearing Format for Submission of the Bids stated that bidders had to supply manufacturer's published price lists as well as an authorized dealer's list. It also stated that the bidders should provide the documents in letter quality text as well as with a computer diskette. In response to the provision relating to the format in which the bids were to be received, a question was submitted to the Department on this issue. At page 10 of the question and answers under Question H-2 the following question appeared: "Are the price lists detailing the systems and individual items bid to be in the original manufacture's format or retyped by the bidder and submitted into Wordperfect format?" The Department answered this question in this manner: "Yes, manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) list of manufacturer's costs list supplied by the manufacturer to each dealer/resaler must accompany the submitted document in hard copy. They are not required in Wordperfect disk format. However, the format for the bid/price sheets including product description and percentage mark-up or discounts should be submitted in Wordperfect format on diskette. The bid requirements as clarified in the question and answer required that the manufacturer's price list be submitted with the bid in "hard copy" but there was no similar requirement that the accompanying diskette be likewise, supplied in hard copy. Section 6.0 of the ITB provides that inclusion of unacceptable products would result in a bid being declared non-responsive. While operating system software was to be included in the bids, application software was not. Vanstar's bid contained certain items of application software which was included as part of the manufacturer's price lists included with its bids. Likewise, AmeriData's bid included items of application software, contrary to the terms of the ITB. The purpose of these lists was to identify the products being bid. Vanstar submitted an unsanitized hard copy of the dealer's price and the manufacturer's suggested retail price and also submitted in diskette format an additional list of items that had been sanitized to included only those items contained in the bid as well as additional information relating to items that were included in the balance of line. The evidence did not demonstrate that inclusion of non-bid items in the manufacturers price list created any confusion as to the items being bid or had any material impact on the bid process. Therefore, these discrepancies from the ITB do not invalidate an otherwise legitimate bid award. The evidence was clear that DMS intended the term "microcomputer," as used in the ITB to mean a "configured computer system" such that when purchasing peripherals as part of the purchase of a complete microcomputer system, the price for the configured system so purchased would be at the price the winning vendor bid for Table 2.1 microcomputers. Under DMS's interpretation a "microcomputer" would include the central processing unit (CPU), keyboard, disk drive, operating system, monitor and other peripherals purchased simultaneously with the computer. On the other hand at least two vendors, AmeriData and Vanstar, interpretated the term "microcomputer" to include the CPU with an operating system, storage device and an input device such as a keyboard but no monitor or other peripherals. The term "microcomputer" or "computer" does have a common meaning in the industry and refers to the CPU, input device, storage device and operating system in a self-contained box. Items which might be connected to the industry defined computer would be peripherals, such as, monitors, fax/modems, network cards, printers, sound cards, video boards, etc. The evidence demonstrated that there is some question whether the term "microcomputer system" or "computer system" has a commonly understood meaning in the industry. The lay persons definition of the term "computer" and "microcomputer" varies depending on whether "system" is equated with the term "computer." To further obfuscate terminology, none of the above terms reflect the current state of marketing of computer systems, including IBM products, as basic integrated or bundled systems with components that can be upgraded, downgraded or added to for certain adjustments in price. It is this confusion in terminology that DMS found itself dealing with when it drafted the ITB at issue in this case and which continued throughout this proceeding. The specifications in the first paragraph under Section 2.0, page 18, state under the heading REQUIREMENTS PROVISIONS, MICROCOMPUTERS -- DESK-TOP, DESK-SIDE, AND PORTABLE: Components (such as monitors, keyboards, mouse and trackball, expansion boards, network interface cards, internal modems, multimedia, and storage devices purchased with and integrated with the microcomputer system prior to delivery) will carry the same support level, requirements and provisions as the microcomputer system. Support level does not refer to the components' status as part of a microcomputer system, but only to a components' guarantee of service or maintenance. This section was not viewed as definitional by DMS. However, the concept is important, since potential purchasers were used to ordering configured, or bundled systems and desired the peripherals to carry the same level of service as the CPU. The questions and answers contained in the ITB seem to confuse matters further. In response to a question asking whether monitors would be required to be purchased from Table 5.1, DMS specifically stated that "(N)o, they can be included as part of the system configuration, part of "balance of line" for the awarded vendor, or can be included in Monitors Section 5.1. (Emphasis supplied) On the other hand, the answer to Question P2, submitted when balance of line was to be bid at a discount from MSRP, stated that full functioning systems are submitted on the bid sheets/price lists as cost-plus or percentage (mark-up) over manufacturer's cost, indicating that monitors, when bought as part of a full functioning system, were to be at the same price as the CPU. Throughout the bid process, vendors were encouraged to offer standard computer system configurations for the benefit of the potential purchasers. However, the ITB did not specify what had to be included in the configured systems and did not define configured system, bundled systems, microcomputer systems microcomputer, computer or computer system. The reason no precise definitions were developed in the ITB was that each manufacturer had different types of configured or bundled systems and it was up to each manufacturer to determine what was to be supplied with any particular system. Similarity and comparability between bids was achieved by requiring each vendor to bid by product line using the same manufacturer's product list and wholesale price. Both Vanstar and AmeriData understood the term "microcomputer" not to include a monitor or other peripheral devices. However, both vendors were bidding the IBM product line and did not include any special vendor bundled systems. The IBM price list literature included with their bids sets forth what was included in the particular microcomputer system configuration being offered. For instance, the IBM product line includes the IBM VALUEPOINT PERFORMANCE SERIES SYSTEM. The Valuepoint Performance System includes: One 3.5" 1.44 MB diskette drive standard, 4MB or 8MB parity memory standard, 1MB video RAM standard, external L2 "write Back" cache capability (standard external L2 cache on select models), SelectaBus ISA/VESA Local Bus or ISA/PCI Bus technology, VESA Local Bus SVGA video, Advanced power management on all systems Most SpaceSaver and Desktop systems meet EPA Energy Star requirements for power processors based on Pentium technology, three year warranty, choice of 270MB, 364MB, or 527MB hard files, multimedia standard on many desktop units, two serial ports (9-pin); one parallel port, enhanced keyboard and point device ports and IBM mouse. The IBM PC 300 Series includes similar items but also includes certain items of installed software. The IBM PC 700 Series includes audio capability. No monitors are included as part of these computer configurations. The IBM Thinkpad (laptop) series contains monitors as well as pre-installed software. Some configured systems include network cards. Some configured systems include CD-Rom drives. IBM's standard computer configurations are quite varied. Under Section 2.1 of the ITB, a purchaser could purchase a system that is fully configured by the manufacturer and that has devices that are needed in order to do multi-media. Some of the IBM systems include the bare minimum and some include items that would otherwise be considered extras. A person ordering computers off of the manufacturer's price list could order different size processors, various diskette hard drives, various optical storage devices and keyboard options, without regard to the balance of line as long as those options were part of the manufacturer's standard configuration. Items not included in those standard configurations such as monitors in the Valuepoint performance line, would not be part of this bid award because they would fall under balance of line items. In this case, there would normally be no problem since both bidder's bid the same product line with the same standard configurations. However, as indicated earlier DMS' intended definition of microcomputer goes beyond the specifications of this bid. DMS desires to include items under table 2.1 which are not part of IBM's standard configurations. For instance DMS believes monitors should be included as part of the Valuepoint performance series if a purchaser purchases the monitor simultaneously with the Valuepoint system. In fact, DMS and Vanstar have conducted some preliminary discussions as to what items outside and IBM standard configuration are included in its bid. DMS is in essence allowing and encouraging Vanstar to change its bid to include peripherals in its microcomputer bid after the bids were opened, albeit at the same percent mark-up from dealers cost as the microcomputers. Such after the fact changes are impermissible. Moreover, irrespective of the definitions of computer, DMS's interpretation of the bid specifications flies in the face of its stated purpose for not defining terms. DMS elected not to specifically define terms, because it wanted to rely on manufacturer's, such as IBM, to define what would be included in its computer configuration. In this case, IBM defined those configurations. If DMS had desired to include peripherals outside a manufacturers standard configuration as part of a configured system when purchased simultaneously with a computer then the specifications needed to cover such simultaneous purchases. Neither the specifications nor the evidence support DMS's interpretation of this bid. Clearly the term microcomputer, computer, computer system, etc. are very material terms in this ITB. The failure to clearly (not necessarily specifically) define that family of terms is fatal to this ITB since there was no mutual understanding between the parties on the IBM portion of the contract as to what was to be bid as a microcomputer. Therefore, all the bids should be rejected on the IBM portion of ITB 9-250-040-B.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting all bids under the IBM portion of ITB 9-250-040-B. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 11th day of August, 1995.
Findings Of Fact In June 1987 The School Board of Lee County, Florida invited the submission of sealed bids for grading and drainage improvements at the new Multipurpose Building at Fort Myers High School. In addition to requiring grading, the project involves the erection or placement of structures in the nature of a drainage system consisting of culverts, pipes, and concrete inlets with grates, to be tied into the existing drainage system off School Board property across a county right-of-way into a culvert for discharge across the street, and which on School Board property attaches to and becomes a part of an existing building. Sealed bids were submitted by Systems Technologies Co. of Ft. Myers, Inc. (hereinafter "Systems Technologies") and by Ledo Lines, Inc. Respondent determined Systems Technologies to be the lowest responsible bidder and advised Ledo Lines, Inc., that it would be awarding the contract to Systems Technologies. Warren W. Hunt is the president and the qualifying agent of Systems Technologies. Hunt has an underground utilities contractor's license which has been inactive since it was obtained by him in March, 1986, being inactive therefore both at the time that Hunt submitted the bid on behalf of Systems Technologies and at the time of the final hearing in this cause. The inactive status results from Hunt's failure to complete the license process with the State of Florida. Since Hunt's license was inactive due to being incomplete at the times material to this cause, neither Hunt nor Systems Technologies was a licensed contractor and Systems Technologies was not a responsible bidder at the time that the bid was submitted. The contract specifications set forth the method by which the bids would be evaluated. Paragraph numbered 2.9 on page PD-4 provides as follows: Comparison of Proposals - Proposals will be compared on the basis of total computed price for each division of work. Total computed price equals the sum of the prices for the lump sum Contract Item, plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price Contract Items for each Division of work. The total price for each unit price Contract Item will be obtained by multiplying the estimated quantity of each item by the correspond- ing unit price set forth in the Proposal form[.] That provision, accordingly, requires that the bids be evaluated based upon the sum of all line items rather than based only upon their total or "bottom line" figure. Respondent's Director of Facilities Planning admitted that he failed to comply with this provision of the contract specifications in evaluating the two bids submitted to him and in determining that the bid should be awarded to Systems Technologies. In Systems Technologies' bid, the sum of the prices for the lump sum contract items plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price contract items amounts to $30,109.60. However, in submitting its bid Systems Technologies incorrectly added its column of figures and incorrectly computed its Total Contract Price (Estimated) to be $29,768. Since the contract specifications envision a unit price bid rather than a lump sum bid, the amount of the bid of Systems Technologies is in fact the amount of $30,109.60. The bid of Ledo Lines, Inc., is for $29,913.84. Ledo Lines, Inc., is, therefore, the low bidder on this project. The contract specifications when read in their entirety clearly require that the low bid be determined by adding the unit price and lump sum components rather than relying on the lump sum "bottom line" figure shown for Total Contract Price (Estimated). Employees of the consultant who Prepared the specifications testified that they expect to be able to hold the bidders to the unit prices but not to the Total Contract Price (Estimated) because the estimated quantities may change. Thus, the evidence is uncontroverted that the determination of low bidder pursuant to the contract specifications is based upon the total of the unit price provisions and not by the single figure at the bottom of the page which adds those individual prices and which was added erroneously in this case by Systems Technologies. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated that the School Board is subject to mandatory competitive bidding for this project. They further stipulated that where there is mandatory competitive bidding, the contract must be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder. Since Systems Technologies is neither a qualified, responsive bidder nor the lowest bidder, it is clear that Ledo Lines, Inc., is the lowest responsive bidder for the project in question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining Ledo Lines, Inc., to be the lowest responsive bidder and awarding the contract for grading and drainage improvements to the Multi- purpose Building at Fort Myers High School to Ledo Lines, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Melvin, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 E. G. Couse, Esquire Post office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Harry A. Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 1976, the School Board of Orange County and ITEL Data Product Corporation (ITEL) entered into a lease agreement providing for the lease of data processing equipment to the Board from ITEL by which ITEL supplied a computer central processing unit (CPU) and related equipment. Concomitantly, by agreement, ITEL provided for servicing and maintenance of the equipment. In October, 1977, IBM announced its new 303X series of computers with delivery schedules to customers for the newly introduced equipment to take up to two years. IBM has had a long-standing policy, well-known in the data processing industry, of filling customer orders for equipment in the sequence in which they are received, called "sequential delivery." With public agency customers, such sequential orders are not envisioned by the agency nor IBM to be a firm order because of the often protracted procurement process, involving competitive bidding, that public bodies typically have to engage in before making such a major purchase. IBM therefore permits public agencies, such as the School Board in this case, to place non-binding orders in anticipation of a future procurement so that a sequential delivery position will be available to the public agency and thus cause no delay in acquisition of the equipment should IBM become the successful bidder upon a particular procurement. On October 6, 1977, the School Board placed a "reservation" for an IBM 3031 CPU and related data processing equipment. In a letter of October 11, 1978, the School Board informed IBM that this equipment would be needed in approximately November, 1979, subject to availability of funds and subject to IBM being selected as a winning vendor in a competitive bidding process. There was no executed contract or other commitment between IBM and School Board at this point in time. Sometime in the summer of 1979, the School Board, which had become dissatisfied with the service and maintenance it had received from ITEL pursuant to the ITEL lease, engaged certain members of its staff in a study regarding its future data processing equipment needs. The School Board staff study resulted in a determination by the staff, and ultimately by the Board, to acquire additional data processing equipment capacity in excess of the capacity supplied under the ITEL lease. On August 28, 1979, the School Board terminated the ITEL lease effective December 31, 1979, and on or about September 5th, notified ITEL of that termination. On or about October 2, 1979, after determining that it wished to lease new and greater capacity equipment, the School Board Issued an "Invitation to bid" to eleven vendors, providing for the leasing, with option to purchase, of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal." In response to this invitation to bid, ITEL, Menrex Corporation, as well as IBM, submitted bids and on November 13, 1979, the School Board rejected all the bids as being not responsive, as it had reserved the right to do in the invitation to bid document. The rejection of these bids on November 13, 1979, provided only slightly over a month during which the School Board would have to acquire equipment by rental or purchase and have it installed, since the ITEL lease would be terminated on December 31, 1979. Accordingly, acting on the advice of counsel, the School Board determined that it could legitimately develop an interim emergency leasing plan for meeting its data processing needs upon the expiration of the ITEL lease starting December 31, 1979. This leased equipment was expected to be in place for approximately three to six months or until such time as a new bidding effort and procedure could be developed. The School Board, upon advice of counsel, determined that under its procurement regulations, it could rent equipment on a month to month basis without engaging in a competitive bidding process if it solicited quotations from at least three vendors. Thus, on November 13, 1979, the School Board solicited quotations from three potential vendors, Comdisco, ITEL and IBM, for purposes of securing an interim rental of an IBM 3031 CPU, "or equal", and related equipment. IBM and the Petitioner herein, NAS, which is the successor in interest to ITEL, responded to the solicitation of quotations and NAS informed the Board that it could not supply the particular equipment specified, but offered a NAS CPU at a monthly charge and suggested other related equipment to the Board that NAS considered to be suitable. The School Board staff informed NAS that the CPU unit itself would be a suitable alternative to the IBM 3031 CPU mentioned in the solicitation of quotations. On November 20, 1979, the School Board elected to select IBM's quotation and entered into the lease arrangement with IBM on a month-to-month rental basis. NAS did not challenge that action by the School Board. This rental agreement was entered into on or about December 7, 1979. It was a standard IBM lease and contained a provision whereby IBM offered the customer an option to purchase the equipment, although there was no obligation imposed therein on the customer to purchase the equipment, which was the subject of the lease. The agreement provided that the customer would be contractually entitled to certain "purchase-option credits" or accruals if it was leasing the equipment on a long-term basis and subsequently elected to exercise the option to purchase that same equipment. IBM grants such purchase-option credits as a general rule in month-to-month rental situations such as this, although they are not always a matter of contractual right on behalf of the customer. In any event, no consideration was shown to have been given at the time of entering this rental agreement to the existence or non-existence of any purchase-option credit provision since the only authorized contract at that time was a month-to- month rental agreement. No purchase or option to purchase which would be binding on either party was contemplated since both IBM and the School Board were aware that before a purchase of this magnitude could be made, that a competitive bidding procedure must be utilized. Equipment was installed pursuant to the rental agreement in December, 1979. Neither at the time of the contracting, nor at the time of the installation of the IBM 3031 CPU, did NAS or Comdisco challenge the award of the month-to-month rental contract to IBM. In early 1980, the rental agreement being only temporary, the School Board began studying various alternatives for making a permanent acquisition of needed data processing equipment. In early May of 1980, upon advice of its attorney and various staff members assigned to study the matter, the School Board determined that it would be more economical for the School Board to purchase a CPU and related equipment and service either by cash or installment payment, than to continue renting a CPU and related equipment or to lease those items with an option to purchase as had originally been contemplated in the October, 1979, aborted procurement effort. Thus, it was that on about April 20, 1980, the School Board appointed a committee of five persons to help draft technical specifications to ultimately be promulgated in bidding invitation documents with a view toward acquiring the required data processing equipment through competitive bidding and ultimate purchase. The committee included School Board employees and outside consultants with knowledge of the field of data processing. The members were: Louis Nall, Education Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; Kim Anderson, Information Systems Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations for the School Board; and Craig Rinehart, Director of the Systems Development/Systems Support staff of the School Board. Upon this committee agreeing upon required specifications for the equipment to be acquired, the bidding documents or "invitation to bid" and related supporting documents were developed by the committee in conjunction with assistance of certain other members of the staff of the Board as well as the School Board's attorney. The bid documents were approved by the School Board on May 27, 1980, and they were issued on May 23, 1980, to eight potential vendors, including NAS, IBM, and Amdahl Corporation. The bid documents invited bids for the sale of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal" (plus service and maintenance) for delivery no later than July 15, 1980. In addition to specifying an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal.," the pertinent specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents provided as follows: The manufacturer of the equipment described in the bid was required to currently manufacture it and offer for sale or lease along with it, an upgradable attached word processor subsystem the same as, or equal to, the IBM 3031 "attached pro- cessor." The Central Processing Unit, or CPU, being bid had to be capable of hosting or accommodating an attached processor. (The purpose of requiring this was so that the School Board could later ob- tain more processing capability if and when it needed it, rather than having to pay for more capacity than it needed at the time of the initial purchase. The vendors were not required by the bidding documents, however, to bid at the time of this procurement for the actual sale of such an attached processor, to be added later.) The School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informal- ity in any bid. The bid documents initially stated that the School Board would not pay any separately stated interest or finance charges in arriving at its total purchase price for all equipment to be bid. Each bidder was required to offer a certain number of support or maintenance personnel in the Orlando area at the time the bid was submitted and the Board would enter into a separate service and maintenance agreement with the successful vendor. NAS did not protest the bid specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents. NAS did request and receive several interpretations and clarifications of the bid documents from the Board in a manner favorable to NAS. These favorable clarifications or interpretations were as follows: The unavailability of serial numbers for data processing equipment at the time the bid was prepared would not adversely affect the bid's validity. NAS could temporarily rent equipment from other manufacturers which it could not itself deliver by the July 15, 1980, date required in the bid documents. (emphasis supplied) NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the requirement that support personnel be present in the Orlando area, provided it had the required support personnel in the area at the time the equipment was actually delivered, rather than at the originally stated time of submission of the bid. The NAS 7000N CPU, which was a computer of greater capacity than the IBM 3031, even after the IBM had the attached processor added, was specifically determined by the Board to be con- sidered as equivalent to the IBM 3031 and thus ap- propiately responsive to that specification and the invitation to bid documents. NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the term "manufacturer" even though NAS did not in itself manufacture the equipment, but only marketed it for the maker, Hitachi Corporation. IBM also had a role in determining and securing clarifications or interpretations of the specifications in the invitation to bid from the School Board. Thus, it was that IBM suggested that the Board could save money if it allowed each vendor (not just IBM) to separately state an interest or finance charge in its bid, since IBM was of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service would not tax as ordinary income to the vendor any separately stated interest charges or financing charges received by such vendor from a public governmental body such as the School Board. Thus, to the extent that vendors could save on income taxes from the total payment, if successful, then the School Board could reasonably expect all vendors to submit correspondingly lower bids in response to the invitation to bid. In response to IBM's request, the School Board amended the bid documents to allow a "separately stated time-price differential" for any item of equipment, not to exceed seven and one-half percent of that item of equipment. At NAS' request, the School Board also amended the bid documents to state that a single central processor (the NAS 7000N), with equivalent power to the IBM 3031 CPU, which was upgradable in the field, would be an acceptable alternative to the requirement that a separate processor must be capable of being attached to the CPU in order to increase data processing capacity. In fact, the NAS 7000N actually has somewhat greater data processing capacity than the IBM 3031. A further amendment to the bid documents provided that in determining the lowest and best bid, the Board would consider each vendor's total charges for service, maintenance and support of the equipment for a one- year period following the award of bids. Additionally, at the request of IBM, an amendment was approved to the bid documents stating that instead of seeking equipment "new and not refurbished," that that requirement would be changed to "new and not refurbished or not more than one-year old." These amendments were sent to all potential bidders. Prior to disseminating the May, 1980, invitation to bid documents, the School Board established an Evaluation Committee to review and analyze bids to be received in response to those documents. The Committee was composed of the following individuals: David Brittain, the Director of the Educational Technology Section, Florida Department of Education; William Branch, Director of Computer Service, University of Central Florida; Louis Nall, Education Consultant, Florida Department of Education; Ronald Schoenau, Director of Northeast Regional Data Center, Florida University System; Craig Rinehart, Director of Systems Development/Systems Support of the Orange County School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations of the School Board; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Dale Brushwood, Director of Production Control, School Board; and David Brown, Attorney for the School Board. The Evaluation Committee was charged with conducting a review and analysis in accord with certain instructions given by the Board and to recommend to the Board the bid the Committee believed was the lowest and best bid. The Committee was instructed that objectivity is of prime importance. Five vendors submitted bids in response to the Invitation documents, as amended. They were NAS, IBM, Amdahl, CMI and Memorex. On June 17, 1980, the bids were opened by the Board. On a recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, the School Board found the bids submitted by CMI and Memorex to be not responsive to the bid documents. The bids submitted by NAS, IBM and Amdahl Corporation were found responsive to the bid document. The Evaluation Committee met for approximately 5 hours evaluating the bids by a number of different criteria, including the consideration of both a one-year and a three-year maintenance cost, as well as an assumption arguendo that the bid documents did not merely call for the IBM 3031 CPU upgradable by the addition of an attached processor, as the specifications actually requested, but instead that the $330,000 (estimated) attached processor was to be bought at the outset from IBM. The result was that the Evaluation Committee reported that the IBM bid was the lowest and best response, even if the cost of a $330,000 attached processor was added to their bid, which was not actually to be the case because the attached processor was not included in this procurement process. Even had that been added to the IBM bid, making it the second lowest dollar bidder, the Evaluation Committee still felt it to be the lowest, best bid. The IBM bid for the 3031 CPU and related equipment was $1,412,643 plus a time-price differential of $58,738 for a total of $1,471,381. The related bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $74,201.34, making a grand total for IBM's bid of $1,545,582.34. The NAS bid for the sale of an NAS 7000N CPU and related equipment was the next lowest bid at $1,575,751 plus a time-price differential of $74,722 for a total of $1,650,473. The accompanying bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $64,603. The total of the NAS bid was thus $1,715,076. The Amdahl Corporation's bid was higher than either IBM or NAS. In evaluating and in arriving at the decision that the IBM bid was the lowest and best, the Evaluation Committee was concerned with the previous poor record of maintenance and support provided by NAS's predecessor in interest, ITEL Corporation, as well as by the fact that there were then no NAS 7000N computer systems installed in the United States, so that some knowledge of its performance record could thus be gained. Further, the residual value for NAS' equipment had not yet been proven to the extent that IBM's had. Thus, the Committee determined that the IBM bid would still be the lowest and best even had the attached processor, at an estimated cost at time of $330,000, been added to the bid, making it the second lowest in dollar terms because the IBM bid combined the least risk, with the maximum equipment capacity growth flexibility at maximum benefit to the School Board in terms of financial flexibility. The NAS machine would provide more capacity than the Board needed for several years at higher cost, without the Board having an option regarding when that extra capacity should be obtained. The financial flexibility benefit of the IBM bid in terms of allowing for future capacity growth was borne out because the attached processor, by the time it was actually acquired from IBM in 1982, only cost $172,000, due to price decreases made possible by technological advances. The Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the IBM bid as the lowest and best received, and in official session on June 24, 1980, after hearing presentations by an NAS representative, the School Board unanimously voted to award IBM the contract for the subject equipment. On July 1, 1980, the contract submitted by IBM was executed by IBM and the School Board. It provided for a purchase by the Board of the equipment and services described above, payable in two installments, $600,000 on or before August 15, 1980, and the balance on or before July 5, 1981. On July 16, 1980, NAS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the Board, also filing an emergency motion for stay with the School Board, seeking a stay of all further agency action on the contracts with IBM, including any payment, pending disposition of the case. On July 29, 1980, the School Board, after hearing argument of NAS counsel, denied that petition for Administrative Hearing and motion for stay on the basis that the contract between the Board and IBM had already been executed and that the NAS request for a 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was not timely. On August 4, 1980, NAS appealed the Board's decision to deny a hearing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal and also filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The emergency motion requested the court to prohibit any further action pursuant to the contract, including payment of any sums pending determination of the issues raised in the appeal. On August 15, 1980, the court granted the emergency motion for stay on the condition NAS post a supersedes bond on or before August 18, 1980. On August 26, 1980, the court vacated that order because of failure to timely post the supersedes bond. The School Board then paid IBM the first installment payment of $600,000, when due, shortly thereafter. On May 6, 1981 the Fifth District Court of Appeal ultimately rendered a decision that NAS ". . . should have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1980), that its bid was the lowest and best response to the bid document." Thus, the case was remanded to the Board to conduct an administrative hearing, and the Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 4, 1981, NAS filed with the Board a motion for stay to prevent the Board from making the final payment to IBM on the purchase price. After hearing arguments of NAS' attorney, the Board, on June 23, 1981, denied the motion for stay and NAS appealed. On July 3, 1981, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the School Board's denial of the stay. Final payment was thereafter made by the Board to IBM, thus completing the purchase and all performance of the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Orange County denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire 630 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter J. Winders, Esquire Nathaniel L. Doliner, Esquire Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel E. O'Donnell, Esquire 400 Colony Square, Suite 1111 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 James L. Scott, Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "District") advertised for bids on Contract No. M-0137, Bid No. B-85-91, for the construction of a structure maintenance facility. The Specifications and Contract Documents for the project required that bidders submit a "Base Bid," which related to the essential components of the project, and three "add alternates," which related to additional items that the District might contract for over and above the Base Bid. The Notice To Contractors regarding this project included the following language: The right is reserved, as the interest of the District may require, to reject any or all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposal, or to readvertise for other or future proposals. Paragraph 2 of the Instructions To Bidders includes the following language: "The intent of the Proposal Form is to secure a price, based on unit prices, for the work described in the Contract. . . ." (emphasis added) Paragraph 4 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: The District reserves the right to reject any and all proposals (i) when such rejection is in the interest of the District; (ii) if such proposal is void per se; or (iii) if the proposal contains any irregularities, PROVIDED, however, that the District reserves the right to waive any irregularities and to accept the lowest responsible bidder's proposal determined by the Engineer on the basis of the gross sum for which the work will be performed, arrived at by a correct computation of the base bid plus the alternate bid item or items selected by the District. Bid items will be considered by the District on the has is of budgetary capability. (First emphasis in original; second emphasis added.) Paragraph 5 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: Proposals will be considered irregular if they show omissions, unauthorized alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or other irre- gularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are unbalanced either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values, or incomplete in any manner, including failure to bid on all items on the bid form. Paragraph 8 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No proposal can be withdrawn after it is filed unless the Bidder makes his request in writing to the District prior to the time set for the opening of bids, or unless the District fails to accept it within sixty (60) days after the date fixed for opening bids. Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No interpretation of the meaning of the Plans, Specifications or other Contract Documents will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation should be in writing addressed to the Engineering & Construction Division, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, Post Office Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33402, and to be given consideration must be received at least Ten (10) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the Specifications which, if issued, will be mailed by registered mail to all prospective bidders (at the respective addresses furnished for such purposes) not later than Five (5) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Failure of any bidder to receive any such Addendum of interpretation shall not relieve any bidder from any obligation under his bid as submitted. All addenda so issued shall become part of the Contract Documents. The bid items are described in Section 01021 of the Specifications and Contract Documents. Subsection 1.01 of that Section describes what is included in the Base Bid as follows: The Base Bid includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for: Structure Maintenance Facility, complete. Building utilities including all rough-in required for alternate bid items whether or not alternate bids are accepted. Site work including utilities. All other costs of the project not attributable to Items 1 thru 3 above or Alternate Bid Nos. 1 thru 3 below. Subsection 1.02 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 1 as follows: In the Base Bid all structural supports to receive the monorail trolley beams and hoists are included. Alternate No. 1 includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for two 15 ton capacity monorail hoists and trolley beams complete and operational. Work includes all final utility connections to points indicated on drawings, shipping, unloading at site, installation and final check-out and instruction to owner on operation of equipment as well as all other costs not attributable to items previously mentioned. Subsection 1.03 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 2 as follows: In the Base Bid all mechanical and electrical rough-in is to be provided for the two offices and the toilet and locker rooms above. Alternate No. 2 includes all costs over the Base Bid for completing the offices, toilets and locker rooms including all plumbing and lighting fixtures, partitions, lockers finishes, structure and metal stair as indicated and specified in the applicable sections of these specifications. Subsection 1.04 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 3 as follows: The Base Bid includes all site grading to finish elevations indicated. Alternate No. 3 includes all costs over the Base bid for providing subsurface preparation and asphaltic concrete paving to finish elevations indicated as described in Section 02513 for all areas where asphaltic concrete paving is shown. In September of 1984 the District had received bids for a similar project. Similar contract documents and bid forms were used for the project. Cox & Palmer Construction Company, Overland Construction Company, Inc., and Booth Construction, Inc., all submitted bids on the September 1984 project. All of the bids submitted on the September 1984 project, including the Booth bid, were submitted on an add alternates" basis. All of the September 1984 bids were rejected. A total of seven bidders submitted bids on the instant project. With the exception of Booth Construction, Inc., all of the bidders on the instant project calculated their bids on an "add alternates" basis. It was the clear intent of the architecture firm that prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents that the bids should be submitted on an add alternates" basis. There were no irregularities in the bidding process regarding the instant project prior to the opening of the first bid. At the duly appointed time a representative of the District began the process of opening and announcing the amounts of the bids. The first bid to be opened was the bid submitted by Overland Construction Company, Inc. The amounts bid by Overland were as follows: Base Bid $ 378,800 Alternate No. 1 64,000 Alternate No. 2 18,000 Alternate No. 3 11,200 Immediately after the announcement of the amounts bid by Overland, Mr. York, the Director of the District's Engineering and Construction Division, asked, "Is that an add-on or deduct?" Someone in the audience answered that it was an "add-on" bid. Mr. Gerachi, on behalf of Booth, promptly stated that the alternates should have been bid as "deducts". A general discussion ensued among members of the audience regarding whether the alternates should have been bid as "add-on" or "deducts." In order to continue with the bid opening process and to restore order in the room, a representative of the District announced that the matter would be resolved when the bids were tabulated and another representative of the District began the process of opening the rest of the bids. The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was the fourth bid to be opened. The amounts written on the Booth bid were as follows: Base Bid $ 396,586 Alternate No. 1 54,072 Alternate No. 2 14,597 Alternate No. 3 9,185 Immediately after the amounts of the Booth bid were announced, Mr. Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. stood up and stated that the Booth bid had been calculated on the basis of "deduct" alternates. The essence of his statement was that in calculating the amount of his company's Base Bid he had added to the base bid the sum of the three alternate bids with the understanding that the amounts shown for any of the three alternates would be deducted from his Base Bid if the District decided not to award a contract for one or more of the alternates. This statement following the opening of the Booth bid was the first time that anyone on behalf of Booth had made a specific unambiguous statement to representatives of the District responsible for this bidding process regarding the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated. 1/ The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company was opened after the Booth bid. The amounts bid by Cox & Palmer were as follows: Base Bid $ 392,225 Alternate No. 1 38,770 Alternate No. 2 19,200 Alternate No. 3 11,456 The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was prepared by both Vincent Gerachi, an estimator and project manager employed by Booth Construction, Inc., and by Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. Mr. Gerachi has been an estimator on construction projects for approximately 12 years. Mr. Booth has been in the construction business for approximately 30 years and has had his own construction company for about 18 years. Both Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth were uncertain whether the alternate bids were supposed to be bid as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Neither of them attempted to do anything to resolve their uncertainty until the morning of the very day on which bids were to be submitted. On that morning Mr. Gerachi called a representative of the District to ask whether the bid should be prepared with the alternate bids calculated as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Mr. Gerachi spoke to Mr. Brown at the District, who suggested that Mr. Gerachi call the architecture firm that had prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders (see paragraph 6 of these findings of fact, above), it is a customary practice of the trade for bidders to communicate directly with project architects to resolve any uncertainties in the Specifications and Contract Documents. Indeed, it is generally understood in the trade that it is the duty of the bidder to communicate with the project architect to seek resolution of any ambiguities. Mr. Gerachi tried to reach the project architect by telephone, but was unable to reach him because the architect had already left his office to drive to the bid opening. Mr. Gerachi did not have an opportunity to talk to the architect prior to filing the Booth Construction bid because the architect did not come into the bid opening room until about one minute after 2:00 p.m. Mr. Gerachi talked to Mr. and Mrs. Booth before turning in the Booth bid. Mr. Gerachi prepared the Booth bid with the alternate bids calculated as "deducts" from the Base Bid. In other words, the amount of the Base Bid on the Booth bid included the sum of the three alternate bids, which alternate bids were also separately stated on the Booth bid. Alvin Booth participated in the preparation of the bid and was aware of the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated before the bid was submitted to the District. Even though the Base Bid on the Booth bid is in the amount of $396,586, it was the intention of Booth Construction, Inc., to bid $318,732 for the work described as being within the scope of the Base Bid. The reason for the higher amount being entered for the booth Base Bid is that Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth misinterpreted the Specifications and Contract Documents and added to the Booth Base Bid the sum of the Booth bids on each of the three Alternate Bids. 2/ This misinterpretation of the Specifications and Contract Documents was caused by the culpable negligence or willful inattention of Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth. After all of the bids were opened a representative of the District announced that the District would consider the matter and notify all bidders of its decision at a later date. Thereafter the District, having concluded that Booth Construction, Inc., had acted in good faith and that the irregularities in the form of its bid were "minor irregularities," decided to treat the oral statements by Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth as amendments to the Booth bid, to treat the Booth Base Bid as being $318,732, and to award a contract to Booth Construction, Inc., for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $372,804, calculated as follows: $318,732 (Amended Booth Base Bid) 54,072 (Booth Alternate No. 1 Bid) $372,804 (Total Contract) Booth Construction, Inc., has the ability to perform the contract and can perform the contract for the proposed contract amount of $372,804. Booth Construction, Inc., is a responsible bidder. The District estimate of the cost of the work covered by the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 was $329,000. There are no irregularities in the bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company. Cox and Palmer Construction Company is a responsible and responsive bidder. The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer is the lowest responsive bid for the combination of the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1. 3/ The foregoing findings of fact include the substance of the majority of the findings proposed by the parties, although I have rejected a number of unnecessary details and editorial comments in the parties' proposals. Any proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are rejected on the grounds of not being supported by competent substantial evidence or as being contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the irregularities in the Booth Construction, Inc., bid may not be waived and that the bid will be considered, as submitted, to be a Base Bid in the amount of $396,586; Concluding that in view of the foregoing treatment of the Booth bid, the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company is found to be the lowest responsive bid for the Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1; Concluding that the District will accept the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company and enter into a contract with Palmer & Cox Construction Company consistent with the amounts bid by Palmer & Cox Construction Com- pany for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1; and Concluding that the petition of Overland Construction Company, Inc., is dismissed for lack of standing. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1985.
The Issue Whether DOL should accept either the bid Red Enterprises submitted for T- shirts, in response to invitation to bid No. 89- 026-LOT/Ten/A, or the bid submitted by Party Time, or neither?
Findings Of Fact By invitation to bid No. 89-026-LOT/TEN/A (the ITB), petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, the DOL originally solicited bids from suppliers of beach towels, men's caps ("golf style, sewed back") and canvas sport bags. By an addendum dated March 24, 1989, the invitation was expanded to include 10,000 men's T- shirts. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Three bidders responded: Party Time, Red Enterprises and Bagley Advertising. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Only Party Time and Red Enterprises bid on the T-Shirts, Respondent's Exhibit No. 3; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and Party Time's bid was low. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1; Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. Red Enterprises's bid was responsive to the ITB. With the required paperwork, Red Enterprises submitted a sample T-shirt, along with samples of the other items. Although Party Time submitted samples of caps and towels, it did not submit a sample T-shirt. DOL rejected Party Time's bid on T-shirts for this reason, and announced its intention to award the T- shirt contract to Red Enterprises. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. ITB Provisions In paragraph 2.1, the ITB states, under the heading "Samples of Products to be submitted with Bid": SECTION 2: ITEMS REQUESTED 2.1 Samples of Products to be Submitted with Bid. Each bidder shall submit with its bid a sample of the product for each item bid. The samples shall be made of the materials to be used in the final product, if the bidder is successful, and shall be product identified. The samples shall be inspected to determine whether they meet the minimum specifications required. Samples of items, when called for, must be furnished free of expense on or before bid opening time and date, and if not destroyed may, upon request, be returned at the bidder's expense. Each individual sample must be labeled with bidder's name, manufacturer's brand name and number, bid number and item reference. The Department reserves the sole right to determine whether the sample meets or exceeds the quality requirements of the specifications. All such determinations made by the Department are final. (emphasis supplied) Later on the ITB lists all items which comprise the bid, without mentioning samples: 3.1.5 Bids should be presented in the following sequence: Identification of Respondent per Section 3.2 of ITB. Authorized representative of Respondent per Section 3.3 of ITB. Bidder's Affidavit (Attachment A) and Registration Form (Attachment B), if applicable, or notation that said Form is already on file with the Department. Price Sheet per Section 3.5 of ITB. (Attachment C). Florida-licensed per Section 3.6 of ITB. Minority Certification per Section 3.9 of ITB. But still later the ITB explicates the importance of complying with requirements which use "shall . . . except to indicate simple futurity": SECTION 4. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The Department has established certain mandatory requirements which must be included as part of any submitted bid. The use of "shall", "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a mandatory requirement or condition. The words "should" or "may" in this ITB indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature will not by itself cause rejection of a bid.... Finally, the ITB specifies DOL's intentions, in the event of a bidder's noncompliance with mandatory requirements: Proposal Submission Only bids submitted in the time frame stated herein and with the content required above will be reviewed and considered by the Department. Review Criteria If Respondent's bid does not meet all the mandatory requirements the bid may be rejected by the Department as nonresponsive. The Department seeks to contract for the items described herein with the responding firm who submits the lowest and best bid. Responsive bids will be evaluated and judged by the Department based on cost. In Section 5.3, the ITB refers to "the lowest and best responsive bid," and Attachment C states, "Bid [e]valuation and award of contract will be based solely on the unit price." The ITB put reasonable bidders on notice that DOL expected bidders to furnish samples of items on which they bid. Except for T- shirts, Party Time did submit samples of everything on which it bid.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOL award the contract for 10,000 men's T-shirts to Red Enterprises. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II, 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 2nd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 15 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, and to the extent they are more than mere argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence did not establish that Party Time did not have a sample. COPIES FURNISHED: Rebecca Paul, Secretary Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, FL 32399-4002 Nan Mancha Red Enterprises 1308 High Road Tallahassee, FL 32304 Linda Bagley Wiggs Bagley Advertising 4406 South Florida Avenue Suite 17 Lakeland, FL 33813 Louisa E Hargrett, Esquire Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, FL 32399-4002 John E Fuller Party Time Specialties, Inc. 12-14 East Bay Street, Suite 2101 Jacksonville, FL 32202
