Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited contractors to replace a chiller in Building #45 at its Sunland facility located in Marianna, Florida. The project number for the replacement was HRS-95203000. The vendors were allowed until 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, August 24, 1995, to submit responses to the request for bids. On August 24, 1995, Respondent received four responses. The responses were from Petitioner, Neel, JLS International and Smiths, Inc. On August 24, 1995, when the bids were opened JLS International and Smiths, Inc. were disqualified as nonresponsive bidders. On August 24, 1995, Respondent determined that Petitioner had submitted a base bid in the amount of $141,185.00 and as described on the tabulation form, an alternate bid in the amount of $14,750.00 for confined space compliance. The Neel bid as reflected on the tabulation was a base bid for $142,000.00. The forms upon which Petitioner and Neel had submitted their bid prices were forms identical in their format. The format was required by the Respondent. The Petitioner's bid stated: Base Bid: $141,185.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ N/A Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. *If Required (not included in base bid) ITEM UNIT PRICE Compliance for confined space for refrigerants & equipment *Note: Base bid price is compiled costs for construction duration & equipment delivery of 18 weeks. When Petitioner submitted its response to the request for bids, it offered no further explanation concerning the $14,750.00 price for "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" than has already been described. The Neel bid stated: Base Bid: $142,000.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. ITEM UNIT PRICE Respondent had provided written instructions to the bidders concerning execution of the bid proposal form to the effect: Omit mention of alternates entirely, if there are none. Unit prices are to be used only if unit prices are applicable and approved by the Project Director. This project did not call for alternate bids or unit prices. The request for bids did not contemplate a quotation other than the base bid for all items, to include any costs associated with implementation of a design that complies with all applicable codes associated with the installation and with any laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Posting of the bid evaluation/tabulation and notice of contract award recommendation was given on September 8, 1995, indicating Respondent's intent to award to Petitioner in the amount of $141,185.00 as the base bid for the project. Prior to the posting of the bids on September 8, 1995, as was customary, Thomas McAuley, an account representative for Petitioner, who had submitted Petitioner's bid response had met with Respondent's project manager Glen Jenkins, a Professional Engineer III. The meeting was held to discuss Petitioner's bid response as the apparent responsive lowest and best bidder. In the conversation held between Messrs. McAuley and Jenkins, they did not discuss the $14,750.00 separate price quotation in the Petitioner's bid. They did discuss compliance with the codes that were going to be applicable to the project and whether the base price quotation took into account the code requirements. McAuley indicated his opinion that the base price quotation did account for compliance with code requirements contemplated by the terms in the request for bids. McAuley was specifically asked whether Petitioner was complete and thorough in its compliance with the bid specifications and in its prices, inclusive of all the items that were going to be mandated by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services. McAuley answered that question in the affirmative. In the specifications, under Article 7, Miscellaneous Provisions, within the request for bids is set forth Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 related to permit and code compliance issues, which state as follows: State Building Permit. Current DMS requirements for state building permit applications and for permit inspections are attached. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to apply for and pay all costs associated with the state building permit (including the cost of preparing any permit documents on which the state building official may require the seal of a registered engineer). It shall further be the Contractor's responsi- bility to comply fully with all permit inspection requirements. Code Compliance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement a design complying with all codes applicable to this installation, and with all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall be held responsible for stating or setting forth (in this or any other document, or verbally) any code requirement which may be applicable to this project. By disseminating this "Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions", the Owner merely sets forth minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, and neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall thereby be held liable, in full or in part, for the Contractor's adherence or non-adherence to any governing code and/or legal requirement. Special Terms and Conditions for Cont- racts Under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Due to partial project funding under a federal NECPA grant, Contractor compliance with federal laws and regulations are a special requirement of this project. Special terms and conditions pertaining to wages and payrolls, records retention and access, apprenticeship and training, equal opportunity access, are set forth in the attached "Special Terms and Conditions for Contracts Under the National Energy Conserva- tion Policy Act". The contractor shall responsible for full compliance with the attached special terms and conditions. In the meeting between McAuley and Jenkins discussion was made concerning compliance with pertinent electrical codes. One question was asked about pipes in the system being installed in a manner to allow variable speed drives to be placed above the pipes. Jenkins considered that speed drive placement underneath the pipes would be contrary to code requirements. Related to the mechanical features in the project there was discussion about the provision of refrigerants in compliance with the mechanical code that pertained. In the meeting there was little discussion about code compliance within confined spaces, because the two individuals did not perceive that there would likely be a code requirement concerning confined spaces. Mention was made that some code inspector or code official who came to the job site might require attention to the confined spaces, even though that requirement was not found in the code. According to Jenkins, in his recount of the meeting with McAuley, if a code official required compliance for an item in the confined spaces that was not set forth in the code, that would constitute an item about which the Respondent had not requested information to be included in the base price quotation offered by the Petitioner. Further, Jenkins stated there would not be a problem for failing to offer a quotation for the features required by the inspector, because it was not sought by the Respondent in designing the bid requirements. As Jenkins describes, Petitioner's unit price for that work had been made known. This is taken to refer to the $14,750.00 quote for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. In that circumstance, Mr. Jenkins told Mr. McAuley that if a code official required something that was not contemplated by the code and the Respondent did not consider it worth fighting over, then Respondent would have to process a change order to install that equipment. This is taken to mean that Petitioner would be paid additional money under a change order for installing the equipment in the event that the Respondent did not choose to contest the decision of the code official. At the time that McAuley and Jenkins had the meeting, counsel for Neel had contacted Jenkins about protesting the decision to award the contract to Petitioner. That individual had stated the opinion to Respondent that Petitioner's discussion of confined space for refrigerants and the equipment at the additional cost of $14,750.00 might be perceived as potentially a code exclusion in violation of the requirements of Section 7.3 to the request for bids. Neel's counsel stated his belief that the vendors were expected to be in compliance with all codes and laws, even if it was not known to be a code requirement at the time the bid was submitted. He was concerned that someone might try and make it a requirement in the future. The Neel attorney explained that the reference to compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment set forth in Petitioner's bid response might be construed as a comment on code requirements through the contingency of someone's interpretation of the code. He believed that the responses to the request for bids needed to address that contingency as part of the basic quotation, not as a separate quotation. At the time McAuley and Jenkins had their meeting, Jenkins did not know of any requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment based upon his experience, but he had not researched the issue. Through information which Neel imparted to Mr. Jenkins before the meeting was held between Jenkins and McAuley, the Neel attorney expressed the opinion that there was not a present code requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, a view held by McAuley and Jenkins. At the time the meeting was held between McAuley and Jenkins, Jenkins was of the opinion that the requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment was not foreseen to be a likely code requirement. As contrasted with Neel's view, as explained to Jenkins, that its base bid was intended to cover the eventuality that there might become a requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, Neel's representative stated that Petitioner's bid had segregated that contingency for consideration by quoting the price of $14,750.00 separately. Neel did not appear at the hearing and there was no direct proof that the $142,000.00 base bid by Neel addressed the contingency that a future requirement might be imposed for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. However, it may properly be assumed the Neel bid met the requirement for a base bid quotation to cover all costs to Respondent absent proof to the contrary. Later, when Respondent decided to award the contract to Neel, Respondent implied that the $142,000.00 base bid would meet code requirements contemplated by Section 7.3. Concerning the responsibility to determine which code requirements pertained and when, Respondent expected the vendors to derive that answer. This case was unlike most projects by the Respondent in which design professionals, engineers or architects create design documents that are completed in view of code requirements and the vendors assume that the bid documents prepared would be in conformance with code requirements. At hearing Mr. Jenkins, as project manager, opined that Section 7.3 obligated the contractor to meet existing requirements of the permitting authorities, and if during the pendency of the contract there was some change to the codes or code requirements set forth by code inspectors, then the contractor must assume the risk. Moreover, when the bids were opened and tabulated initially and the preliminary decision was made to award the contract to Petitioner, Mr. Jenkins perceived the quotation of $14,750.00 set forth in the Petitioner's bid to be a unit price for a scope of work that was not expected to be required at any point and was not been asked for by Respondent. Jenkins considered this quote as an alternate that was being proffered, something that Respondent might opt for in the future. Although not set forth in exact terms, Mr. Jenkins perceived this information in the Petitioner's bid response to be related to an alarm system and breathing apparatuses. He held this belief based upon his experience in association with compliance for confined spaces. Mr. Jenkins surmised that what was being described by the Petitioner was the type of installation that you would put into a closed mechanical room where a refrigeration machine was located that contained toxic refrigerant, which if released might kill a serviceman. In that connection when discussing refrigerant compliance with Mr. McAuley in their meeting, Mr. Jenkins indicated that the discussion had been limited because the type of machine proposed by the Petitioner was a 134A machine which is "ozone friendly" and not restricted by clean air amendment regulations. Following the posting on September 8, 1995, which recommended that the contract be awarded to Petitioner, Neel had 72 hours to file a protest. That protest was filed. Having considered the remarks by Neel's attorney in support of that protest, Mr. Jenkins became persuaded that Petitioner might not have intended to describe an alternate (unsolicited) purchase when discussing the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment for a price of $14,750.00; instead, Petitioner may have been describing how to comply with future code requirements. Consequently, Mr. Jenkins attempted to settle the issue by presenting the opportunity for the Petitioner to obtain a letter from the Department of Management Services permitting office establishing that the equipment described in the bid by Petitioner for compliance for confined space refrigerants and equipment was not then a code requirement. Mr. Jenkins wanted that information to be in writing. This opportunity to submit information was imparted to Stuart Zaritsky, Branch Manager for Petitioner in its Tallahassee office. Petitioner did not take the opportunity to send written information concerning the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as not being required by applicable codes. Instead, Mr. Zaritsky called Mr. Jenkins and told him that Petitioner had placed calls to the Department of Management Services permitting office and was unable to get a definitive response at that time. On September 26, 1995, Mr. Zaritsky wrote to Mr. Jenkins and stated: The confined space for refrigerants and equipment compliance is based on ASHRAE recommendations only. If any of these items are required by code, then we will install it at no cost. Our base bid of $141,185 is based on the specifications, including paragraph 7.3 on page 13 and all other portions of the contract documents without any qualifications. If it is determined by the owner, that they wish to upgrade the machine room to ASHRAE 15 standards, and it is not required by code, the $14,750 would be the price to add refrigerant monitors, refrigerant purge fans and self-contained breathing apparatus. Should the jurisdictional authority of code compliance determine that these items are required by code, they will be installed as part of our base bid of $141,185. On September 29, 1995, Respondent gave notice of an amended bid tabulation finding Neel to be the responsive lowest and best bidder for the project in its quotation of $142,000.00. The September 29, 1995 correspondence notified the Petitioner that: After further review of issues raised by responsive bidders on the above project, the Department has determined that the bid sub- mitted by Natkin Service Co. on the above referenced project either: is nonresponsive, because the bid was not in compliance with Section 7.3 of the Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions, since it exempted its bid from certain refrigerant handling requirements; or if responsive, is in the amount of $155,935.00. In either case, the bid submitted by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $142,000.00 is the lowest responsive bid. The September 29, 1995 determination that Petitioner was not responsive led to Petitioner's present protest. Sometime shortly before the amended posting of the bid tabulation on September 29, 1995, Mr. Jenkins spoke to Mr. McAuley concerning the opportunity to present information to address the question concerning whether compliance for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment was a code requirement. To assist the Petitioner Mr. Jenkins provided information which had been received from the Department of Community Affairs related to code provisions under enforcement by the Department of Management Services. This information was not provided by Mr. Jenkins as a determination of code requirements; it was provided to inform Petitioner concerning what Mr. Jenkins understood to be the latest code requirements. The expectation was still held that Petitioner would submit separate information from the Department of Management Services that would settle the issue concerning the possible need to comply with code requirements for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment. As Mr. Jenkins described at hearing, the basis for finding the Petitioner's bid unresponsive was alternatively stated. First, the Respondent believes that Petitioner tried to avoid the responsibility for complying with code requirements, whatever they may be during the contract pendency; or second, Petitioner split its bid into two parts. One in the amount of $141,185.00 for matters unrelated to code compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment and the second in an amount of $14,750.00 for such compliance. If the former view is taken, Petitioner's bid is unresponsive. If the latter view is taken Petitioner's bid is responsive but exceeds the quotation by the responsive bidder Neel. At hearing it was not proven by competent evidence whether there was any necessity to meet code requirements for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as described in Petitioner's bid response at any point in time. Other provisions within the request for bids that pertain to the manner in which the vender would address its price quotation are as follows: 1.5 The Contract Sum shall initially be that lump-sum amount which the Contractor shall have enclosed in his sealed bid proposal. Subject to additions and deduc- tions by Change Order, the Contract Sum shall be the amount which the Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work, subject to the terms and conditions as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6 The Contractor shall apply for, and pay all costs associated with, any permit which may be required by the Department of Management Services. Such permitting costs for which the Contractor shall be responsible shall include the preparation of any permit documents on which the building official may require the seal of a registered engineer. B-9 Instruction for bidders; They (the bidders) are also required to examine carefully any drawings, specifications and other bidding documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner effect the work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest based upon the unresponsive of its bid and awards the contract for Project No. HRS- 95203000 to Neel. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph B1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B2 is rejected in the suggestion that Respondent should be bound by resort to extrinsic evidence to determine Petitioner responsive to the bid invitation. Paragraph B3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B4 is rejected in the suggestion that it was inappropriate to defer to the Neel protest as a means for Respondent to reconsider its position. Paragraph B5 is rejected in the suggestion that Neel has controlled the outcome in this case. Paragraph B6 is rejected in the suggestion that Petitioner has complied with the bid invitation requirements. Paragraph B7 is rejected in the suggestion that the contrary position stated by the Respondent in the informal review wherein Petitioner had been preliminarily determined to be the responsive bidder and the point of view at hearing would preclude a decision favoring the Respondent. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy McAuley, Account Manager Natkin Service Company 3428 A. Garber Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Chavers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Informational Copies: JLS International, Inc. P. O. Box 490 Foley, AL 36536 Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. P. O. Box 1916 Thomasville, GA 31799 Smith's, Inc. of Dothan P. O. Box 1207 Dothan, AL 36302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in selecting Intervenor as the lowest bidder for a contract to supply the state with lamps valued at $3,692,499.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for soliciting bids to establish a contract for the purchase of large lamps by state agencies and other eligible users. Petitioner is a Florida corporation and the incumbent vendor under similar contracts for the preceding 10 years. Petitioner does not manufacture lamps. Petitioner sells lamps manufactured by Osram-Sylvania ("Sylvania"). Intervenor is an Ohio corporation doing business in Florida. Intervenor manufactures the lamps it sells. The ITB On March 15, 1996, Respondent issued Invitation To Bid Number 39-285- 400-H, Lamps, Large, Photo and STTV (the "ITB"). The purpose of the ITB is to establish a 24 month contract for the purchase of Large Lamps (fluorescent, incandescent, etc.), Photo Lamps (audio visual, projection, flash), and Studio, Theatre, Television, and Video Lamps ("STTV") by state agencies and other eligible users. The contract runs from July 10, 1996, through July 9, 1998. The ITB estimates the contract price at $3,692,499. The ITB contains General and Special Conditions. General Conditions are set forth in 30 numbered paragraphs and elsewhere in DMS Form PUR 7027. Special Conditions are set forth in various unnumbered paragraphs in the ITB. General Conditions Paragraphs 5, 11, and 24 of the General Conditions are at issue in this proceeding. The terms of each paragraph are: 5. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and effect and are inapplicable to this bid. If submitted either purposely through intent or design or inadvertently appearing separately in transmittal letters, specifications, literature, price lists, or warranties, it is understood and agreed the general and special conditions in this bid solicitation are the only conditions applicable to this bid and the bidder's authorized signature affixed to the bidder's acknowledgment form attests to this. 11. QUALITY ASSURANCE: The contractor, during the contract term, upon mutual agree- ment with the Division of Purchasing, will provide reasonable travel and lodging accommodations for one (1) to three (3) government employees to perform an on-site inspection of the manufacturing process(es) and review of the manufacturer's product quality control(s) and total quality manage- ment program(s). The contractor will reim- burse the State for actual transportation cost, per diem and incidental expenses as provided in Section 112.061, F.S. It is the State's desire that the contractor provide demonstration of quality control for improvement rather than post production detection. 24. FACILITIES: The State reserves the right to inspect the bidder's facilities at any reasonable time with prior notice. Included Items Special Conditions in the ITB require bidders to submit prices for "Item 1" and "Item 2" lamps ("included items"). 1/ Item 1 lamps consist of Group 1 and 2 lamps. Group 1 lamps are Large Lamps such as fluorescent, incandescent, quartz, mercury vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium lamps. Group 2 lamps are Photo Lamps such as audio visual, projection, flash, and STTV lamps. The total price for each group is multiplied by a weighted usage factor. The product calculated for Group 1 is added to the product calculated for Group 2 to determine the total price for Item 1 lamps. Item 2 consists of a category of lamps described as "T- 10 Lamps." The total price for Item 2 lamps is determined without application of the weighted usage factor used for Item 1 lamps. The total price for Item 2 lamps is a de minimis portion of the contract price. Special Conditions in the ITB require Respondent to award a single contract for included items to a single bidder. Special Conditions state that, "During the term of the contract established by this bid, all purchases of items will be made from the successful bidder." 2/ Excluded Items Special Conditions require that, "The bidder shall offer a fixed discount from retail prices on all excluded items." Excluded items include high technology lamps. The requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items is not considered in evaluating bid prices for included items. Rather, the requirement is intended to reduce the state's cost for both included and excluded items by assuring a meaningful discount on excluded items. Formatting Requirements Special Conditions prescribe the format in which bids must be submitted. Price lists and authorized dealers' lists are required to be submitted in hard copy and on computer diskette. The format prescribed for computer diskette includes requirements for font and graphics. The Special Conditions state that, "Failure to comply with this requirement will result in disqualification of your bid." The Bids The ITB prohibits the alteration of bids after they are opened. Respondent opened bids on April 10, 1996. Seven vendors submitted bids in response to the ITB. Included Items Four vendors, including Petitioner, submitted a bid for both Item 1 and Item 2 lamps. Intervenor and two other bidders did not submit a bid for Item 2 lamps. General Conditions Intervenor deleted paragraphs 11 and 24 of the General Conditions from its bid. At the direction of Intervenor's legal department in Cleveland, Ohio, Intervenor's regional sales manager struck through paragraphs 11 and 24 and initialed the deletions. The deletions are consistent with Intervenor's corporate policy. Intervenor routinely objects to contract provisions requiring inspection of Intervenor's facilities. Excluded Items Petitioner's bid includes a fixed discount of 44 percent on excluded items. Intervenor's bid includes a fixed discount of 0 percent. Formatting Requirements Intervenor included the information required by the ITB on the diskette it submitted with its bid. However, Intervenor supplied the information in Courier 12 characters per inch ("cpi") font, not the Courier 10 cpi font prescribed in the ITB. Proposed Agency Action Respondent determined that Intervenor's bid was responsive. The purchasing specialist for Respondent who reviewed each bid to determine if it was responsive failed to observe the deleted paragraphs in Intervenor's bid. The purchasing specialist forwarded those bids determined to be responsive to the purchasing analyst assigned by Respondent to: determine if the lamps offered in each bid met the specifications prescribed in the ITB; and evaluate bid prices. The purchasing analyst noted that paragraphs 11 and 24 were deleted from Intervenor's bid. The purchasing analyst and purchasing specialist conferred. They determined that paragraph 5 of the General Conditions cured Intervenor's deletions without further action. The purchasing analyst correctly determined: that lamps offered by Petitioner and Intervenor met ITB specifications; that Intervenor's bid is the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps; that Petitioner's bid is the second lowest such bid; and that Petitioner's bid is the lowest bid for Item 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid for Item 1 lamps is approximately five percent greater than Intervenor's bid. Respondent proposes to award one contract for Item 1 lamps to Intervenor. Respondent proposes to award a second contract for Item 2 lamps to Petitioner. At 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Respondent posted its intent to award the contract for Item 1 lamps to Intervenor. Petitioner timely filed its formal protest on June 3, 1996. Respondent did not award a contract for excluded items. Respondent's failure to award a contract for excluded items is not at issue in this proceeding. Arbitrary Respondent's proposed award of a contract to Intervenor for substantially all of the items included in the ITB is a decisive decision that Respondent made for reasons, and pursuant to procedures, not governed by any fixed rule or standard prescribed either in the ITB or outside the ITB. Respondent's proposed agency action is arbitrary. Excluded Items The requirement for bidders to offer a fixed discount on excluded items operates synergistically with the requirement for Respondent to award a single contract on included items to a single bidder. The combined action of the two requirements operating together has greater total effect than the effect that would be achieved by each requirement operating independently. The requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items, operating alone, may not induce a bidder who could receive a contract solely for Item 2 lamps to offer a discount that is as meaningful as the discount the bidder might offer if the bidder were assured of receiving a contract for Item 1 and 2 lamps upon selection as the lowest bidder. 3/ By assuring bidders that a single contract for Item 1 and 2 lamps will be awarded to a single bidder, the ITB creates an economic incentive for bidders to provide a meaningful discount on excluded items. Respondent frustrated the synergy intended by the ITB by applying the requirements for a fixed discount and for a single contract independently. Respondent penalized the bidder conforming to the requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items by awarding only a de minimis portion of the contract to the bidder. Respondent rewarded the bidder not conforming to the requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items by awarding substantially all of the contract to that bidder. If Respondent elects to purchase all excluded items from Petitioner, Respondent will have used the contract for Item 1 lamps to induce a meaningful discount from Petitioner without awarding Petitioner with the concomitant economic incentive intended by the ITB. Such a result frustrates the ITB's intent. Paragraph 5 Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 fails to explicate its proposed agency action. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5: leads to an absurd result; is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms of the ITB; and is inconsistent with Respondent's actions. Respondent's interpretation imbues paragraph 5 with limitless curative powers. Respondent's interpretation empowers paragraph 5 to cure the deletion of all General Conditions in the ITB whether stricken by pen or excised with scissors. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 would transform a bid containing no General Conditions into a responsive bid. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. Paragraph 5 operates to cure "additional" terms. It does not operate to restore deleted terms. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 is inconsistent with Respondent's actions. Respondent did not rely on paragraph 5 to cure Intervenor's deletions without further action. Respondent took further action to cure the deletions. Further Action On the morning of May 20, 1996, the purchasing analyst for Respondent telephoned Intervenor's regional sales manager. The purchasing analyst demanded that Intervenor accept the conditions Intervenor had deleted from its bid by submitting a letter of acceptance before the bid tabulations were posted at 4:00 p.m. on the same day. The regional sales manager contacted Intervenor's corporate headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. Intervenor authorized the regional sales manager to accept the deleted paragraphs. By letter faxed to Respondent at approximately 3:20 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Intervenor accepted the paragraphs it had previously deleted. The letter stated that, "GE Lighting [will accept] the Contract Conditions noted in Paragraphs 11 and 24 of the Lamp Quotation." [emphasis not supplied] At 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Respondent posted the bid tabulation form. The bid tabulation form stated that the "award is contingent upon General Electric's acceptance of all the terms in conditions (sic)" in the ITB. Respondent argues that the purchasing analyst who contacted Intervenor on the morning of May 20, 1996, exceeded her authority. Respondent characterizes the word "contingent" in the bid tabulation form as "poorly written" and a "bad word." Agency Construction Of ITB Terms Respondent construes terms in the ITB in a manner that is inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning. The ITB requires that, "The bidder [shall] offer a fixed discount from retail price list on all excluded items." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning the bidder may offer such a fixed discount if the bidder elects to do so. The purpose of the ITB is to establish "[a] 24 month contract" to supply large lamps to the state. [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that the purpose of the ITB is to establish two contracts. The ITB states that, "During the term of the contract established by this bid, all purchases of items [will] be made from [the] successful bidder." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that purchases of some items will be made from one successful bidder and that purchases of other items will be made from a second successful bidder. The ITB states that the contract "[shall] be made statewide on an all or none basis" to the responsive bidder who satisfies the conjunctive requirements for: "[the] lowest "Award Figure Item (1; [and] lowest Award figure for Item (2." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that separate contracts may be made statewide on less than an all or none basis to separate responsive bidders who satisfy the disjunctive requirements for either the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps or the lowest bid for Item 2 lamps, or both. The ITB requires offers to be submitted for all items listed within a group for a bid to qualify for evaluation. Respondent interprets the requirement as meaning that a bidder who does not qualify for evaluation for all of the groups in the contract nevertheless qualifies for evaluation for the contract. Finally, the ITB states that failure to comply with the formatting requirements for the diskette "[will] result in disqualification of your bid." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted language to mean that failure to comply with prescribed formatting requirements may result in disqualification of a bid. The interpretations of the quoted terms proposed by Respondent, individually and collectively, frustrate the purpose of the ITB. They also ignore material requirements of the ITB. Material Deviation Respondent deviated from the rule or standard fixed in the ITB in several respects. First, Respondent altered the bid evaluation procedure prescribed in the ITB. Second, Respondent ignored the requirement to award a single contract to a single bidder. Third, Respondent ignored the requirement that bidders provide a fixed discount on excluded items. Fourth, Respondent ignored the requirement to comply with the formatting requirements prescribed in the ITB. Each deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the ITB is a material deviation. Each deviation gives Intervenor a benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Each deviation affects the contract price and adversely impacts the interests of Respondent. 4/ 5.5(a) Benefit Not Enjoyed By Others Intervenor enjoyed a benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Intervenor obtained a competitive advantage and a palpable economic benefit. Respondent altered the bid evaluation procedure prescribed in the ITB. On the morning of May 20, 1996, Respondent disclosed the bid tabulations to Intervenor alone, 5/ gave Intervenor an opportunity that lasted most of the business day to determine whether it would elect to escape responsibility for its original bid, allowed Intervenor to cure the defects in its bid, accepted Intervenor's altered bid, and conditioned the bid tabulations on Intervenor's altered bid. Respondent used a bid evaluation procedure that is not prescribed in the ITB and did not allow other bidders to participate in such a procedure. 6/ In effect, Respondent rejected Intervenor's initial bid, with paragraphs 11 and 24 deleted, and made a counter offer to Intervenor to accept a bid with paragraphs 11 and 24 restored. Intervenor accepted Respondent's counter offer. Respondent excluded other bidders from that process. Respondent gave Intervenor an opportunity to determine whether it would elect: to escape responsibility for its original bid by declining Respondent's counter offer; or to perform in accordance with an altered bid by restoring paragraphs 11 and 24. A bidder able to elect not to perform in accordance with its bid has a substantial competitive advantage over other bidders unable to escape responsibility for their bids. 7/ Respondent awarded substantially all of the contract to Intervenor even though Intervenor failed to provide a meaningful discount on excluded items. Respondent provided Intervenor with a palpable economic benefit. 5.5(b) Bid Price And Adverse Impact On The State Respondent did not award a contract for excluded items. Respondent's proposed agency action allows Respondent to purchase excluded items from either Intervenor or Petitioner. If Respondent were to purchase all of the excluded items it needs from Intervenor, Respondent could pay substantially more for excluded items than Respondent would save from the five percent price advantage in Intervenor's bid for Item 1 lamps. In such a case, Respondent's proposed agency action would effectively increase costs to the state that are inherent, but not stated, in the ITB. 8/ Conversion of incorrectly formatted data to the required font shifts prices to incorrect columns and causes other problems in accessing information in the diskette. Such problems can not be rectified easily but require substantial time and effort. Responsive Bidder Respondent did not award the contract intended by the ITB to the lowest responsive bid. Although Intervenor's bid is the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps, it is not the lowest responsive bid for Item 1 and 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid is the lowest responsive bid for Item 1 and 2 lamps. 9/ Respondent is statutorily required to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder. 10/ Illegal Intervenor's bid is not responsive within the meaning of Sections 287.012(17), Florida Statutes (1995). 11/ It does not conform in all material respects to the ITB. Intervenor's unaltered bid deletes paragraphs 11 and 24. It does not include a fixed discount on excluded items, does not include a bid for Item 2 lamps, and does not conform to the formatting requirements in the ITB. Section 287.057 requires Respondent to award the contract to the bidder who submits the lowest responsive bid. Respondent has no authority either: to consider bids that are not responsive; or to award the contract to a bidder other than the lowest responsive bidder. Respondent's attempt to engage in either activity is ultra vires and illegal. Minor Irregularities The ITB encourages, but does require, bidders to include quantity discounts for Item 1 and 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid does not include quantity discounts. Petitioner's bid does not fail to conform to material requirements in the ITB. Petitioner does not manufacture Item 1 and 2 lamps. Sylvania manufactures the lamps Petitioner sells. Petitioner has no legal right to require Sylvania to allow inspection of its facilities pursuant to paragraph 11 of the General Conditions. Petitioner's ability to provide the requisite inspections requires the cooperation of Sylvania. Petitioner's bid requires payment by the state within 30 days of an invoice. Section 215.422 and the ITB provide that Respondent has 40 days to issue warrants in payment of contract debts and that interest does not accrue until after 40 days. The defects in Petitioner's bid are minor irregularities within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60A-1.001(16). 12/ They neither affect the bid price, give Petitioner a competitive advantage, nor adversely impact Respondent's interests. Petitioner has the practical ability to arrange inspection's of Sylvania's facilities. Petitioner is legally responsible for failing to do so. Respondent's employees have never visited Sylvania's facilities during the 10 years in which Petitioner has been the contract vendor to the state. The requirement for payment within 30 days does not obviate the provisions of Section 215.422. Private contracts can not alter mutually exclusive statutory provisions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's protest of Respondent's proposed agency action. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1996.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 10, 1979, HRS caused a legal advertisement to be published concerning its Purchase Order No. 52579, requesting bids for window film installation pursuant to HRS Bid No. 30-497WR. The Invitation to Bid provided, in part, that: As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none or a combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. When it is determined there is competition to the lowest responsive bidder, then other bids may not be evaluated. Bidders are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their bid has been evaluated as being responsive. Among the special conditions of the Invitation to Bid was the following: The successful bidder will furnish and install window insulation film on all glass exposures of buildings designated as one through eight with the exception of these [sic] windows now having film installed. These buildings are commonly known as the Winewood Complex which is located at One Winewood Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Subleased or other occupied space will be an addition to the basic glass square footage of buildings five, six, seven and eight now occupied by the Department of Corrections, Winewood Office Park Lmtd. and the Parole and Probation Commission. Prospective bidders will be provided these applicable locations by the project manager. The bid will contain a diagram and listing of these square footages. The computations of total square footages of applicable glass areas will be separated by buildings. This is necessary so that after the installation of the film on each building is completed and accepted by the project manager, an invoice can be submitted for payment. [Emphasis added]. In addition, tee following clause was also contained in the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid: All work performed by the Contractor in completing the subject project shall be guaranteed by the Contractor against all defect resulting from the use of materials, equipment and workmanship for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the subject project. If, within any guarantee period, repairs or changes are required in connection with the guarantee work, which in the opinion of the Owner is rendered necessary as a result of the use of materials, equipment or workmanship which are defective or inferior or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Contractor shall, promptly upon receipt of notice from the Owner and without expense to the Owner, proceed to: Place in satisfactory condition in very [sic] particular all of such guaranteed work, correct all defects therein; and make good all damages to the structure or contents thereof, which in the opinion of the Owner, is the result of the use of materials, equipment, or workmanship which are inferior, defective, or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and made [sic] good any work or materials or the equipment and contects [sic] of structures or site disturbed in fulfilling any such guarantee. [Emphasis added]. The Special Conditions also provided that: No interpretation of the meaning of the Drawings, specifications, or other Bidding Documents, no correction of any apparent ambitquity [sic], inconsistency or error therein, will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Project Manager. All such interpretations and supplemental instruction will be in the form of written addenda to the Bidding Documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Project Manager in writing, shall be binding and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret the Bidding Documents. Finally, the Invitation to Bid also provided for modification of bids if received in writing prior to bid opening. HRS distributed more than 25 bid invitations pursuant to the aforementioned bid, and in response thereto received four bids, one of which was a "no bid". Of the three remaining bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee submitted a total bid of $34,624.88, based upon a measurement of 29,096 square feet at a price of $1.19 per square foot; Florida Solar Power, Inc. submitted a total bid of $30,079.14, based upon 30,693 square feet at $.98 per square foot; and, finally, Petitioner submitted a total bid of $43,555.10 based upon a calculation of 37,874 square feet at $1.15 per square foot. The bids of Solar-X of Tallahassee and Florida Solar Power, Inc. were determined to be unresponsive to the Invitation to Bid for reasons not here pertinent. Although Petitioner's bid contained a total square footage on which it proposed to install window film, the bid did not break down the area of glass on a per-building basis as required by the conditions of the Invitation to Bid. In addition, the conditions of the Invitation to Bid required that building space occupied by sublessors be separately computed in bid responses in order to attempt to pass on to those sublessors their pro-rata share of the cost. Petitioner did not separate this space in its bid as required. Petitioner also failed to furnish with its bid a diagram of exposed glass area in each building as required in the special conditions. Finally, Petitioner's bid response contained the following warranty provision: . . .3M Company and the [Petitioner] warrants [sic] "SCOTCHING" Brand Solar Control films against peeling, cracking, crazing, or loosening for a period of five (5) years after installation in the event the product is found to be defective under this warranty. [Petitioner] will replace such quantity of the film proved to be defective with the [Petitioner] additionally providing the reapplication labor free of charge for the first two (2) years of the warranty. The customer shall pay for any reapplication labor charges during the last three (3) years of the warranty. . .[Emphasis added]. At final hearing, a representative of Petitioner testified that this warranty was the manufacturer's warranty, and that Petitioner, as the seller of the product, intended that full warranty protection in accordance with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid be part of Petitioner's bid. However, nothing to this affect appears in Petitioner's bid, nor did Petitioner attempt to modify its bid in writing before bid opening to make HRS aware of its intentions in this regard. Although bid opening was initially scheduled for August 24, 1979, the opening date was extended to September 4, 1979, by addendum to the Invitation to Bid. After opening, bids ware reviewed by the staff of the Director of the Office of General Service in HRS for technical compliance with the Invitation to Bid. As a result of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid was the only bid submitted which complied with all provisions of the bid specifications, and the staff, therefore, recommended award of the contract to Petitioner. At this point the question of the award of the contract came to the attention of the Purchasing Director of HRS's Central General Services, whose office is responsible for evaluation of bids for compliance with the terms and conditions of an Invitation to Bid, state purchasing law and administrative rules relating to state commodity purchases. During the course of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid did not comply with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid in that it failed to break down its bid on a per-building basis and, additionally, improperly qualified the five-year warranty requirement contained in the Invitation to Bid and its conditions. At the Federal hearing in this cause the Purchasing Director for Central General Services also testified that he had received oral communications from other vendors, some of whom submitted bids and some who did not, to the effect that the technical specifications of the Invitation to Bid were tailored to the products sold by Petitioner to such an extent as to effectively close the bidding process to competition. None of these vendors protested the content of the specifications as required in the Invitation to Bid, nor was any direct testimony adduced at final hearing in this cause from these vendors. Although the Division of Purchasing of the Department of General Services also concluded that the bid specifications were too restrictive, there is insufficient evidence in the record in this proceeding upon which to base a conclusion that the specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid were either tailored to Petitioner's product, or were so restrictive as to limit competitive bidding. Indeed, one of the actual bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee, submitted a bid which complied with the technical specifications, but was rejected because it included an unacceptable contingency clause for late delivery. After extensive in-house review by various HRS employees, a letter dated October 4, 1979, was forwarded to all vendors advising that HRS, after ". . .an extensive analysis of the bid responses. . ." had decided to reject all bids and issue a second call for bids. This letter also indicated that ". . .areas of concern which were expressed relative to the initial invitation will be addressed in the second call." The letter did not attempt to further identify the "areas of concern." The facts of record in this proceeding clearly establish that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not include in its bid a diagram of each building on which window film was to be installed, nor did the bid indicate the number of square feet contained in each building. The two vendors whose bids were rejected apparently had no difficulty complying with this requirement. As a result, HRS was precluded from comparing the per-building cost of the competing bids, and, had the contract been awarded to Petitioner, HRS could not have determined the proper amount of periodic progress segments without performing independent measurement. Most importantly, however, Petitioner improperly qualified the five- year warranty provision contained in the Special Conditions. Petitioner's bid, on its face, limited its responsibility to replacement of defective window film during the five-year warranty period, and required that HRS be responsible for payment of labor charges for reinstallation during the last three years of the warranty period. This warranty qualification was clearly contrary to the requirement that any product replacement or reinstallation be without expense to HRS for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the project. There was extensive testimony at final hearing concerning allegations by Petitioner of improper conduct on the part of the HRS Purchasing Director for Central General Services which allegedly resulted in the decision to reject all bids and submit a second call for bids. Testimony on this issue involved Petitioner's assertion that the HRS employee's relationship by marriage to one of the unsuccessful bidders led to his conclusion that the technical specifications were so narrowly drawn as to preclude a consideration of his relative's product, and that the specifications should be redrafted so as to allow consideration of products other than Petitioner's. In light of the fact that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid, in that it improperly qualified the warranty required, and did not contain square footage computations on a per-building basis, it is unnecessary to reach the question of the propriety of any conduct on the part of the HRS employee. The propriety of the rejection of Petitioner's bid was determined by Petitioner's failure to comply with the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid, and could not have been affected by the alleged misconduct on the part of an employee of HRS. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 28, 1987, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) mailed its Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 88-32BC to prospective bidders. According to the Special Bid Conditions of ITB No. 88- 32BC, the stated purpose of the ITB was "to obtain competitive bid prices from Vendors/Contractors for the purchase and installation of Open Office Partitions/Furnishings and related accessories for use by the department's ABUSE REGISTRY, located in the East Wing, 2729 Fort Knox Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32308." Included among the responses to the ITB were bids by International Interiors, Inc., (International), by Perdue Office Interiors, Inc., (Perdue), by Executive Office Supply, Inc. (Executive), and by Haworth. The construction of the future HRS office space in the East Wing of 2729 Fort Knox Blvd. was coordinated between the owner and HRS to accommodate the needs of the HRS Abuse Registry. The space will be used by qualified HRS personnel and support staff to receive and maintain telephone reports of child abuse and related complaints. HRS consulted with the owner's architect to determine the ultimate floor plan of the HRS space in the building and then consulted an interior design expert to determine how HRS could best utilize the space for the purposes of the Abuse Registry through these efforts, HRS designed an office interior consisting of a system of partitions and furniture. The interior design was reduced to a blue print or design drawing specifying gross dimensions as well as the particular dimensions of offices, partition panels, hallways, work space (desk tops), related components of the system and the particular location of building support columns and electrical power poles. The ITB included a design drawing and provided in pertinent part in its Special Bid Conditions: DESIGN: This project has a limited amount of space with fixed walls and fixed dimensions as given on the architectural drawing. Each vendor must guarantee his system will fit into the space without any violation of Florida Building Codes. Design Drawings and a Component Listing have been included in each bid package so that each vendor will have the equal opportunity to evaluate the project as a whole as well as by its parts. All dimensions are listed as nominal dimensions since various manufacturers' component varys [sic] somewhat in exact dimensional sizes. Surface materials and colors will be selected from the successful vendor's line after the award of the bid has been made. SITE EXAMINATION: The area to be used by the Abuse Registry is located on the main floor, east wing, 2729 Fort Knox Blvd., in Tallahassee, Florida 32308. The site has existing walls, columns, door entrances, etc., which will have to be taken into consideration when integrating your open office system into the design scheme. It is the responsibility of the vendor to inspect the premises and familiarize himself with all of these on-site conditions. A floor plan has been provided for reference only, and any specific analysis or dimensioning should be made on site by the vendor. Contact Mr. DeVoe Moore to schedule a tour of the work site. (904) 656-6211. Failure to consider on-site conditions may result in disqualification of the bid. The Technical Specifications provide in pertinent part: All dimensions in this component listing has [sic] been provided for the purpose of fulfilling the overall dimension requirements as shown in the furniture plan. Variations from these will occur between different manufacturer's products. In providing dimensions other than those listed, it is critical to maintain a minimum hall clearance of 4'0" or code requirement and to work within the given permanent walls. (Emphasis added.) International's bid was the lowest at $211,523.96. But HRS disqualified it as nonconforming because cursory review, as well as International's own design drawing furnished with its bid, showed that International's proposal would intrude three feet into a four foot hallway around the perimeter of the office space which is required, and is required to be four feet wide, by the applicable building codes and the State Fire Marshal. HRS' disqualification of the International bid on that ground was erroneous under the facts presented at final hearing. The intrusion of the International proposal into the required hallway was due to International's error in configuring the partition panels for purposes of the design drawing. No other bidder even included a design drawing, which was not required by the ITB. The apparent intrusion of the International proposal into the hallway is easily corrected by swapping 66" partition panels that had been placed along the length of the office space for purposes of preparing International's design drawing with 48" partition panels that had been placed perpendicular to the 66" panels. With this new configuration, the International bid fits into the gross dimensions of the HRS office space without any loss of work space or cabinet space as a result of the reconfiguration. 3/ However, International's Shaw/Walker product has partition panels that are 3" thick. (The ITB calls for partition panels that are at least 2" thick. See Finding Of Fact 15, below.) At least in part for that reason, International cannot fit as much Shaw/Walker furniture into the HRS office space as specified in the HRS design drawing. To fit the Shaw/Walker product into the space, International substituted 42" corner desk tops for the 48" corner desk tops specified in the Technical Specifications of the ITB in 36 of the 60 office cubicles in the design drawing. This results in a loss of 6" of desk top on either side of those corner desk tops, a total of 6 square feet of desk top in each affected cubicle, and reduces the size of those 36 office cubicles from 64 to less than 58 square feet. Neither Executive nor Perdue had to vary from the Technical Specifications, and they will be able to duplicate the HRS design drawing without losing desk top surface area or office cubicle square footage. If it knew it could have put together an acceptable bid offering less work space, Perdue could have done so at a lower cost and therefore at a lower bid price. Under the ITB, the dimensions of the individual components were nominal, but the assembly of components to reproduce the overall dimensions of the furniture plan on the HRS design drawing was a mandatory bid specification. Although it was the lowest in price, International's bid must be disqualified as unresponsive. As between Perdue and Executive, Executive made the lower bid by only approximately $235, $228,000 to $228,235.36. However, Executive's bid departs from the Technical Specifications in several significant respects. The Special Bid Conditions of the ITB provides in pertinent part: SYSTEM QUALITY - BRAND NAMES: It is the intent of the solicitation that the successful bidder provide modular furnishing comparable-in quality to: Haworth Steelcase Shaw/Walker HRS approved equivalent The department considers that the above furnishings establish standards for comparison and identify levels of quality for design of materials, methods of fabrication and assembly. The department retains the right to determine the acceptability of systems not mentioned above. Bidders proposing systems and components as alternates to those identified above must submit a request for pre-qualification to include complete descriptive literature and a list of current installations. (Emphasis added.) Executive pre-qualified the Westinghouse Furniture Systems' Wes Group product which it bid. The Westinghouse furniture generally is comparable in overall quality to the three specified products -- Haworth, Steelcase and Shaw/Walker. However, the Haworth, Steelcase and Shaw/Walker products were specified not only because of their overall quality but also because HRS, through its consultant, understood that they would meet the requirements of the Technical Specifications of the ITB. The ITB does not state or suggest that its Technical Specifications are waived by pre-qualification of an "equivalent" product. HRS had several major concerns, in addition to the furniture design or floor plan, in putting this project out for bid. Due to the number of people who would be doing primarily telephone work in an open office environment, one primary concern was for high quality acoustical panels. Under "Power And Communication Panels," the Technical Specifications of the ITB state in pertinent part: Acoustical fabric panels shall maintain a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of .90 or greater and an STC rating of at least 29. The higher the acoustical rating of a partition panel, the higher its cost. Therefore, if a bidder could reduce the acoustical rating, it could afford to make a more price competitive bid. For that reason, Perdue telephoned HRS' consultant before submitting its bid to ask if the acoustical rating was "critical" and was told that it was. Perdue bid Steelcase product, including partition panels that conform to the requirements of the Technical Specifications instead of its lower cost, lower rated panels. Executive bid partition panels with an NRC rating of only .80 and an STC rating of only 27. Another major concern of HRS was for quality, durable construction so that HRS could expect to get years of satisfactory use of the furniture system it was purchasing. For this reason, the "Power And Communication Panels" section of the Technical Specification also provides in part: "All panels shall have a minimum 2" all-steel frame." Steelcase partition panels meet the specification; Westinghouse panel frames are only 1 1/2" thick. HRS also wanted to be sure that the office furniture system it was purchasing would be able to accommodate the need for its Abuse Registry personnel to work with a variety of electrically-operated equipment, including computer equipment. Under "Electrical Panels," the Technical Specifications of the ITB provide in pertinent part: "Panels shall have the capability of distributing four 20 amp circuits, one isolated; UL listed." The Westinghouse panels Executive bid have the capability of distributing only three 20 amp circuits (without additional electrical components.) Meanwhile, Perdue's bid meets this specification, too. When Perdue telephoned to inquire about the acoustical specification, it also asked if this electrical specification was critical, and the HRS consultant confirmed that it was. Therefore, Perdue bid higher priced panels that meet the specifications instead of lower priced panels comparable to the Westinghouse panels Executive bid. Both Perdue's and Executive's bid had some other minor non- conformities. Perdue's Steelcase overhead cabinets operate by a nylon glide with metal scissor hinge instead of by a ball bearing hinge, as specified, and its panel tackboards are 15 1/2" x 30" instead of 24" x 30", as specified. But Executive's Westinghouse partition panels have adjustable glides on the post by which the panels are connected instead of two adjustable glides on each panel, as specified (assuming panel-to-panel connections). Because it does not meet critical aspects of the Technical Specifications of the ITB, the Executive bid must be disqualified as unresponsive. The Haworth bid also was responsive but was for approximately $270,000, far above the others. Perdue's bid, as the lowest responsive bid, should be awarded the contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order (1) granting the bid protests of both International and Perdue insofar as they protest the award of HRS Bid 88-32BC to Executive on the ground that the Executive bid is unresponsive, (2) denying the International protest insofar as it seeks the award of HRS Bid 88-32BC on the ground that it too is unresponsive, and (3) granting the bid protest of Perdue also insofar as it seeks the award of HRS Bid 88-32BC because Perdue is the lowest responsive bidder. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of January, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board), may reject all bids as proposed for Bid No. 2002-02-FC, Group A1, or whether such action is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the entity charged with the responsibility of governing the public schools within the Broward County School District. As such, the acquisition of school properties and attendant improvements fall within the Board's legal authority. These cases involve the procurement of relocatable buildings suitable for classroom purposes. Pursuant to its authority, on or about December 27, 2002, the Respondent issued a bid that is the subject matter of the instant challenge. The bid, identified in this record as Bid 2002-02-FC, sought proposals for the procurement of district-wide relocatable buildings. In a prior time these buildings were known as "portable classrooms" or "portables." In the post-Hurricane Andrew world, these structures are now pre-engineered and constructed of concrete or steel (or a hybrid of both) and must be, by design, capable of being relocated to various sites. The Petitioners, Royal and Padula jointly, and the Intervenor, James B. Pirtle Construction Company, Inc. (Pirtle or Intervenor), design, construct, and install such structures. In these cases the bid sought several distinct proposals. First, the project sought vendors who would provide and deliver concrete relocatable buildings (Group A1). Group A2 (not at issue in this proceeding) sought steel relocatable buildings. Group B (also not at issue in the instant case) sought site adaptation prices for landscaping, lighted covered walkways, steps, ramps, and other engineering incidental to the installation of the buildings. The advertisement for the bid carried the same generic information as to all groups. The bid documents also contained many terms that were applicable to all groups. Pertinent to the issues of these cases are the following excerpts from the bid document (Joint Exhibit 2). The order of the excerpts should not suggest any significance. The excerpts are listed in this manner solely for convenience sake: BASIS OF AWARD In order to meet the needs of the school system . . . each Award will be . . . up to three responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. Individual projects will be issued . . . based upon lowest cost among one or more bidders per project as determined by the project manager. Therefore, it is necessary to bid on every item in the group, and all items in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on Document 00410 Bid Form. SBBC [the Respondent] reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) work may be issued to multiple contractors if in the opinion of The School Board of Broward County, Florida or its staff the work cannot be completed by a single contractor in the specified time such as a Summer, Winter or Spring Break or if it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. ARTICLE 4 BIDDING PROCEDURES 4.01 FORM AND STYLE OF BIDS A. Bids shall be submitted on forms identical to Document 00410, Bid Form, and other standard forms included with the Bidding Documents. The following documents are required to be submitted with the Bid: * * * SIGNED SEALED ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS OF THE STRUCTURES TO BE PROVIDED (FOR RELOCATABLE BUILDINGS BID ONLY) 5.03 REJECTION OF BIDS AND IRREGULAR PROPOSALS * * * The Owner shall have the right to reject any or all Bids, reject a Bid not accompanied by a required bid security, good faith deposit, or by other data required by the Bid Documents, or reject a Bid which is in any way incomplete, irregular or otherwise not Responsive. The Owner may waive any formality in the bid requirements and award or not award the contract in the best interests of The School Board of Broward County, Florida. (Emphasis in original not shown) In addition to the foregoing, the bid documents contained detailed and specific design criteria that set forth information such as the slope of roofs, the roof spans, the mechanical systems, ventilation, plumbing, windows, and stoops. These design criteria covered hundreds of topics and encompassed virtually every facet of the structures. To review each bid proposal as to whether each design specification was met would require countless man-hours. The issue of how to review the bid proposals was not adequately anticipated by the Respondent. From the outset the bid document evolved from unusual circumstances. Whether the bid document was intended to be a request for proposals (RFP) or an invitation to bid (ITB) was a primary confusion among the Board's staff. If the proposals were to be deemed responsive or not and then ranked solely on price (thus making the bid process more like an ITB) how could staff effectively determine the threshold question of responsiveness? If the proposals were to be ranked based upon a point or qualitative approach (more like an RFP) where were the criteria by which to score the proposals? In fact, there were no objective criteria disclosed in the bid document by which a proposal could be evaluated. More curious is that no bidder brought this lack of evaluation criteria to the Board's attention during the mandatory bidder's conference. Moreover, no one challenged the bid specifications. Presumably, the bidders believed it was an "all or nothing" award. That is, if they were the lowest responsive bidder, they would receive the award. The question of who would be responsive and how that decision would be resolved did not come to light until after the bids had been opened. At the mandatory bidders' conference conducted on January 14, 2003, the bidders posed questions in the form of requests for information. In response, the Respondent issued six addenda intended to cover the questions posed. None of the responses addressed how the bid proposals would be evaluated. If anything, Addendum No. 3 added to confusion related to what documents must be submitted with the bid proposal. More specifically, Addendum No. 3 provided, in pertinent part: [Addendum 3, question and response to inquiry] 9. Can schematics be submitted with the bid instead of the signed and sealed architectural and engineering design drawings of the structures that are requested in Document Article 4.01.A.6? Response: Signed and Sealed Architectural/Structural Drawings are required to be submitted with the Bid. The Requirement for Mechanical and Electrical signed and sealed drawing is waived, however all engineering associated with the Relocatable Buildings will require engineer of record signed and sealed drawings and calculations prior to issuance of building permit DRC review. Nevertheless, when the bid proposals were opened on March 4, 2003, the Petitioners and the Intervenor were found to be the three lowest bidders. If responsive, the Intervenor would be considered the lowest bidder with the Petitioners being considered alternate vendors for the procurement. Unsatisfied with the preliminary determination that the Intervenor was the lowest bidder, the Petitioners timely challenged the bid award. The Petitioners maintained that the Intervenor had not timely provided sealed design drawings as required by the bid document. Petitioners argued that the Intervenor had attempted to impermissibly amend their proposal by late-filing a set of structural drawings for the bid. Thus the initial bid protest sought to determine what design drawings were required by the bid and whether the Intervenor had timely supplied such drawings. The Petitioners contended that the Intervenor's submittal should be rejected as non-responsive to the bid. Whether they had complied with the full dictates of the bid requirements was potentially at issue as well. While the initial bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for formal hearing, the parties continued to attempt to resolve the issues. It was apparent that the bidders had not submitted identical proposals. How the proposed products had been compared and evaluated was difficult to determine. From the Respondent's committee members came the disclosure that the decision of determining whether the bidders had complied with the bid ultimately came from three fashioned questions. If the structure proposed was pre- engineered, relocatable to various sites, and suitable for educational purposes, the entry was deemed responsive. Based upon this assessment the Petitioners and the Intervenor were deemed responsive and their bids ranked based upon price. This approach did nothing to discern if the designs were comparable in quality, if they met the bid design criteria, or if the drawings were even sufficient to comply with the dictates of the bid. The first posting of the bid award for Group A1 was entered March 18, 2003. On March 21, 2003, the Petitioners timely filed their notices of intent to protest the award of Group A1 to the Intervenor. Thereafter they timely filed the petitions to protest the award and the initial protest was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The protests did not encompass Group A2 or Group B. No bidder protested the proposed awards for Group A2 or Group B. In fact, the Respondent went forward on those procurements and awarded contracts for those groups on April 1, 2003. The Respondent did not award the contract award for the Group at issue in this proceeding. It must be noted that the instant procurement is not the Board's first experience with the procurement of concrete relocatable classrooms. In fact, the Board has purchased similar structures through a procurement contract that the Palm Beach County School Board holds with its vendors. One of the Respondent's concerns when the instant bids were reviewed was why the cost per unit for the bids in this case was higher than the Palm Beach County amount. As it turned out, the installation economy of multiple units at one site directly impacts the cost of the relocatable structures. Royal confirmed this information after the bids had been opened. When the Respondent's staff met with its counsel in preparation for the initial bid dispute (before the Board elected to reject all bids) the cost of the bid, the lack of full evaluation of the bidders' proposals, and the issues of the first protest were openly discussed. By that time any irregularities with the bid documents could not be repaired as to the contracts already awarded, but as to the instant matter the Respondent could revisit the circumstances and determine its best course. As a result of that reassessment, the Respondent elected to reject all bids regarding this group and attempt to re-bid the procurement with more certain terms. To that end on May 9, 2003, the Respondent issued a revised bid decision that provided in pertinent part: The Facilities and Construction Management Division intends to recommend that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, at the School Board meeting on June 3, 2003, reject all bids received for Group A1 and authorize revising the bidding documents and re-bidding. The rejection of all bids received for Group A1 is made due to serious flaws and ambiguities contained in Document 00200 4.01.A-6 as modified by Addendum No. 3. The Division intends to revise the bidding documents to delete the requirements that bidders submit plans with the bids; include ranges of unit quantities within the bid form; include one or more additional types of construction of the classroom buildings including a composite concrete/steel structure; and incorporate within the new Invitation to Bid all revised terms and conditions that were released through addenda in this procurement. The Petitioners timely filed protests regarding this new decision by the Board and the instant action ensued. By issuing the revised decision to reject all bids the Respondent intended to resolve all issues and to cure the perceived problem with the lack of consistent evaluation of the bidders' proposals. More specifically, the Respondent would be able to assure that the project design could comport with the specifications sought; specify whether architectural or engineering drawings were required and when (it was hoped that the confusion over "architect" vs. "engineer" could be eliminated); and obtain a substantial discount based upon economies from multi-unit purchases for a single site. None of the objectives sought were pre-textual or contrived. Additionally, by avoiding any process that would require a detailed reviewed of the bidders' proposals, countless man- hours could be saved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a Final Order affirming the decision to reject all bids in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November 2003 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Usher Larry Brown, Esquire Brown, Salzman, Weiss & Garganese, P.A. 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Orlando, Florida 32801 Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esquire Schwarzberg & Associates Esperante, Suite 210 222 Lakeview Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Thomas R. Shahady, Esquire Adorno & Yoss, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue In this case, Petitioner has challenged Respondent's choice of responsive low bidders related to bid solicitation for contracts pertaining to four classes of diesel engine rebuild programs. In particular, Petitioner alleges that in all four classes the low bidder, and in two instances, the second low bidder, in settings in which the Petitioner was second low bidder or third low bidder respectively, have failed to meet specifications and are not entitled to the award of contracts. Petitioner asserts that it can meet the terms of the contract and was prepared to meet those contract terms upon the Respondent's opening of the bids. Petitioner questions Respondent's failure to confirm that each prospective bidder was capable of meeting each specification within the bid solicitation document prior to bid opening or, at the latest, at the point when the bids were opened. Concomitantly, Petitioner contends that it was inherently unfair for the Respondent to confirm the ability of the low bidders to comply with the specifications following bid opening and in the face of challenges to the qualifications of the apparent low bidders offered by unsuccessful bidders.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, invited bids from forty firms related to a program for rebuilding certain diesel engines owned by the Department. These firms were initially seen to have the necessary expertise to provide the rebuild service. There were 16 specific types of engines which the Department wished to have rebuilt pursuant to separate contracts. There was a seventeenth category which dealt with miscellaneous types of engines described as "others." The bid document set forth that those individuals who were interested in submitting bids for the diesel engine rebuild program must be able to comply with a number of requirements. Among those requirements was the requirement in the section of the bid documents pertaining to engine rebuild specifications which, under the subsection for parts and services, indicated that "the Contractor must rebuild the engine according to the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) rebuild procedures and specifications." Furthermore, the bidders were to comply with certain facility requirements, which were: * * * The Contractors facility must have the following minimum machine equipment and tools: Vat-type hot tank for engine block cleaning Magnaflux machine (minimum 2000 amp hr) Connecting rod reconditioners Pin boring machine Flywheel surfacer Cylinder boring and honing equipment Engine block align boring machine Surfacer for heads and blocks Dynomometer OEM specified service tooling for engine series quoted OEM service manuals for engine series quoted It was noted in the specifications pertaining to necessary facility requirements that the machinery must have the capacity to perform the work on the engines that were specified in the bid solicitation. Finally, it was a requirement that the subcontracting work meet this restriction: All machine and rebuilding work must be performed in the Contractors shop, with the exception of fuel pump and fuel injector rebuilding, and crankshaft and camshaft grinding. Requirements set forth in the previous paragraph did not indicate whether it was necessary for the bidder to have the service items on hand at the time that the bid responses were offered, at the time the bid opening was conducted, or at the point at which a written contract was entered into between the Department and a successful bidder or before commencing the work. The assumption on the part of the Department employee who was responsible for the bid solicitation process was to the effect that bidders would be considered in compliance with these requirements if they were able to comply with all conditions at the point at which the contract documents were executed between the successful bidder and the Department or before service work commenced. This interpretation was given by Mark Sawicki, who was responsible for arranging to have the Department's diesel engines rebuilt. Sawicki did not feel that any attempt at prequalification by inspection of the forty prospective bidders was in the best interests of the Department. He felt that an attempt at prequalification of forty potential bidders was an extravagance which the Department could not afford. Having described the requirements that the Department had in mind through the bid document, Sawicki assumed that the contractors whom he had preselected without inspecting their facilities could meet specifications if they responded to the bid solicitation. When the bids were opened on June 17, 1986, eleven separate bidders had responded to the invitation. Some of the bidders responded to each category of engine sought for contract and others responded to select categories. Petitioner offered its response to all but one category of engines. It was not the apparent low bidder in any category. In its protest, Petitioner has questioned the Department's intent to award contracts to the apparent low bidders in the engine classes number 3208, number 1150, number 1160 and the miscellaneous category described as "others." The apparent low bidder in the engine class number 3208 was Coastal Power. In the miscellaneous class of engines, the apparent low bidder was First Coast Truck. In those two engine classes, the Petitioner was shown to be the second low bidder. In the engine class numbers 1150 and 1160, the apparent low bidder was Coastal Power, the second low bidder in those engine categories was Zabatt and Petitioner was the third low bidder. Sawicki made an inspection of the facilities of Coastal Power on June 19, 1985, and confirmed that the low bidder had the requisite facility to comply with the requirements of the bid document pertaining to machinery, etc. for the engine classes in dispute. Sawicki also confirmed that the Zabatt facility met requirements. Inspection of Zabatt was made on June 19, 1986. Although the Dynomometer available to Zabatt was in a facility next door, the Dynomometer would be operated only by personnel from Zabatt and was accessible to Zabatt routinely. After bids were opened, another employee from the Department made similar efforts at confirmation of the acceptability of the facility at First Coast to rebuild the miscellaneous class of engine. The president of First Coast Truck has also given an indication of its equipment in correspondence addressed to the Department on July 10, 1986. It was not established at what point in time these companies were first able to meet the requirements related to facilities and equipment, whether it be at the point of offering their responses to the bid advertisement, at the point of bid opening or on the day that the facilities were inspected by employees of the Department. Obviously, these bidders could have met the bid requirements for facilities and equipment prior to contracts' being completed between the successful bidders and the Department, in that contracts have not been executed pending the outcome of this hearing. No competent evidence was presented which identified what equipment Petitioner had on hand to comply with the bid requirements or when the equipment was acquired.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation sought bid proposals for mechanical sweeping on three road projects identified as Project No. 87906-9175, Project No. 87906-9176 and Project No. 87906-9177, which involve street sweeping in Dade County, Florida. The contract documents provided that a mandatory pre-bid conference would be held in Miami on August 7, 1986. The purpose of the pre-bid conference was to answer any questions the contractors might have to assure that the contractors understood the full scope of each of the contracts and to assure the Department that it would receive responsible bids. Two prospective bidders attended the pre-bid conference: Dave Smith & Company and Power Sweeping Services, Inc. Charles Larry Roberts attended the pro-bid conference on the three subject projects as the sole representative of Dave Smith & Company. Florida Sweeping, Petitioner herein, did not exist at the time of the pro-bid conference. Roberts was in attendance at the pro-bid conference from the beginning until the end of the conference. The pre-bid conference would not have been conducted in a different manner had Roberts signed in as agent for Petitioner rather than as agent for Dave Smith & Company. Although there was a mandatory pro-bid conference requirement, the contracts were routine in nature. Prior to the bids being submitted for the subject contracts, the relationship between Dave Smith & Company and Roberts was terminated. Other than the attendance by Roberts at the pre-bid conference, Roberts did not participate in the preparation of the bids on behalf of Dave Smith & Company. After Roberts and Dave Smith & Company terminated their relationship, Roberts chose to submit bids for the contracts himself under the name of Florida Sweeping. Subsequent to the pro-bid conference, Roberts went to the Department and picked up the bid specifications for the three projects, signing his own name as the party receiving the packages. Laurel Bryan, the District Contracts Coordinator, was aware that Roberts signed his own name in picking up the bid specifications. In response to the Department's request for bids, bids were submitted on all three projects on behalf of three bidders: Dave Smith & Company, Power Sweeping Services, Inc., and Petitioner. At the time scheduled for bid opening, Roberts delivered to Bryan the three bids on behalf of Petitioner, at which time they were accepted by Bryan who knew that while Roberts had in fact attended the pre-bid conference, he did not attend the conference in the capacity of representative of Petitioner. She also knew that Roberts had previously bid on other similar projects. At the time the bids were submitted and accepted, they were in sealed envelopes and Bryan was unaware as to which of the three bidders was the low bidder. At the time of the bid opening, the Department made no inquiry as to whether the Dave Smith & Company bids were prepared with the benefit of Roberts' attendance at the pre-bid conference. The bids submitted by all three bidders were opened on August 14, 1986, and tabulated, disclosing that Petitioner was the low bidder with respect to all three contracts. The Department admits that attendance by Roberts at the pre-bid conference as representative of a company other than Petitioner would not affect his ability to bid for and to perform the work under the subject contracts. On August 18, 1986, the Department of Transportation advised Petitioner that its bid proposals had been declared nonresponsive and irregular for two reasons: (a) Petitioner did not send a representative to the mandatory pre-bid conference; and (b) Petitioner did not present adequate proof of ability to obtain a performance bond. Part of the bidding specifications included a document entitled "Instructions to All Bidders". Paragraph 4 of "Instructions to All Bidders" reads as follows: 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 OF THE MINI-CONTRACT GENERAL: SPECIFICATIONS, ALL BIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND. AS PROOF, ALL BIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTARIZED LETTER FROM A BONDING COMPANY, BANK OR OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION STATING THAT THEY INTEND TO ISSUE A BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID, WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT, SHOULD YOUR FIRM BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT. Petitioner with respect to each contract, submitted a notarized letter dated August 12, 1986, from A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited. A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited, is a financial institution. The letter stated that A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited, would "cash" bond any contracts awarded to Petitioner by the State of Florida. Although the Department of Transportation's written requirement concerns a bond from either a surety or insurance company, or from a bank or other financial institution, a cash bond is acceptable to the Department. It is, therefore, not necessary that a bond be provided by a surety. After rejection of Petitioner's bids, the Department determined that Power Sweeping Services, Inc., was the lowest responsible bidder. The bid from Power Sweeping Services, Inc., includes a letter from William Douglas & Associates, an independent insurance agent, as the letter intended to comply with the bonding letter requirement of the Instruction to Bidders. That letter states in part: With regard to Item #1, Qualifying Bonding Company, I have been advised by the present carrier, Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company that they do not anticipate any problems in issuing the Payment and Performance Bond in the total aggregate amount of $158,915.70, which consists of the following . . . . The bond letters submitted with the Power Sweeping Services, Inc., bids are not notarized and do not bind any bonding company, bank, other financial institution or even Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company, to issue a bond for Power Sweeping. The Department accepted the letter from William Douglas & Associates, Inc., as opposed to requiring a letter directly from Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company due to the fact that Bryan had prior independent knowledge of the agent as she had dealt with the agent on previous occasions. If Bryan had any questions about the William Douglas & Associates, Inc., letter, she would have called the agent. Although Bryan could not read the signature on the letter from William Douglas & Associates, Inc., she felt she could recognize the signature of a Mr. Savoie on behalf of William Douglas & Associates, Inc., by virtue of her previous dealings with him. The Department rejected Petitioner's letter from A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, for the following reasons: (a) because Bryan could not read the signature of the person who signed it; and (b) because Bryan did not know the cities or countries or islands where the company was located, did not see a recognizable to her address on the letter, and did not see a recognizable to her telephone number with a three digit area code and a seven digit number. Bryan did not ask Roberts at the bid opening or at any subsequent time where A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, was located, whether A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, was a financial institution, or how A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, could be contacted by telephone. The only reasons why Petitioner's bids were rejected were the two specific reasons stated in the letters of August 18, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping with respect to State Project Nos. 87906-9175, 87906-9176 and 87906-9177, to be the lowest responsive bids, accepting those bids, and awarding the three contracts in question to Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November 1986, 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 13th day of November 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barry S. Webber, Esquire Post Office Box 8549 Hollywood, Florida 33084-0549 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The College realized that it needed a new telecommunication system about three years ago, when it began to renovate some of its buildings. On June 8, 1992, the College issued an Invitation To Bid, No. 3656, to eight vendors to replace its fifteen-year-old AT&T Dimension Private Branch Exchange (PBX) System and install a voice and data communications network among the College's four campuses. The bids were to be opened at 2:30 p.m. on July 29, 1992. The College believed replacement of the existing PBX system would result in lower operating costs, permit the system to serve more functions and permit the system to expand as the College's needs grew. Two vendors, NEC and AT & T, submitted bids. The College already has gone through two prior bids for the new PBX system, which did not result in contracts with any of the bidders. AT&T had submitted a bid in response to each of those attempts to let a contract for replacement of the College's communications system. The process of developing the bid specifications was initiated by the College's Vice President for Business Affairs, Dr. Clinton Hamilton, who asked those who would be using the communications system (the Registrar, the Learning Resources Department, the Provost, and others) to explain their needs so they could be incorporated in the new system. He also asked College employees familiar with information systems and telecommunication systems to help draft the bid documents to incorporate the functions the users desired. The College received assistance from a committee made up of representatives of the State's Department of General Services, Division of Communications; the State Department of Education; Miami Dade Community College; Nova University; and the School Board of Broward County. These groups reviewed the proposed bid specifications before each of the College's three attempts to let a contract and advised the College on them. The College made a careful effort to craft its specifications to ensure it would purchase the most appropriate communications system for its needs. The College currently has separate and independent voice and data communications systems. For data, each of the College's locations (South campus, Central campus, North campus and the College's administrative center in Fort Lauderdale) use more than one data circuit (AT&T Exhibit 5; Bid page D-1). For example, the eight controllers at the South campus are connected to the Fort Lauderdale Center by a pair of data circuits. The 15 controllers at the Central campus are linked to the Fort Lauderdale Center by four data circuits. If the controllers associated with one data circuit should go down for some reason, those connected to the other data circuits at campus will continue to operate, and the campus will only suffer "partial paralysis." The bid at issue seeks a single "voice and data T-1 network" to link each of the campuses to Fort Lauderdale Center in a unified system, which eliminates the need for separate voice and data systems. The new system is designed so that controllers at each campus will communicate with the mainframe computer at Fort Lauderdale Center through T-1 trunk lines, the same lines connecting the voice telephone system at each campus. Each campus will have its own PBX system, and the T-1 lines will allow users at each campus to place telephone calls to extensions at all campuses internally, i.e., without leaving the College's own network. They can also use the local Southern Bell network to place calls if all internal lines are in use, just as the Southern Bell network is used to place calls to numbers outside the College's campuses. Connection of the voice system (the PBX equipment) and data terminals at each of the College's three campuses to the Fort Lauderdale Center requires the use of multiplexors, devices which improve efficiency in networks by concentrating and combining signals and switching them over connecting links (i.e., the T-1 circuits) to other locations or devices. The bid solicitation document requires a multiplexor known as a "40- Series" multiplexor at each campus to perform the concentrating and combining role. The bid solicitation document also specifies a single multiplexor of a more complex type, a "45-Series" multiplexor, at the Fort Lauderdale Center. This multiplexor performs the switching function to redirect signals from one location to another. The bid solicitation document instructs bidders to supply a Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a type of software to operate the hardware components. Comsphere is manufactured by a wholly owned subsidiary of AT & T, known as "AT&T Paradyne." This software manages the entire network, and allows remote troubleshooting of any problems on the network, Comsphere's system can automatically dial out to the AT&T Paradyne Center in Largo, Florida, so that a technician can investigate and often solve problems without the need to send anyone to a campus to perform maintenance. On July 7, 1992, the College held a bidders conference to explain the bid documents and their requirements, in order to insure that the bids the College received would be accurate and complete. During that conference, the vendors were told: (1) any price corrections must be initialed or the bid would be disqualified; (2) all pages of the bid documents which contain signature lines had to be signed; (3) bidders could not modify the general conditions or special conditions of the bid documents; and (4) any questions about the specifications would be answered only by written addendum. The same instructions can be found in text of the bid solicitation document (AT&T Exhibit 4). The College issued Addendum One to its bid documents on July 9, 1992, Addendum Two on July 14, 1992, and Addendum Three July 22, 1992. Addendum Two is the source of the dispute here. As is the College's practice, all bids were opened publicly after the hour for the receipt of bids had passed on July 29, 1992. Each bid submission had two parts. The first was a bid summary sheet containing a required format for the vendor's price. The second part of the submissions were bound volumes explaining how the vendor would satisfy each of the specific requirements in the bid specifications. During the bid opening, a College employee opened the sealed envelopes containing the vendor's bid summary sheet, and read aloud the prices found on each bidder's summary sheet. Page 13, paragraph 19.6 of the Bid Specifications told bidders that the bid summary sheets must recite the total bid price for the entire system, which had to include any upgrades to the standard features of the vendor's equipment so that the equipment provided would meet the College's specifications. When the bids were opened, representatives of AT & T, AT&T Paradyne, and NEC were present. As the bid summary sheets were opened and the prices announced, no one from AT&T objected to the prices read out or contended there was an error in AT&T'S pricing. The College's Director of Purchasing, Janet Rickenbacker, and the senior buyer handling the acquisition, Susan Kuzenka, then reviewed the extensive responses to the specifications submitted by the two bidders. They determined that NEC was the low responsive bidder. The amount AT&T bid based on the bid summary sheet found in its sealed bid was $1,558,836.57, NEC's bid was $1,549,895.15. 1/ After the bid opening, Mr. Zinn of AT&T had two conversations with Ms. Kuzenka about the AT&T bid. These conversations focused on the conflict in the entry for system maintenance on the bid summary sheet for AT&T which had been opened and read aloud on July 22, 1992, and the backup data for the system maintenance figure found in a section of AT&T'S bid response documents. On the bid summary page, AT&T had listed its "four-year maintenance totals M[onday] through F[riday] 8 a.m. through 5 p.m." as $755,536.16. But on page 53 of its bound bid response, AT&T listed the "total maintenance" cost as $530,204.00. This lesser figure is consistent with other maintenance price information found on page 61 of the AT&T bound bid documents, which set out total monthly maintenance costs for Monday through Friday maintenance from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for all four college locations as $11,045.92 per month. If this monthly figure is multiplied by the maintenance term (48 months) the sum is the $530,204.00 shown on page 53. During his first conversation, however, Mr. Zinn told Ms. Kuzenka that the higher figure of $755,536.16 was correct, because AT&T had neglected to add in the maintenance for the AT&T Paradyne multiplexor in the entries in the bound bid documents at pages 53 and 61. During a second conversation, Mr. Zinn reversed his position and indicated that he had added the maintenance for the multiplexor twice, which resulted in an erroneously high figure of $755,536.16 on the bid summary sheet, and that the $530,204 figure on page 53 was correct. One week after the bid opening, on August 5, 1992, AT&T sent a fax letter to Ms. Kuzenka, which confirmed Mr. Zinn's second conversation, and stated that the correct maintenance price was the $530,204.00 found on page 53 of the AT&T bid, rather than the $755,536.16 figure found on its bid summary sheet. Ms. Kuzenka had not asked anyone from AT&T to submit this price change to its bid, and it was not accepted by the College, under its standard policy that price changes will not be accepted once a sealed bid has been received and opened. The College has consistently adhered to this practice through the entire term of Ms. Kuzenka's employment. While a lower maintenance price can be found in one portion of the voluminous response of AT&T to the Bid Specifications, the figure on the bid summary sheet controls. See the "Special Instructions" found at page 5 of the bid solicitation documents (AT&T Exhibit 4). A bidder should not be permitted to look for ambiguities in the supporting documentation to contradict clear entries of price components found on its bid summary sheet. Use of the bid summary sheet permits the College to rely on a specific portion of the bid submission, which will be comparable from bidder to bidder, and to avoid wading through voluminous and perhaps internally inconsistent submissions to try to determine exactly what the bidder's price is. The "Special Instructions" state: "Bidder must use bid pages provided by the College and submit bid in the order issued; failure to do so will result in rejection of your bid" (AT&T'S Exhibit 4). Over and above the maintenance price differential, the College staff found the submission by AT&T to be materially non-responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Ms. Kuzenka found five problems with the AT&T submission, which led her to conclude that the response submitted by AT&T failed to meet the bid specifications: (1) AT&T qualified or modified the terms and conditions of the specifications; (2) price corrections were not initialed by AT & T; (3) the maintenance contract was partially assigned to another vendor; (4) the bid was not signed by AT&T on all pages which have required signature lines; and (5) AT&T failed to provide a qualification statement. Modification of terms and conditions The College's bid document stated in paragraph 54.1 that the terms and conditions of the bid and purchase order constitute the contract and "no other terms and conditions apply" (Tr. 157). The maintenance agreement, titled "Product Agreement," which is appended to the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan is a standard AT&T form (College Exhibit 6). It contains a provision in paragraph 20G., which states "THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LOCAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY" (emphasis in original). The general conditions of the bid required that the contract be governed by Florida law (Tr. 152). AT&T argues that the standard product agreement it attached to its bid response had not been signed by a representative of AT & T, and that the College had the right to accept or reject the terms of the Service Offerings and Support Plans and the attachments to it. This is true, but the inclusion in its bid response of the New Jersey choice of law provision certainly creates an ambiguity over the applicable law, if AT&T'S bid were accepted. This ambiguity would be completely avoided had it not been proposed by AT & T, in contravention of the bid's general conditions. Paragraph 2 of the Product Agreement states "Terms and conditions on any non-AT&T order form shall not apply." Fairly read, AT&T was attempting to have its duties under its standard Product Agreement governed by the laws of New Jersey, not the laws of Florida. As a matter of sovereignty, Florida agencies do not subject themselves to foreign law. The College acted within its legitimate range of discretion when it rejected the choice of law provision as inconsistent with its bid documents. The same problem is caused by similar language in paragraph 12F of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The AT&T Product Agreement also has an integration clause, Paragraph 20H, stating that it constitutes the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes any other oral or written agreements. This provision also attempts to modify the terms and conditions of the bid specifications to give the terms of AT &T's Service Offerings and Support Plan priority over the specifications. The College was entitled to reject this as inconsistent with the bid specifications. The same problem is presented by similar language in paragraph 12G of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The Service Offerings and Support Plan also contained a provision allowing AT&T to assign the agreement, which violates the anti-assignment provisions of paragraph 56.1 of the bid specifications. AT&T'S bid response stated that the College would be required to pay the cost for installing any additional cable. The bid specifications required vendors to inspect existing facilities at the College during a pre-bid walk- through, so that bidders could determine whatever cabling would be needed, and incorporate all necessary cable in their bid price. AT&T'S attempt to make the College liable for any cabling over and above that estimated by AT&T when submitting its bid is inconsistent with the bid specifications. The AT&T submission includeds a statement that the College was obligated to pay for the cost of a site survey to be performed by the project manager before the execution of the contract. Yet a site survey had already been performed, and the bidder's price was to have been inclusive of a total system, with no additional cost to the College for items such as surveys. Finally, the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan required the College to provide, at the College's expense, a secured and protected area for storage of tools and equipment near the equipment room, which was not part of the bid specifications. At the walk-through, AT&T should have determined whatever its security needs were and included those costs in its bid price. In essence, AT&T submitted preprinted forms without tailoring them to the carefully crafted requirements of the College's bid specifications. It cannot now disavow the contents of its forms which violate or fail to conform to these specifications. The time to review the company's standard forms was before they were submitted in its bid response, not afterward. Price correction There is a price correction on page 48 of the AT&T bid which is not initialed. The bid specifications require that "all corrections, manual or written or white-out must be initialed by the person signing the bid" (Bid Specifications, page 63, paragraph C). This was not done. The specifications stated "Failure to initial price corrections will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 2). Assignment provisions There was also confusion in the AT&T bid arising from the attachment of two proposed maintenance agreements, one from AT&T itself, another from AT&T Paradyne. The two maintenance contracts are not identical. 2/ College personnel believed that one contract was for part of the equipment, while the other contract was for another block of equipment. The College had been concerned about the difficulty in having to deal with different companies; it had drawn its specifications so that the bidder would be the single entity responsible to the College for maintenance. The submission of a proposed maintenance contract from an entity other than the bidder was inconsistent with the bid specifications. Signature Not all pages with signature lines had been signed by AT&T'S representative. These included page D1, which had a bearing on the equipment allowance being provided for the existing system traded in by the College. While AT&T regards these failures as trivial, the College went to pains to require bidders to sign pages with signature lines. Page 5 of the Bid Specifications stated: "Failure to sign all pages with a signature line will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 3). It is not arbitrary for the College to insist that these requirements be followed or to enforce the penalty stated in the specifications. Qualifications statement The special conditions for the bid required that vendors submit a qualifications statement listing similar work done for others (Tr. 168; Bid Specifications Section 25.1 at page 25). The College intended to consult those listed to determine whether they were satisfied with the equipment the vendor installed and the service it provided. AT&T did not provide that list, but rather provided an annual report which contains no customer references. This was not responsive to the bid. The College had experience with AT&T'S fifteen- year-old Dimension system, but not with the new equipment AT&T bid. The failure to submit the qualifications statement deprived the College of the opportunity to check with entities which had purchased the equipment AT&T had bid, something it had been careful to require of bidders. Deciding how to treat these inadequacies is a matter of discretion. Staff recommended rejection of the AT&T bid for genuine instances of noncompliance with specific requirements of the bid specifications the College had carefully crafted. This action cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The College's decision The College's purchasing department recommended to Dr. Hamilton that the bid be awarded to NEC as the low responsive bidder. A bid tabulation was posted on August 7, 1992, awarding the contract to NEC and rejecting AT&T'S bid. The protest AT&T filed a Notice of Protest, and later a Formal Written Protest on August 18, 1992, which dealt with a number of technical aspects, but did not claim that NEC's rival submission failed to conform to the bid specifications. Dr. Hamilton advised the College's president that, to be fair to both bidders, an outside consultant should be retained to evaluate the issues raised by AT&T in its Formal Written Protest. This was done, and the College retained Technology Associates for $8,600 to report to the College on the issues raised by AT & T. Technology Associates found that AT&T did not meet the emergency 911 requirements outlined in the College's bid documents. Southern Bell requires that when 911 calls are made from the College, the telephone system be capable of identifying to the police dispatcher which campus, which room and which extension number originated the emergency 911 call. The consultant also found that NEC's system met this requirement. AT&T did not attempt to refute this determination at the final hearing. The consultant found that AT&T'S proposed system was "over designed," in that it included elements not required by the bid documents. AT&T argues that Addendum Two, issued on July 14, 1992, 14 days before the bid opening, was so ambiguous with respect to necessary redundancy that the two bidders were bidding on fundamentally different systems, so that the matter should be bid for a fourth time. The portion of the addendum at issue states: The College requires two additional T-1 lines; not one as previously stated, to be added to diagram D-2 to ensure redundancy. A T-1 line is to connect North Campus with Central Campus and an additional T-1 line is to connect Central Campus with South Campus. (Tr. 85) Addendum Two explains that these lines are required to "ensure the ability to redirect calls if required, enabling the system to be fully redundant" (Tr. 86- 87, emphasis added). The addendum directed only the addition of two T-1 lines. This can be done, as NEC proposed, by connecting additional T-1 lines, one from the PBX at the North Campus to the PBX at the Central Campus and the other from the PBX at the Central Campus to the PBX at the South Campus. AT&T chose to feed each of the PBX installations at the North Campus, Central Campus and South Campus first into its own additional 45-Series multiplexor (the complex multiplexor, see Finding 10 above) so that a 45-Series multiplexor will handle T-1 connections from North Campus to a 45-Series multiplexor at Fort Lauderdale center, and to a 45-Series multiplexor at Central Campus. The PBX at Central Campus, because it has its own 45-Series multiplexor, then can be connected by T-1 lines to the 45- Series multiplexors at North Campus, South Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center. The PBX at South Campus, through its 45-Series multiplexor, then can connect to the 45-Series multiplexors at Central Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center (this configuration is shown on the final page of AT&T Exhibit 5). This is a more complex way to provide the T-1 connections between North and Central Campus and Central and South Campus than the addendum required, and uses four 45-Series multiplexors rather then one. AT&T argues its more complex solution was necessary so that both voice and data systems would be redundant, thus meeting the requirement in the addendum that the system be "fully redundant." The problem with the approach taken by AT&T is that it fails to follow the language of Addendum Two. There is no reference to alternative routing or redundancy for data, the redundancy is required to redirect calls, i.e., PBX or voice components. See the final quotation in Finding 40, above. Redundancy for data transmissions, something the AT&T solution provides, was not required. AT&T'S solution is overdesigned. This is not a pivotal issue, however, because for the reasons stated in the foregoing findings, the submission by AT&T was properly rejected by College staff as non-responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. NEC is the low responsive bidder. Software certification AT&T argues in pages 16 through 20 of its proposed recommended order that the bid of NEC fails to conform to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid. AT&T had not raised the issue of whether the bid of NEC was responsive in its Formal Written Protest, and the attempt to do so at the beginning of the final hearing was rejected. As a result, this is not an issue which should have been addressed in the proposed recommended order. Nonetheless, it may be easily disposed of. The bid documents require that each bidder provide the College with a certification that the bidder: [O]wns, leases or controls the software it offers in response to this bid. If the bidder does not own the software, their certificate must include the source from which the software shall be obtained, and that the bidder has a right to sell or lease this software (Bid Specifications at 26, AT&T Exhibit 4.) The bidder also must certify that it is "eligible to maintain and support the software." (Id.) In its certification, NEC stated: NEC is the manufacturer of the NEAX2400 IMS that has been proposed to Broward Community College. As the manufacturer, we developed all software utilized on the NEAX2400. NEC owns all the rights to the software and has over 600 software engineers in Dallas dedicated to maintain and support the software. (AT&T Exhibit 4, final page) AT&T objects that this certification goes only to NEC's hardware, and does not constitute a certification that NEC has the rights to convey to the College the software necessary to operate the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a product of AT&T Paradyne. When reviewing the submissions of both bidders, the College staff found that their software certifications were equivalent. Both companies certified that they had the right to sell the software to operate the system each offered to the College. The College is entitled to rely on the certification given to it by NEC. If NEC is wrong, and does not have the right to provide the necessary software because AT&T or AT&T Paradyne will refuse to permit it to use that software, NEC may be liable in damages for failure to meet its contractual obligations to the College. NEC did not offer at the hearing evidence on why it believes it is entitled to use the software for the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, because AT&T's attempt to raise this issue had been rejected when AT&T's motion to amend its Formal Written Protest of August 18, 1992 was denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Trustees of Broward Community College awarding Bid No. 3656, the rebid of the College-wide PBX system, to NEC for a bid price of $1,549,895.15. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of March 1993.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether a contract for a perimeter security system at Calhoun Correctional Institution and Holmes Correctional Institution should be awarded to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 1994, Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid, Bid No. 94-INST-6197, the ("ITB"). The ITB requested bidders to submit bids to supply materials for perimeter security systems and to provide training for the installation and maintenance of the systems at Calhoun Correctional Institution and Holmes Correctional Institution. Responsive bids had to include materials and training necessary for Respondent to install and maintain the security systems. Bids had to be filed no later than February 10, 1994. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted bids along with three other bidders in a timely manner. The ITB required bidders to hold a Florida alarm contractor's license. Intervenor does not hold such a license. However, the ITB defines the term "bidder" to include an individual, firm, partner, or corporation. Intervenor's bid contemplated that it will supply the materials required in the ITB. Another company that holds a Florida alarm contractor's license will provide the training required for Respondent to install and maintain the security systems. Intervenor and the other company responded to the ITB as partners in a single bid that provides a single price for all materials and training required by the ITB. Intervenor's bid complies with the terms of the ITB and is responsive. Respondent notified Intervenor of its intent to award the contract to Intervenor as the lowest responsive bidder. Intervenor's bid is approximately $14,000 less than Petitioner's bid. Petitioner is the second lowest bidder. Respondent's interpretation that the ITB allows materials and training to be supplied separately by Intervenor and its partner is a reasonable interpretation that is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The intent and purpose of such an interpretation is to encourage flexibility that may result in savings to the state. The provision of materials and services by separate companies in Intervenor's bid will, in fact, result in substantial savings to the state. The terms of the bid does not create an unfair advantage for Intervenor. The term bidder is defined in the bid documents to include a partner and a corporation. Florida law expressly exempts Intervenor from the requirement for an alarm contractor's license if Intervenor merely supplies materials and does not fabricate or consume the materials in performing the work of a contractor. Section 489.503(10), Florida Statutes. Therefore, only Intervenor's partner is required to hold an alarm contractor's license, and, in fact, Intervenor's partner holds the requisite license. Respondent's interpretation of the ITB is consistent with applicable law. Any other interpretation of the ITB by Respondent would have purported to impose a stricter licensing requirement than that imposed by the legislature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's written formal protest be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of April, 1994. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-5., 7-8. Accepted in substance 6. Irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as recited testimony Accepted in substance 11.-13. Rejected for the factual and legal reasons stated in the Recommended Order Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact All of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Beth Atchison, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Teresa Hurtado Schaefer, CEO FSM, Inc. 3559 S. W. 69th Way Miramar, FL 33023 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Michael G. Kanche, Jr. Southwest Microwave 2922 South Rosevelt Street Tempe, Arizona 85282-2042
