The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent Department acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in making a decision to award Central Florida Legal Services, Inc., the Intervenor, a bid concerning a proposed contract to enter into Lease No. 800:0045. Embodied within that general issue are questions involving whether the Petitioner, Robert Allan Weinberg's (Weinberg) response to the Department's Invitation to Bid (ITB) was responsive, was the lowest and best bid and whether the Intervenor's bid was responsive to the ITB and was the lowest and best bid. Finally, it must be determined whether the Department properly evaluated the bid proposals in accordance with legally-acceptable, competitive bidding principles, in an honest and non-arbitrary fashion.
Findings Of Fact This dispute arose upon the Department electing to seek office space for personnel of its District 12, in Daytona Beach, Florida. After considering the type and nature of the facilities it needed, the Department ultimately published a set of specifications for the desired facility in an ITB. The ITB included detailed instructions for preparation and submittal of bids and a relevant form. A pre-bid conference was conducted and thereafter, three vendors submitted bids. One proposal was determined by the Department to be non- responsive because the amount of space contained in the bid proposed by that vendor did not meet the Department's specifications contained in the ITB. That agency decision was not contested. The bid submitted by the Intervenor, as well as the Petitioner, were both determined to be responsive by the Department. After evaluating the proposals based upon criteria contained in the ITB, the Department ultimately determined that the lowest, best and most responsive bid was that submitted by the Intervenor. It notified the bidders of its decision to award the subject bid to the Intervenor, and the Petitioner filed a protest. A formal written protest was timely filed, initiating this proceeding. The issues raised by the parties, concerning the relative responsiveness of the two bids, revolve around the question of adequate parking, the status of existing tenants in the buildings, a consideration required by the terms of the ITB, the question of adequacy of "dry and measurable" space, the question of "location" (including building appearance, appearance of the property, the character of the neighborhood, security issues, design or layout of the proposed space, and provision for future expansion). Petitioner's Responsiveness The Petitioner's response to the ITB is deficient in terms of provisions for parking, as well as concerning the disclosure of the status of existing tenants in the Petitioner's building. The parking facilities offered by the Petitioner do not meet the requirements of the ITB. The ITB requires that 60 parking spaces be available for the exclusive use of the Department. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Item 21 in evidence (the ITB) provides: For this facility, the Department has determined that a minimum of 60 parking spaces are required to meet its needs. Its parking is to be provided as part of a lease cost to the department. The lessor will grant to the lessee an exclusive right to use 60 parking spaces. Lessor shall submit with this bid submittal a letter certifying that the lessor agrees to the requested number of parking spaces on site, states the number of parking spaces per square foot of space as required by the local zoning jurisdiction and provides a site plan of the parking lot identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces conform to local jurisdiction requirements of number and size, and that the number of parking spaces requested in this invitation can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirement of other tenants (emphasis contained in original document). The Petitioner's bid submittal does not show spaces assigned to specific other tenants, as required by the ITB, and does not state the number of parking spaces per square foot of space required by the local zoning jurisdiction, which is the City of Daytona Beach, Florida. The Petitioner proposes to house the Department in two sections of an existing building. Those sections are presently occupied by other tenants. Other space within the building is also presently occupied and will continue to be occupied, even if the Department decides to lease the Petitioner's space at issue. The Petitioner's site plan shows that it has 92 spaces available to serve tenants in that building located on the building site. In addition to those spaces, the Petitioner proposes to use eight (8) additional spaces located off-site. Certain space in the Petitioner's proposed building is presently leased to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). That lease will remain in effect even if the Petitioner leases the space at issue to the Department. Under that HRS lease, 29 spaces are committed to HRS on an exclusive basis, with six (6) other spaces on a non-exclusive basis. There is additional office space in the building presently occupied by private businesses, which totals 4,470 square feet. Under the City of Daytona Beach Code, the parking requirement for 4,470 square feet of commercial office space, in a building the size of the Petitioner's is 16 spaces. The eight (8) parking spaces off the building site, proposed to be used by the Petitioner, are adjacent to and serve an existing building that also houses a private business. That building has 16 total parking spaces, including the eight (8) which the Petitioner is proposing to allocate to the agency, if the bid is awarded. The building contains 3,900 square feet. Under the City of Daytona Beach Code, it must have a minimum of 14 parking spaces for that square footage. If the Petitioner leased space to the Respondent, its total parking space requirement to serve all of its tenants, including the proposed office space, under the City of Daytona Beach Code, would be 125 spaces. Eighty-nine (89) of those spaces would be for the exclusive use of the Respondent and HRS. The Petitioner's site plan, however, reveals that only 108 spaces are available, including the spaces at the off-site location. Additionally, the existing parking spaces of the Petitioner, designed to serve handicapped persons, do not conform to the current City of Daytona Beach Code. Handicapped parking spaces are required by that Code to be 12 feet wide, with an additional five feet provided for access of handicapped persons. In order to meet this dimensional requirement, the Petitioner's need for parking spaces to accommodate all tenants, will increase by four (4) spaces. He will need a total of 129 spaces to accommodate all tenants, including the Department, should the bid be awarded. He has only 108 spaces available. Mr. Weinberg testified on behalf of the Petitioner, to the effect that the parking lot could be re-configured in order to gain 13 more spaces. This did not include the four additional spaces that would be needed to properly accommodate the handicapped parking spaces to the requirements of the City of Daytona Beach Code. The Petitioner's bid submittal plan, however, does not reflect any site plan involving re-configuration of the parking area. Moreover, it was not established that the reconfiguration proposed by the Petitioner can be accomplished under the mandates of the City of Daytona Beach Code. If it could, the Petitioner would still not have sufficient spaces to meet the requirements in the ITB, as well as the requirements of existing tenant leases and code requirements, concerning parking spaces for relevant amounts of building square footage allocated to the various tenants. The Petitioner's bid also does not meet the criteria of the ITB containing the status of existing tenants. The ITB requires that vendors provide information regarding the rights of existing tenants, including written documentation regarding their status, as that relates to the availability and the time of availability of the space proposed in the bid. The ITB provides, in pertinent part: Existing tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledg- ment of the lessor's bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date or earlier to allow lessor's renovation work to be completed must be included with the bid submittal. If the existing tenants are on a month-to-month lease, the bidder must provide a letter of explanation of this condition. There are two existing tenants in the space which the Petitioner has proposed to lease to the Department. The Petitioner offered no written documentation from either tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and lessee's ability to vacate the premises. The only information which the Petitioner provided was for one of those tenants and that was not signed nor acknowledged by the tenant. No information was provided, as required by the ITB, as to the other tenant. Intervenor's Responsiveness The Petitioner maintains that the Intervenor's proposed office space was not "dry and measurable" at the time the bid was submitted by the Intervenor. The Petitioner also contends that the Intervenor's bid does not meet the parking facility requirements of the ITB. The criteria in the ITB require a definition of "dry and measurable" space available and also contain provisions allowing the vendor time to complete the facility through renovation, etc., subsequent to the bid submittal, but prior to the occupancy time specified in the ITB. The ITB provides, on page 2 in the second paragraph: Space to be made available: 07-01-95 or within 182 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Under the heading, "Handicap Standards and Alterations", at page 4 of the ITB, the ITB provides: Lessor agrees that the demised premises now conform, or that, prior to lessee's occupancy, said premises shall, at the lessor's expense, be brought into conformance with the require- ments of Section 553.48, F.S., providing requirements for the physical handicapped and the requirement of public law 101-336, July 26, 1990, known as the "American With Disabil- ities Act of 1990.". . . The proposed space must be in an existing building or a building which is to be complete by July 1, 1995, and is 50 percent complete on the bid deadline submission. To be considered as existing, the entire space must be dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured, to determine net rentable square footage, at the time of bid submittal. Reno- vations to bring the facility into compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations and/or to meet with desired arrangements are permitted, if carried out in accordance with prescribed procedures: Bids offering multi-story or multi-level buildings must have all stories serviced by an elevator which meets the requirements of DCA accessibility manual . . . (emphasis in original). The Intervenor's proposal meets these requirements. The facility proposed by the intervenor is in an existing building. "Dry and measurable" means that the facility has exterior walls and a roof and is at least enclosed enough as to not to become wet or to be wide open to the elements. The Intervenor's proposed building has exterior walls and a roof and is enclosed with windows and doors secured so that it would not get wet or be open. There is ample space within the Intervenor's existing building to determine the net rentable square footage and to ensure that the square footage being offered meets the bid specifications. In fact, measurement was undertaken by the Intervenor's representative, including its architect, and the space and site plans were made available to representatives of the Department, who were in a position to make the same measurements when they conducted a site visit of the premises. The only part of the facility that was not dry and measurable at the time of bid submission was a proposed new elevator, and entrance space related to the elevator, which the Petitioner has proposed to construct in order to meet the "Americans with Disabilities Act" requirements. The elevator and related space needed to accommodate entrances into the second floor of the building by the elevator were not dry and measurable at the time of bid submission and were not required to be by the terms of the ITB. The express provisions of the ITB allow vendors to renovate facilities in order to meet government regulations "prior to lessee's occupancy." The vendor is not required to have the space ready for occupancy until July 1, 1995, or 182 days after notice of award, whichever is later. The Intervenor has committed to complying with these requirements of the ITB and will be subject to a penalty if it does not, should the bid be awarded. Thus, if the vendor is offering a multi-story building, it is not required to have a handicapped accessible elevator already in place and operating at the time of bid submission. It simply must be installed prior to the lessee's occupancy. Therefore, under the terms of the ITB referenced above, the elevator-related space would not be required to be part of the dry and measurable space computation submitted with the bid. The Department agreed at the pre-bid conference that the 60 exclusive parking spaces it would require, as specified in the ITB, would meet the ITB criteria if within 1,000 feet of the building. In response to this criteria, the Intervenor offered most of the required spaces at the site of its building. It also offered to make spaces available at three other locations as alternatives. It offered to make 48 of the 50 spaces it has on its own building site exclusively available to the Department and also offered 21 parking spaces on "Lot B" or "Parcel B", as delineated in its bid. This lot is within 1,000 feet of the Intervenor's building, which was offered in the bid, and is approximately 350 feet away. It can accommodate the 21 parking spaces, but will necessitate a variance from zoning requirements, in order to place 21 spaces on Lot B. The ITB allows bidders 30 days from the date of any award to deal with such zoning issues and resolving any zoning problems. If this lot is used, the Intervenor will seek a variance in order to be able to put the 21 spaces on the lot. The Intervenor does not yet have the variance, but there is no evidence of record that would establish that it cannot be obtained from the City zoning authority. The Intervenor has an option to lease Lot B, where the 21 parking spaces would be located, and, therefore, has sufficient control of it. Another alternative offered by the Intervenor is designated as "Lot A" or "Parcel A" in its bid. This lot is across an existing municipal parking lot from the Intervenor's facility being offered. It includes 69 parking spaces and is within 1,000 feet of the Intervenor's building. The Intervenor has secured this facility through an option to purchase. The only remaining step in order to purchase the lot would be for the Intervenor's board, responsible for the operation of its programs, including the building, to execute the option it has already entered into. This also constitutes sufficient control over the property to comply with the terms of the ITB. This parking lot and the spaces thereon meet the requirements of the ITB. The third nearby lot, available to the Intervenor, is designated as "Parcel D" or "Lot D" on the Intervenor's bid documents. Additional spaces could be made available on this lot. It is 1,070 feet away from the Intervenor's building, however, and thus does not meet the 1,000-foot requirement set by the Department at the bidders' conference, in its interpretation of the specification concerning parking. The demonstrated availability of the other parking areas and spaces, however, establishes that the Intervenor has sufficient parking available, within the required distance, to meet the terms of the ITB. Moreover, the Intervenor's building will house the office of the Intervenor, as well as the office of the Respondent/Department. The Intervenor's building is located directly adjacent to a free municipal parking lot. This lot would be available to employees of the Intervenor, as well as Intervenor's visitors, and as well as to employees of the Department and the Department's visitors, who, for whatever reason, might not use the exclusive dedicated parking spaces. Because it is in a downtown development area, the Intervenor is not required, under the City of Daytona Beach Zoning Code, to provide any parking for its building. Bid Evaluations The Department received bid responses from the two parties and proceeded to evaluate them. The part of the evaluation based upon prices bid by the vendors was conducted by Department personnel in Tallahassee. The part of the evaluation based upon more subjective factors was conducted by three Department employees in Daytona Beach, who ultimately have to work in the facilities that the Department acquires through this procurement process. The price evaluation was undertaken with the assistance of a representative of the Department of Management Services, who is familiar with statutory and rule requirements for a proper evaluation of bids. Price was apportioned 40 of the total 100 points available in the bid evaluation process. The price evaluation resulted in the Petitioner receiving 40 points because it had the lowest price of the two subject bids. The Intervenor received 33 points for the price criterion. The three Department employees designated to evaluate the other aspects of the bid proposals conducted site visits at each of the vendors' facilities. During the site visits, the evaluators walked through the parking lots and counted the spaces, checked the exit door locations, inquired about heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning facilities and equipment, evaluated the condition of the buildings and how they were being maintained, checked security lighting and other security issues, checked on placement of the lobbies and how offices would be positioned, observed the availability of natural lighting and surveyed neighborhood conditions. Each evaluator then conducted evaluations based upon factors other than cost, without consulting each other. They used an evaluation form that relates to various criteria which come directly from the ITB. Upon completion of the evaluations, the completed forms were forwarded to the Tallahassee office of the Department. The evaluation criteria allow three categories of evaluation under the general heading of "location". Ten points are allowed as a maximum in the category of "availability and frequency of public transportation within the proximity of the space being offered." The evaluators gave the Petitioner five, six and five points, respectively, for its response to this category. They gave the Intervenor seven, six and five points. Both facilities have public bus stops near the building which provide good access to public transportation. The Intervenor's facility is located within a few blocks of the transit transfer station, which offers the advantage that bus passengers will be able to get to the Intervenor's facility without the need of a transfer which could save them considerable time. The Department of Juvenile Justice is the type of state agency which has a great deal of business with clients and their family members of a lower-income status, who might frequently have to rely on public transportation. Nine (9) points are allowed in the evaluation criteria for the category of "appearance of the building property and neighborhood of the property being offered," under the general heading of "location". The Petitioner was accorded three, five and four points, respectively, for its response to this category. The Intervenor was given nine, eight and seven points. This is admittedly a subjective criteria. The appearance of a facility and its surrounding area can make a difference in the morale and productivity of the working staff, as well as the attitude of visitors to the facility. The Intervenor's building is in a renovated, historic structure located in the historic preservation section of the downtown area of Daytona Beach. It has a great deal of aesthetic appeal and has been the subject of several newspaper articles noting the attractiveness and functionality of the renovation. The Petitioner's structure, on the other hand, although well-landscaped and maintained, is a metal, prefabricated building, not as aesthetically interesting or pleasing. It is also located adjacent to higher crime areas in the City. The evaluation criteria allow for four points for the category of "security issues posed by the building and surrounding area" under the category of "location". The evaluators scored the Petitioner's response at two, two and one points for this subject. They scored the Intervenor's bid three, three and two points for the same category. It is apparent that the Petitioner's facility is located in an area which is somewhat crime-prone. While the evidence does not reflect any criminal activity on the Petitioner's site itself, at least one evaluator was intimately and personally familiar with the neighborhood and the criminal problems occurring there. This familiarity was confirmed by Department personnel from police reports showing the area to be a high-crime area. Under the "facility" heading, the evaluation criteria and form allows points for four different categories. It allows 15 points for the category of "susceptibility of the design and space being offered to good utilization by differing segments of the Department." The evaluators gave the Petitioner seven, five and six points for their three evaluations of this response. They scored the Intervenor's submittal at 15, 12 and 10 points. The Intervenor's proposal offers a building that has windows on all four sides with abundant natural lighting, good visibility, and contiguous space. The Intervenor's facility can be very easily renovated into appropriate space for the different segments of the Department. The Petitioner's facility, on the other hand, has few windows, offers limited natural lighting and is not easily visible from the street. Additionally, the Petitioner offered divided space within its building so that some segments of the Department's work force would be physically separated from one another, with access between the two divided areas of office space being only obtainable by going outside the building and then in another door of another part of the building. The evaluation form also allows 10 points for the category of "susceptibility of the building parking area and property as a whole for future expansion." The Petitioner received a score of three, five and five points for this category by the evaluators. The Intervenor's response received seven, eight and three points for the same category. The Petitioner's facility offers no opportunity for expansion unless existing lessees leave the building. There is no room for additional parking for expansion purposes. The Intervenor's facility has space on the first floor not being leased at all at the present time and a portion of the third floor could be enclosed to provide additional space. Further, since the only other tenant is the lessor, there is a prospect that the lessor itself might move to other facilities in order to accommodate Department expansion. Lot A offers considerably more parking spaces than the Department or other tenants of the Intervenor's building need. Furthermore, the Intervenor's facility is located adjacent to a free, municipal parking lot which is only moderately used. Under the same general heading of "facility", the evaluation form and criteria allows ten points for the category of "having all the square footage in a single building will earn more points than square footage offered in more than one building." The Petitioner is offering space in a single building. However, the Petitioner's space would be divided so that the Department's office space would not all be contiguous, and personnel would have to go from one side of the building to the offices on the other side of the building only by going outside the building. This is functionally akin to space being in more than one building. Thus, the Petitioner's proposal would have some of the disadvantages of being like a proposal for more than one building. Workers would not be as readily able to assist one another in dealing with work loads or as easily undertaking many of the work activities requiring them to communicate with each other in each other's physical presence as easily as in a contiguous set of offices located in a single building. It is true that the Petitioner is proposing all of its space in one building. Thus, it meets the ITB criteria in this regard. It also can be argued as the Department evaluators found, that because the space functions akin to being in separate buildings, because of the separation of the offered office spaces, it should be evaluated as being somewhat analogous to space located in two separate buildings. Thus, although both bids were responsive to the ITB in terms of offering space physically and technically within a single building, it was not arbitrary for the evaluators to accord more weight to the Intervenor's response, since all of the office offered by the Intervenor is contiguous space in the same building. However, even if the evaluators had or should have ranked both bids equally under this "single building criteria", that alone would not alter the evaluators' result that the Intervenor's bid and facility was the best response to the agency's needs expressed in the ITB. The evaluation criteria and form also allows a maximum of two points to be accorded to the category of "if space is offered in more than one building, are the buildings connected by overhangs and sidewalks," under the heading of "facility". The space offered by both bidders, the Petitioner and the Intervenor, is clearly in a single building. All of the evaluators gave both parties an equal two points for this category which shows a lack of arbitrariness in the bid evaluation process. When the evaluation was complete, the Intervenor was accorded scores of 86, 82 and 72 points by the three evaluators. Two of the evaluators rated the Intervenor significantly higher, and the third favored the Petitioner's proposal by a single point. The total score given the Petitioner, taking into account its lower price, was 67, 71 and 73 points by the three evaluators. The total score accorded the parties by the three evaluators shows that the Intervenor's proposal was accorded a substantial advantage by two of the three evaluators. The evaluator scores were independently determined but were still generally consistent with each other. They were based upon logic and not merely upon a review of plans, figures, and written responses but also upon a detailed view of the two properties, parking spaces, and the like. Thus, it is determined that the scoring was consistent, logical, and not shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Based upon the scores by the evaluators, the Department determined that the Intervenor's bid was the lowest, best and most responsive and elected to award the lease to the Intervenor. There has been no preponderant proof offered to show that the decision or any of the evaluation decisions on individual categories, leading up to the ultimate score and decision to award, were fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal, or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Juvenile Justice dismissing the Petitioner's formal protest because the Petitioner lacks standing to initiate the subject proceeding and because the Petitioner has failed to establish that the determination to award a contract to the Intervenor was fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1736BID Respondent's and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of fact of these two parties are accepted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. Certain proposed findings of fact accepted as true are immaterial to the resolution of the issues presented. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact A-F. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. J.(1-3) Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. K-L. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. M. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. N.(1-6- Subparts) Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Mr. Robert Allan Weinberg RW Custom Builders, Inc. 955 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire APGAR, PELHAM, ET AL. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in its proposed rejection of all bids received in response to Request for Proposals, Lease No. 700:0819.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1999, the Respondent, Department of Corrections (Department), issued Request for Proposal, Lease No. 700:0819 (the RFP) for office space in Dade County for the Office for Probation and Parole Supervision. Petitioner, 7952 West 2nd Corporation, and Intervenor, Capital Group of Miami, Inc. (Capital), submitted the only responses to the RFP. Upon receipt of the proposals, Mr. Audwyn Francis, the Department's employee in charge of the RFP, believing the bids to be nonresponsive, contacted the Department's legal section for advice and for a determination of responsiveness. While waiting for the legal section to research and make a recommendation on the responsiveness of the proposals, because of time constraints, Department staff decided to proceed with the site visits and evaluation of the proposals but not to make an award until they received a decision from legal counsel concerning the responsiveness of the proposals. A site visit was conducted at the two proposed sites. The responses were evaluated according to the criteria in the RFP. Capital received a score of 98. 7925 West 2nd Corporation received a score of 92. The evaluation committee recommended that an award be made to Capital. Upon further review of the proposals by the Department's attorneys, it was determined that all of the bids were nonresponsive. Based on this determination, the Department rejected all bids. On page four, section A, paragraph seven, the RFP provides the following requirements relating to parking: A minimum of 50 on-site spaces for the exclusive use of the employees and clients at no additional charge to the leasee. Parking spaces must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, bumper pads installed, and labeled D.C. parking. At least two spaces must meet the requirements of the Accessibility Requirements Manual published by the Department of Community Affairs, latest edition. Parking area shall be well lighted and secure. Bidder shall provide a site plan identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces requested in this RFP can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirements of other tenants. At the preproposal conference, Mr. Francis, advised the attendees that all attachments as indicated on pages 29 through 31 of the bid package must be included with the bid submittal. On page 30 the RFP requires the proposers to show proof of structures and parking control and directs the proposers to page 4, section A, paragraph 7 and page 23, section D, paragraph 7. Capital proposed to provide 43 parking spaces on-site and 7 parking spaces across the street. Capital's proposal was not responsive to the requirement of providing 50 parking spaces on-site. Petitioner included a document entitled "As-Built Survey" with its proposal. The survey showed the outline of the building on the site, but did not show any parking spaces. Petitioner stated in its proposal that it would provide 50 parking spaces. When Department staff arrived at Petitioner's site to conduct a site visit, they could not find a place to park. During the site visit, Robert Harrison, a representative of Petitioner, advised Department staff that Petitioner leased office space to another agency in the same building that was being offered to the Department. Mr. Harrison advised that he did not know the number of parking spaces to which the other agency was entitled to use. None of the parking spaces at the site were marked as being assigned to any tenant. As of the date of the Department's letter advising that it was rejecting all bids, Department staff were unaware of the total number of spaces available on the site and the number of spaces to which the other agency had exclusive use. After all the bids were rejected, Petitioner disclosed that it had a lease with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for space in the building in which it proposed to lease space to the Department. The lease provided that HRS had exclusive use of 150 parking spaces on- site. Petitioner further disclosed that it had a total of 250 parking spaces on-site. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement that the proposer provide a site plan showing the number of spaces assigned for the use of the current tenant at the building. The Department utilizes a manual entitled "Competitive Proposals," which establishes the procedures to solicit and evaluate proposals. Section Seven of the manual pertains to the procedures to be followed by the Department when evaluating proposals and provides: All proposals will first be reviewed for conformance with the provisions specified in the RFP. Any proposal not in compliance with the terms of the proposal specifications shall not receive further consideration. The evaluation committee will analyze each responsive proposal to determine which proposal is the lowest and best in accordance with established provisions and award factors. . . . To be considered for award, a proposal must comply in all material respects with the RFP so that all proposers may stand on equal footing, with respect to the method and time frame of submission, and to the substance of any resulting lease. The proposal must result in a binding contract. Non-responsive proposals. Any proposal which fails to substantially conform to the requirements of the Request for Proposal. A proposal may not be considered if the proposer imposes conditions which would modify requirements of the Request for Proposal, or limit their liability to the State of Florida, giving them an advantage over other proposers. When a question of responsiveness is unclear the agency's legal counsel should be consulted. In the event no acceptable proposals are received, all proposal should be formally rejected by letter, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * F. Proposals which technically conform to the requirements of the Request for Proposal are considered to be responsive and may be accepted for consideration by the evaluation committee for determination of an award recommendation. The evaluation committee can seek clarifications as needed from any proposer. However, clarifications received from the proposer which change what was originally proposed cannot be considered in the evaluation. * * * Each committee member is to personally inspect the proposed facility, and evaluate the location and facility on the basis of the evaluation criteria contained in the specifications. When all committee members have individually assessed award factor points for each proposal, the entire evaluation committee will meet to review the individual evaluations and jointly develop a committee determination of the best proposal based on the overall factor ratings. * * * L. The agency has the right to reject any and all proposals when such rejection is in the best interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection cannot be arbitrary, but must be based on strong justification. Each person with a rejected proposal should be notified by certified mail return receipt requested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Hearings Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 29th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Moore, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Obed Dorceus, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas 165 East Boca Raton Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432-3911 David A. Anthony, Esquire Law Offices of David A. Anthony 916 Catalonia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the preliminary determination to award Bid No. DCPHU 10-91 to Kinney System of Florida, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: In November, 1991, Respondent issued Invitation to Bid No. DCPHU 10-91 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). Through the ITB, Respondent solicited bids to manage the Dade County Public Health Unit's parking lot located at 1350 N.W. 14th Street in Miami, Florida. The managerial responsibilities to be assumed by the successful bidder were described in the ITB as follows: That the OWNER will grant unto the MANAGER, the full exclusive management rights to operate a public parking service, and said MANAGER will take the exclusive rights to operate upon the premises and driveways, of what is commonly known as a "Public Parking Service" at and for the Dade County Public Health Unit. The term "Public Parking Service" as indicated above, is defined as meaning "those patrons wishing to avail themselves of a paid parking service." MANAGER will furnish competent and courteous uniformed parking attendants, during the times and on the days and hours as may be deemed necessary, and to be set forth by the OWNER. It is understood and agreed, all employees are in the employ of MANAGER, solely and not in the employ of OWNER. OWNER is in no way liable to employees for their wages or compensation. That in consideration for such services, the OWNER will allow the MANAGER the exclusive right to charge, collect the established fees for all those wishing to have their cars parked upon the parking premises. All fees must be approved by the OWNER. The ITB indicated that, in order to be deemed a "qualified bidder," the bidder "must be licensed to do business in the State of Florida." The following advisement was given in the ITB regarding how the bids of "qualified bidders" would be evaluated: Bidders shall be evaluated on the basis of proposal for operating the lot, proposed rates, proposed net income distribution, proposer's financial condition, prior job performance, and recommended detailed anticipated operating expense budget for a twelve (12) months [sic] period. So that Respondent would have information upon which to evaluate the financial condition of those submitting bids, the ITB directed all bidders to submit: "1. COPY OF 1990 OR LATEST FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND 2. FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN AND 3. ANNUAL REPORT."1/ There are three basic types of financial statements that accountants prepare: those that are the product of an audit (hereinafter referred to "audit statements"); those that are the product of a review; and those that are the product of a compilation (hereinafter referred to as "compilation statements"). Of the various types of financial statements produced by accountants, certified audit statements are considered to be the most reliable and compilation statements that are produced without the benefit of the accountant's examination of the source documents and materials upon which they are purportedly based are considered to be the least reliable. In preparing such compilation statements, the accountant simply puts the figures he has been provided by his client in financial statement form without verifying the accuracy of these figures. Accordingly, it is standard practice in the accounting profession for accountants to warn readers of such compilation statements that they "do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the[se statements]." The ITB did not specify what type of financial statement bidders had to submit along with their bid. There was no indication in the ITB that a compilation statement would be deemed unacceptable. Petitioner submitted a timely bid in response to the ITB. Its bid was accompanied by the financial statement required by the ITB. The financial statement was a compilation statement prepared by Petitioner's accountant, Herbert Ehrlich. Appended to the statement was a letter written by Ehrlich. The body of the letter read as follows: We have compiled the accompanying balance sheet of Centre City Parking Inc. as of December 31, 1990, and related statement of income, retained earnings and supporting schedules, for the year then ended, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them. Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures and the statement of cash flows required by generally accepted accounting principles. If the omitted disclosures and statement of cash flows were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. The shareholders2/ have elected to treat the company as a small business corporation for income tax purposes as provided in the Internal Revenue Code and the applicable state statutes. As such, the corporation income or loss and credits are passed through to the shareholders and combined with their personal income and deductions to determine taxable income on their individual returns. In issuing such a written warning regarding the compilation statement he had prepared for Petitioner, Ehrlich was acting in accordance with the standards of acceptable accounting practice prescribed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Kinney System of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Kinney"), Meyers Parking System, Inc. and Republic Parking System also timely submitted bids in response to the ITB. Kinney's bid was accompanied by a certified audit statement of its parent corporation, Kinney System Holding Corporation. There was no financial statement, however, reflecting Kinney's individual financial condition. A bid evaluation committee comprised of five members evaluated each of the four bids submitted in response to the ITB. The members of the committee determined that, of the four bids submitted, Petitioner's was the lowest. They were concerned, however, based upon the statements made in Ehrlich's letter, that Petitioner had Ehrlich prepare its financial statement without giving him the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the representations it had made to him regarding its financial condition. Because of these concerns, they eliminated Petitioner's bid from consideration, notwithstanding that it was the lowest responsive bid submitted by a qualified bidder, and recommended that the contract be awarded to Kinney, whom they determined to be the next lowest qualified and responsive bidder.3/ The committee members' decision was announced in a letter dated January 13, 1992, the body of which read as follows: Based on the proposed net income distribution, references, background and financial condition, the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Committee recommends award of the annual parking lot management contract to Kinney Systems [sic] of Florida, Inc. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Protests not filed within the prescribed time limit will not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of intent to protest must be filed with the Administrative Services Director named in the bid invitation within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten days after a notice of intent to protest is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the Administrative Services Director. A copy of this letter was mailed to Petitioner. Petitioner subsequently protested the committee's recommendation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order sustaining Petitioner's protest and awarding Petitioner the contract advertised in the ITB. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of March, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 March, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has committed unlawful housing discrimination against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Waterford Crossing is a development comprising 80 townhomes in Broward County, Florida. Respondent is a homeowners' association consisting of the owners of the 80 townhomes. Respondent is governed by the homeowners and their elected Board of Directors and the officers appointed by the Board. At all relevant times, William Shaw has been the Vice President of Respondent. Diana Arguinzoni del Toro is a female who purchased a townhome at Waterford Crossing in 1997 and has lived there continuously since that time. At all relevant times, Mr. Shaw resided in a townhome across the street from the townhome of Ms. del Toro. Parking is limited at Waterford Crossing. Illegally parked cars, which may consist of vehicles parked outside of marked parking areas or vehicles in marked parking areas, but without the appropriate permit, pose a serious problem. At times, emergency vehicles have been unable to access parts of Waterford Crossing due to illegally parked vehicles. From time to time, Respondent hires a towing company to tow illegally parked vehicles from Waterford Crossing. Immediately after so-called "towing nights," residents and guests tend to comply with applicable parking rules, but, over time, compliance lessens. When the number of parking complaints rises sufficiently, Respondent hires a towing company to conduct another "towing night." It is unnecessary to consider in detail the parking rules of Waterford Crossing. On the evening of March 24, 2004, Ms. del Toro's car was legally parked, as the parking rules have been applied, in a guest space near her townhome. This happened to be a "towing night," although this fact was unknown to Ms. del Toro. As is its practice, Respondent's Board of Directors advised an employee of its property manager to conduct a towing night, and the property manager requested the towing company to tow illegally parked vehicles from Waterford Crossing that night. The diligence and care exercised by the towing company in conducting towing nights left something to be desired. Routinely, the company would tow fewer than all of the vehicles illegally parked at Waterford Crossing, as it proceeded to other sites to serve the towing needs of more profitable customers. From time to time, the company would tow a legally parked vehicle, such as a vehicle parked in a marked space and bearing a suitable parking permit. On the evening in question, towing company's lack of diligence and care combined to result in the towing of Ms. del Toro's car, despite the fact that it bore a suitable parking permit and was legally parked, and in the failure to tow other vehicles that were illegally parked. The removal of Ms. del Toro's car resulted from the failure of the tow truck operator to notice her parking sticker. The failure to remove illegally parked vehicles resulted from the operator's decision to begin and end towing night with the removal of Ms. del Toro's car. Ms. del Toro attributed the improper towing of her car to Mr. Shaw because, in the summer of 2002, he had made an unwelcome sexual advance to her while in her home. At that time, while they were alone, Mr. Shaw twice pulled the front of her blouse, in the vicinity of her breasts, in an apparent attempt to embrace or kiss her. Ms. del Toro firmly rebuffed him, and she and Mr. Shaw, who had previously maintained a neighborly relationship, no longer spoke to each other. Ms. del Toro subsequently perceived another instance of discriminatory treatment in the maintenance of her landscaping, but the evidence provides no basis to attribute this to Mr. Shaw. The evidence does not link Mr. Shaw to any shortcomings in the maintenance of vegetation on Ms. del Toro's lot, as compared to the maintenance of vegetation on the lots of other owners. Similarly, there is no more basis to attribute the towing incident to Mr. Shaw than to the incompetence of the tow truck operator, which was later fired by the property manager due to its inability to tow sufficient vehicles on "towing nights." Mr. Shaw was at work at Miami International Airport on the night of the towing incident. Additionally, the passing of nearly two years between the unwelcome sexual advance and the claimed retribution--without earlier proved instances of retribution by Mr. Shaw--militates strongly against the interpretation of the towing incident offered by Ms. del Toro and shared by Petitioner. However, Mr. Shaw's longtime status as an officer of Respondent, his unwelcome sexual advance, and his personal involvement in at least one previous "towing night," coupled with the incompetence of the towing company in improperly removing Ms. del Toro's car, constitute a reasonable basis in law and fact supporting the theory of Ms. del Toro and Petitioner that Mr. Shaw had discriminated against Ms. del Toro, Although their theory proved unsupported by the evidence, Petitioner's commencement of this proceeding was substantially justified, so as to preclude the award of attorney's fees against Petitioner.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 13th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vicki Denise Johnson Attorney for Petitioner Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Luken Attorney and Counselor at Law 1290 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334
The Issue Has Respondent's connection permit number C-16-095-93 (permit) expired under Section 335.185, Florida Statutes? Has Respondent timely complied with the requirements and conditions of the permit? If not, does Respondent's noncompliance cause safety or operational problems on State Road 555 (SR 555) which would require closing Respondent's connection to SR 555?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating vehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System in accordance with Sections 335.18-335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. Respondent owns the property in issue which is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of SR 555 and SR 655 in Polk County, Florida. As a cure for the problem created by the eminent domain proceeding in FDOT v. Shaffer concerning the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655, the Department agreed to provide connections to SR 555 and SR 655 for the property involved in the instant case. By letter dated September 27, 1993, the Department agreed to honor this agreement even though it was not included in the final order in FDOT v. Shaffer. In its letter, the Department agrees to issue a permit and construct the connections "on the condition that the remaining lands are reconstructed as shown in the attachment." The letter informs Respondent that the attachment was prepared by Reggie Mesimer for the Department and that "it appears that the settlement was based on that cure." The letter also informs Respondent that the "permit will contain limiting language to make clear that the permit has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and that it is issued for replacement of preexisting access." Attached to the letter was a site plan showing: (a) the parking layout for the site which included two parallel parking spaces in front of the building, six perpendicular south to north parking spaces on the south end of the building and eight perpendicular north to south parking spaces on the south side of the south parking area; (b) a connection to SR 655 on the north side of the building; (c) a connection to SR 555 at the front of the building; and (d) a connection to First Avenue, a side street, on the south side of the building. The site plan shows a driveway commencing at the connection to SR 655 and continuing on in front of the building to First Avenue on the south side of the building. The site plan does not show any signings or pavement markings to indicate traffic flow in and out of the site. Sometime around June 1993, the agreement in FDOT v. Shaffer notwithstanding, the Department attempted to close the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655. As a result, Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing and Department of Transportation vs First Mortgage Corporation, DOAH Case No. 93-9037 was filed with the Division. This case was later rendered moot by the issuance of the permit for the connections to SR 555 and SR 655 and the Department's agreement to construct the connections to SR 555 and SR 655. By letter dated December 15, 1993, with an addendum dated December 16, 1993, the Respondent agreed "to designating two parallel parking spaces in front of the building and have the striping done immediately." In return, the Department would "agree to have the driveway installed as shown on the drawing originally submitted." In the addendum, Respondent states that the two designated parallel parking spaces in front of the building were being striped on December 16, 1993, and that the Respondent was removing the chain link fence on the south side of the building to provide additional parking. The addendum also states that the Respondent will resurface the entire area of the drive and parking areas after the Department finishes the road construction. Additionally, the Respondent agreed to substantially comply with the driveway and parking area as shown on an attachment. The attachment was a copy of site plan referred to above in Finding of Fact 3. Respondent's Connection Application, number C-16-095-93, was approved by the Department on December 20, 1993, and the permit was issued. The application "requests permission for the construction of a connection(s) on Department of Transportation right-of-way. . . " The connections are described as: "REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONNECTION: ONE 24 FT INGRESS ON SR 655, ONE 30 FT INGRESS & EGRESS ON US 17 (SR 555) FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE AND RESTAURANT." Although the permit provides blank spaces where the mandatory beginning and completion of construction dates are to be filled in, these spaces were left blank on the permit. Likewise, there is no expiration date shown on the permit. A site plan was attached to the permit. The site plan is a copy of the site plan attached to the Department's September 27, 1993, letter referred to above with signings and pavement markings added to indicate the traffic flow in and out of the site. General Provision one of the permit provides: The permittee agrees and obligates himself to perform at his own expense the relocations, closure, alteration of the permitted connection, should the Department determine that the traffic patterns, points of connection, roadway geometrics or traffic control devices are causing an undue disruption of traffic or creating safety hazards at the exiting connections. Special Provisions one through five provide: This permit application has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and is issued for replacement of preexisting access by the Florida Department of Transportation. The permit is subject to the limitations in Chapter 335, Florida Statutes, to the same extent as the preexisting access. The permittee shall place signing and pavement marking, as indicated on the attached site plan, so that the connection on SR 655 is operated as ingress only. Parking layout and traffic flow will be constructed and maintained in substantially the same manner as indicated in the attached site plan. The permittee acknowledges that the attached site plan was the cure in the settle- ment in DOT vs. EDWARD M. SHAFFER, case number GC-G-91-786, Parcel 105. The permittee acknowledges that with the issuance of this permit and the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation's agreement to construct the two connections referenced in this permit, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, case number 93-3037 has been rendered moot. Further- more, the permittee agrees to make the appropriate filing with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. (Emphasis supplied). The permit application was signed by Dennis G. Davis as president of First Mortgage Corporation. Dennis G. Davis also signed accepting the Special Provisions attached to the permit. As to signings and pavement markings the site plan shows: a designated driveway beginning at the SR 655 connection (north end of property) and proceeding around the front of the building (east side) to the south end of the building and commencing on to the First Avenue connection; large arrows within the designated driveway indicating ingress only from SR 655 and one-way traffic around the front of the building to a point on the south end of the building where stop signs are to be located; stop signs on each side of the one-way driveway where the one-way driveway intersects a designated two-way driveway; to the south of the stop signs, arrows indicating that the one-way traffic is to move into the south side parking lot or move into the south-bound lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; arrows indicating that incoming traffic from First Avenue is to move into the south side parking lot only; a No Right Turn sign on the east side of the one-way driveway just south of the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway; a No Left Turn sign on the southwest side of the south side parking lot where the south side parking lot intersects the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; a stop sign just south of the southeast corner of the south side parking lot to the west of the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway just before First Avenue; and a No Exit sign on each side of the one-way driveway facing the opposite direction of the traffic flow in the one-way driveway at the northeast corner of the building. As to the parking layout, the site plan shows: two parallel parking spaces running north to south in front of the building along the west side of the one-way driveway; six perpendicular parking spaces running south to north abutting the south side of the building, and eight perpendicular parking spaces running north to south abutting the south side of the property west of the two-way driveway. The Department constructed the connection on SR 655 for ingress to the property from SR 655 and the connection on SR 555 for ingress to the property from SR 555 and egress to SR 555 from the property sometime in June 1993, which was before the expiration of one year after the date of issuance of the permit. Respondent started to comply with the signings and pavement markings of the site plan attached to the permit as early as December 16, 1993. Respondent has complied with the signings and pavement markings for traffic flow and parallel parking as shown on the site plan attached to the permit beginning at the connection to SR 655 and up to and including the two stop signs at the south end of the one-way driveway where it intersects the two-way driveway. The Respondent has maintained these signs and pavement markings during the construction on SR 555 by restriping the pavement and replacing signs that were torn down. However, due to the wear on the striping caused by construction traffic the pavement markings for the parallel spaces and traffic flow are dim and need painting. Due to a misunderstanding as to the Department's jurisdiction over First Avenue, Respondent has not completed the signings and pavement markings from the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway over to First Avenue or over to the parking lot. The Respondent has not completed the striping for the south to north perpendicular parking spaces abutting the south end of the building where there is pavement which would allow such striping. A segment of a chain link fence abuts the south end of the building preventing any further perpendicular parking abutting the south end of the building without going inside to the grassed area (green area) enclosed by the chain link fence. However, instead of parking perpendicular to the south end of the building, customers are parking east to west, perpendicular to the existing chain link fence. At the time the permit was issued, a chain link fence surrounded the green area on the south end of the property. Respondent removed the middle section of the chain link fence on the east side of the green area to provide additional parking inside the green area. Respondent has not placed signs or pavement markings around or at the entrance to the green area so that customers are made aware that the green area is available for parking. However, some customers are using the green area for parking. Although the parking layout of the site plan includes delineated parking spaces in the green area, nothing in the permit, including the site plan, specifically requires the green area to be paved. Although Respondent has indicated a willingness to stripe the designated parking spaces in the green area as shown on the site plan, striping the green area is neither feasible nor is it required under the permit. While all of the parking spaces have not been delineated by striping, there was no evidence that there were insufficient parking spaces on the site or that the lack of designated parking spaces was creating any safety or operational problem on SR 555. Although the site plan does not indicate by signings or pavement markings that the connection to SR 555 is an ingress and egress connection, the permit specifically provides for ingress and egress at the SR 555 connection and nothing on the site plan prohibits such access. On occasions customers park perpendicular to the front of the building ignoring the delineated parallel parking spaces in front of the building. Respondent has agreed to place a solid concrete curb along the building side (west side) of the parallel parking spaces and remove the yellow concrete stop blocks now in place that may be unintentionally inviting customers to park perpendicular to the building. The Department's expert, Michael Tako, testified that perpendicular parking in front of the building could result in vehicles on SR 555 having to slow down for vehicles that are backing out of those perpendicular parking spaces onto SR 555, creating a hazard on SR 555 known as stacking. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that stacking actually occurred or that there was any safety or operational problem being created on SR 555 by customers parking perpendicular to front of the building rather than parking in the two parallel parking spaces in front of the building. There was no engineering study presented that had been conducted subsequent to the issuance of the permit substantiating any safety or operational problem on SR 555 resulting from the failure of the Respondent to comply with signings and pavement markings of the site plan or any of the special provisions of the permit or from customers parking perpendicular to the building rather than in the parallel parking spaces. Construction on SR 555 had not been completed as of the date of the hearing. However, Respondent agreed that construction was at the stage where the driveway and parking area could now be resurfaced and restriped without substantial damage to the striping, pavement markings and signings due to construction activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order requiring the Respondent to: comply with the placement of signs as shown on the site plan attached to the permit including those signs required for the First Avenue connection; (b) comply with the pavement markings for traffic flow as shown on the site plan attached to the permit, including those necessary for the First Avenue connection and direction for entrance to the green area; (c) pave any surface necessary to comply with the pavement markings provided for in (b) above, including that necessary for the First Avenue connection and to allow necessary pavement markings for traffic flow into the green area but not to include the green area; (d) restripe the parallel parking spaces in front of the building and place a solid curb on the immediate west side of the parallel parking to replace the curb stops now in place; (e) stripe the perpendicular parking spaces that abut the south end of the building where pavement presently exists; (f) place the necessary signs at the entrance to the green area so that customers will be aware of the additional parking inside the fenced green area and; (g) remove whatever portion of the chain link fence is necessary to allow reasonable entrance to and exit from the green area. It is further recommended that Respondent be allowed sufficient time to complete the above, not to exceed 60 days unless the Respondent wishes to resurface the entire driveway area including the First Avenue connection and any parking area that is presently paved. In that event, it is recommended that Respondent be allowed 90 days. It is further recommended that Respondent not be required to pave any area that is to be used for parking including the green area and that adjacent to the green area that does not already have existing pavement. RECOMMENDED this day 12th of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0673 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-13, 16-18, 20, and 21 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 21 of the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed findings of fact 14, 22 and 24 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 19 and 23 are rejected as being argument rather than findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 15 goes to the weight to be given to Tako's testimony and is not a finding of fact per se. The Respondent Proposed Findings of Fact. The first two sentences of Respondent's introductory paragraph under "Findings Of Fact" are covered in the Preliminary Statement. The balance of the introductory paragraph and unnumbered paragraphs 2 - 6 are presented as restatements of Tako's and Davis' testimony and not as findings of fact. However, this testimony has been adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 - 21 of the Recommended Order and where it has not been so adopted it is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Francine M. Fflokes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen W. Moran, Esquire Moran & Tileston 1738 East Edgewood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33803
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s intended award of a lease for office space to a bidder other than Petitioner was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, on or about May 18, 1998, advertised and released RFP for Lease No. 800:0184 in order to procure approximately 5,000 square feet of office space in Lake City, Florida. Three timely filed proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. One of the submissions was determined to be nonresponsive and rejected. The two other proposals submitted by Petitioner and William and Willene Giles (Giles) were deemed responsive and evaluated by Respondent personnel. Site visits were made to each of the proposed sites. The sites were then evaluated using a numerical scoring system. Respondent’s initial posting of bid results on August 4, 1998, indicated a tentative award of the lease to Giles. Giles received a total score of 88.5 points. Petitioner received the maximum points with respect to cost, but was given only a total of 75.7 points. The RFP clearly requires that a bidder must provide a site layout drawn to scale which indicates the facility location and dimensions of each parking space. Also, the number of parking spaces assigned to other tenants must be identified. A bidder must agree to provide 25 parking spaces on site for use by Respondent. The site plan submitted with the Giles proposal shows five of the required parking spaces are located on property abutting the Giles property. Those five parking spaces do not currently exist on that property. No ingress or egress is shown on the site plan, although such is required by the RFP. The Giles bid should demonstrate requisite control over the adjacent property utilized in that bid. Such is not the case. Documents submitted to indicate control of the property by Giles are deficient. In addition to holders of life estates in the property, fee owners of the property must also agree to use of the property in conjunction with the lease between Giles and Respondent. The evidence does not establish that the fee owners have provided their consent. Testimony of Mary Goodman, an expert witness on behalf of Petitioner, establishes that the Giles’ bid did not demonstrate the requisite control of the property, specifically the parking area, required by the RFP at the time of bid opening. The Giles bid was not responsive. Petitioner’s bid identifies and offers for lease space in the Lake City Professional Plaza. The drawing submitted with the bid mistakenly identifies the area of the proposed lease space as “Grant Plaza.” Additionally, Petitioner’s bid did not contain a Public Entity Crime Addendum as required by the RFP. Failure to meet this requirement, by terms of the RFP, “will result in immediate disqualification of your proposal.” Other errors in Petitioner’s bid include the drawing submitted in the bid response which depicts parking. The drawing indicates that there are “new” parking spaces which are to be 10 feet wide by 19 feet deep. Under local land use regulations, new regular parking spaces must be 10 feet by 21 feet with a requirement that handicapped spaces measure 12 feet by 20 feet. Petitioner’s bid fails to comport with applicable local land use regulations. On page 2 of the RFP, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all proposals which are not responsive. Neither the Giles’ bid nor the Petitioner’s is found to be responsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding none of the bids to be responsive and making such other disposition as may be deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker and Varkas 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Lawrence Morehouse is employed as a full time faculty member by the University of South Florida (USF). At all times material to this case, parking of vehicles on the campus is regulated by USF authorities. USF parking regulations are enforced by personnel of the USF Division of Parking Services from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday. At all other times, USF parking regulations are enforced by campus police. A campus parking regulation violation is documented by a handheld electronic ticketing device which records the information and prints a notice of the violation. The printed notice is left at the vehicle for the driver to discover. A driver who believes a citation to be unfair may immediately bring the ticket to the counter clerk at the offices of the USF Division of Parking Services. The clerk is authorized to waive the fine if the individual circumstances of the case warrant waiver. The clerk records the waiver in the Division of Parking Services database. A written notice of the waiver is provided by the clerk upon the driver's request. In addition to appeal via the counter clerk, an aggrieved driver may also meet with a University Parking Appeals Mediator to discuss the matter. The driver may also file a written appeal of the ticket. If a driver remains unsatisfied after the matter is adjudicated by the mediator or by the committee which reviews written appeals, the driver may appeal the ticket to the USF Final Appeals Committee. The committee is made up of students, faculty and staff. A late fee of $13 is added to each fine imposed if the ticket remains unpaid more than ten days after adjudication is final. On June 14, 1993, Mr. Morehouse received a ticket for parking facing the direction of the traffic, a violation of campus parking restrictions. The fine for this violation is $10. Mr. Morehouse asserts that he immediately spoke to the counter clerk about the June 14 ticket and the fine was waived. There is no documentation to support his assertion. The testimony is not persuasive. On June 20, 1993, October 6, 1993, December 8, 1993, June 2, 1994 and June 7, 1994, notices of violation were provided to Mr. Morehouse for parking without a current university tag on his car. Mr. Morehouse testified that on one of these occasions, he filed a written notice of appeal. Although a hearing was convened, Mr. Morehouse did not attend the hearing because of a scheduling conflict. He did not inform appeals committee members of the conflict or advised them that he would not attend the hearing. There is no evidence that Mr. Morehouse made any attempt to appeal the four other tickets he received for parking without a current USF tag. The six tickets remain unpaid. An additional $13 late fee has been imposed on each ticket. Delinquency notices on all the tickets were sent to Mr. Morehouse. He made no apparent effort to respond to the notices. Toward the end of 1994, the matter was referred by USF Parking Services division to the USF Division of Finance and Accounting collections manager. The collections office issued monthly bills for the sum of the fines to Mr. Morehouse for approximately six months. There is no evidence that Mr. Morehouse responded to the billing. At the close of the six month billing period, a certified letter was sent to Mr. Morehouse, stating that the amount could be deducted from his paycheck and advising of his right to a hearing. Mr. Morehouse requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the University of South Florida enter a Final Order deducting the lump sum of $188 from the next salary warrant issued to Lawrence Morehouse. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2718 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Castor, President Office of the President University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 241 Tampa, Florida 33620 Noreen Segrest, Esquire Acting General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Debra A. King, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Lawrence Morehouse 2610 Drumwood Place Valrico, Florida 33594
Findings Of Fact By applications dated July 30, 1979, the Respondent National Advertising Company applied for eight permits to construct four double-faced outdoor advertising signs on U.S 41 and Pine Island Road, in Lee County, Florida. The applications in question stated that the signs were to be located in an unincorporated area of Lee County zoned commercial or industrial. This was consistent with the official zoning maps of Lee County, which reflected that the property upon which the signs were to be located was zoned commercial. The applications were approved by the Department on July 31, 1979, and one structure was erected. This structure bears permit numbers 11293-10 and 11294-10. Subsequently, it was determined that the zoning on the subject property was agricultural rather than commercial as stated on the permit applications. This problem was caused by a transposition error on the Lee County zoning maps which mistakenly classified the subject property as commercial. On November 1, 1979, notices of violation of Chapter 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code were issued against the permits which alleged that the structures were in violation of law due to inappropriate zoning. The inspector who approved the Respondent's applications relied upon the representation made by the Respondent that the zoning on the property was commercial and did not independently verify this information. In reliance on the Lee County zoning maps, a representative of the Respondent entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the property on which the signs were to be located, secured Department of Transportation permits and, subsequently, county building permits. Following the erection of the first sign, the Department was informed by another sign company that the zoning on the property was improper. The Department "red-tagged" the completed sign and the remaining permitted structures, thus halting further construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Florida Department of Transportation revoking permit numbers 11293-10, 11294-10, 11296-10, 11295-10, 11299-10, 11297-10 and 11298-10, issued to the Respondent National Advertising Company to construct four double-faced outdoor advertising signs on U.S. 41 in Lee County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of June, 1983.
