The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of the Department of Management Services (Department) to reject the bid of National Data Products, Inc. (NDP), as non-responsive departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Background On December 4, 1992, the Department of Management Services (Department) issued Invitation to Bid number 79-250-040-B REBID (hereinafter "the ITB") to establish a contract whereby eligible users could purchase microcomputers and optional components during the period of January 15, 1993, through October 31, 1993. The deadline for submitting sealed bids in response to the ITB was established as 2:00 p.m., December 16, 1992. At the time of the deadline, the Department received a number of bids, including those of petitioner, National Data Products, Inc. (NDP), and intervenor, Mon-Wal, Inc., d/b/a the Waldec Group (Waldec). On December 21, 1992, following its evaluation of the bids, the Department posted its bid tabulation. The bid tabulation indicated, inter alia, that, although NDP was the apparent low bidder, its bid had been rejected as non-responsive, and that Waldec was declared the low responsive bidder. Pertinent to this case, the predicate for the Department's rejection of NDP's bid was its conclusion that NDP had failed to include, as required by the ITB, the manufacturer's suggested retail price lists with its bid. NDP filed a timely notice of protest and formal written protest to contest the Department's decision. Such protest contended that the manufacturer's suggested retail price lists were included with its bid or, alternatively, that had they not been submitted, such oversight was a minor irregularity that should be waived. The Invitation to Bid The stated purpose of the ITB was to establish pricing for the purchase of microcomputers and optional components to be added to an existing contract for use by all State of Florida agencies and other eligible users. Specifically, the ITB invited bids for three separate product lines, Hewlett Packard, NCR and Zenith, and a bidder could respond with regard to one or more of the product lines. This bid protest relates only to that portion of the ITB regarding the Hewlett Packard (HP) product line. The ITB, apart from specifying the HP product line, did not identify any particular HP product or volume. Rather, the ITB sought to establish pricing by requiring each bidder to specify a percentage discount off the manufacturer's suggested retail price of all HP microcomputer systems and peripheral products. Pertinent to this case, the general conditions of the ITB provided: 9. AWARDS: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved . . . to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. * * * 15. PRICE ADJUSTMENTS: Any price decrease effectuated during the contract period by reason of market change shall be passed on to the State of Florida . . . Price increases are not acceptable. * * * 24. THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER(S) MUST PROVIDE: A copy of any product literature and price list, in excellent quality black image or white paper, or on 4 x reduction microfiche, suitable for duplication (120 lines resolution or better). * * * NOTE: ANY AND ALL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FROM THESE GENERAL CONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE. . . . And, the ITB contained the following special conditions: LITERATURE DISTRIBUTION Successful bidder shall be required to furnish State agencies and political subdivisions with price lists, (printed) descriptive literature and technical data service information for items awarded. Bidders are urged to reserve approximately 1,500 price lists for this purpose. * * * PRICE DISCOUNT SCHEDULE Bidders of brand name microcomputer systems and optional components, shall complete the price discount schedule in the format provided. The following information will be included: a copy of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail current Price list (current Price list is the latest price list in effect between the "date mailed" as shown on the ITB and the Bid opening date), number and date, bid discount for microcomputer configured systems, bid discount for optional components not purchased as part of a microcomputer system. Separate bid discounts for government and education are requested, however education bid discounts must be greater than government bid discounts, for a separate award to be made. (See EVALUATION and AWARD paragraph, page 16, for evaluation and award criteria.) PRICING The discount offered and awarded shall remain firm for any product placed on the contract resulting from this bid, or for products added to the contract at a later date through revision to the contract. * * * MANUFACTURER'S SUGGESTED RETAIL PRICE CHANGES When the list prices for products on the contract are reduced, the contractor shall submit new prices which reflect the same percentage off list price as was originally bid. When the contractor cannot continue to offer products at the contracted discount due to a general change in the manufacturer's pricing policy or other valid reasons, the State shall determine whether to allow the product line to remain on contract. The contractor shall provide to the Division of Purchasing, documentation to justify why the product line can no longer be offered at the contracted discount. The determination to allow the product line to remain on contract and under what conditions shall be at the discretion of the Division of Purchasing in the best interest of the State. In no instance may the new pricing result in an increase in net prices. Reductions in price shall be effective upon receipt of written notification to the Division of Purchasing and shall remain in effect for the balance of the contract term, unless further reduced by the contractor. In the event that the contractor announces a price reduction on any equipment listed on the contract prior to the purchaser's acceptance of said equipment, such price reduction shall be made available to the purchaser. * * * FORMAT FOR SUBMISSION OF BID PRICE SHEETS Referenced Price Lists, Ordering Instructions, Dealer Lists and Locations or Service Locations, required in this bid, must be submitted in hard copy with the bid package. Also provide with the bid package or within ten (10) working days after notification the identical information, in WordPerfect 5.1 format, portrait orientation with minimum 0.5 inch margins, Courier 10 pitch font, in hard copy and on 3.5 or 5.25 diskette media. Failure to comply will result in your contract being withheld from distribution. EVALUATION AND AWARD Bids will be evaluated as follows: Government and Education bids will be evaluated and awarded separately. The percentage (%) discount bid for each brand name, for each category (configured microcomputer systems and optional components), will be multiplied by an applicable usage factor, (the projected percentage purchases from each category) to be stated at the time of the bid opening, which will yield a weighted discount. The weighted discounts of the two categories will be added to yield the total weighted discount on which an award will be made. Awards will be made separately for Government, and Education (if applicable), to the responsive bidder offering the greatest total weighted discount. EVALUATION FORMULA (Micro (%) discount (x) usage factor) (+) plus (option components (%) discount (x) usage factor) = total evaluation (%) discount. * * * MICROCOMPUTERS AND OPTIONAL COMPONENTS PRICE DISCOUNT SCHEDULE GOVERNMENT EDUCATION Manufacturers MICROS OPTIONS MICROS OPTIONS Brand Name Catalog Date %DISCOUNT %DISCOUNT %DISCOUNT %DISCOUNT HEWLETT PACKARD 1(A) (B) (C) -NA- (D) -NA- NCR 2(A) (B) (C) (D) ZENITH 3(A) (B) (C) (D) MSPR: Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price from which discounts will be taken. Micros: Percentage discount for microcomputer systems. Options: Percentage discount for optional components when purchased Separately, not as a part of a microcomputer system. Responses to the ITB The price discount schedules submitted on behalf on NDP and Waldec were virtually identical except for the discounts offered. Each specified the HP catalog of October 1992 as containing the manufacturer's suggested retail price for personal computer products and the HP catalog of November 1992 for peripheral products from which percentage discounts would be taken for microcomputer systems and optional components. As to discounts, NDP bid 32.02% for microcomputer systems and 38.05% for optional components, and Waldec bid 25.90% for microcomputer systems and 39.92% for optional components. Following the bid opening, at which the bids were announced and tabulated, the bid documents were transported to the office of a Department purchasing specialist charged with the responsibility of evaluating the bids. Applying the evaluation criteria established by the ITB, NDP was calculated to be the apparent low bidder; however, because NDP's bid failed to include the MSRP lists, when examined by the specialist, it was declared non-responsive. The bid of Waldec, which scored second under the evaluation criteria, was found to include copies of the MSRP list referenced in its price discount schedule and was declared the low responsive bidder. The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) List With regard to Hewlett Packard, and ostensibly all manufacturers, there is only one manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) at any given time. That price may be established by reference to the MSRP list published by the company, as well as any addenda that may be pertinent. Hewlett Packard publishes separate MSRP lists for personal computer products and peripheral products at 90 day intervals and updates those lists on a monthly basis, as needed, through addenda, its "In Touch" publication, and "The Hewlett-Packard News Network." Each method used by HP to update its quarterly MSRP list is expected to provide identical information, and each is considered an addendum to its quarterly MSRP list from which the current MSRP can be derived. 2/ Here, the proof demonstrates that the "Manufacturer's Suggested Retail current Price list (current Price list is the latest price list in effect between the `date mailed' as shown on the ITB and the Bid opening date)" which the ITB directed should be included with the bid, was the HP quarterly MSRP list of October 1992 for personal computer products, the HP quarterly MSRP list of November 1992 for peripheral products, and an addendum effective December 1, 1992 (whether by addenda, "In Touch" or "The Hewlett-Packard News Network"), for personal computer products. NDP contends that included with its bid were copies of the October 1992 and November 1992 MSRP lists for personal computer products and peripheral products, respectively, and a copy of the December 1, 1992, "In Touch" newsletter. The parties have stipulated that if NDP's bid included such documents it was responsive to the ITB. Compared with NDP's averred response, Waldec's bid included a copy of the October 1992 MSRP list for personal computer products and the November 1992 MSRP list for peripheral products, but no addenda to reflect price changes affecting personal computer products through the bid opening date. Notwithstanding, the Department has found Waldec's bid responsive. Such finding, discussed more fully infra, mitigates against the Department's contention that any failure to include MSRP lists with the bid constitutes a material deviation. The missing price lists To support its position that its bid included the HP MSRP lists, NDP offered, inter alia, the testimony of Carol Hutchins, Kyle Peterson, and Jacqueline Smith. Ms. Hutchins is the government sales manager for NDP at its offices in Clearwater, Florida, and prepared NDP's bid. Mr. Peterson is the general manager of the Tallahassee branch office of NDP, and was responsible for delivering NDP's bid to the Department. Ms. Smith is employed in the Tallahassee branch office, and is engaged in government sales on behalf of NDP. The bid prepared on behalf of NDP by Ms. Hutchins ostensibly included a copy of HP's MSRP list of October 1992 for personal computer products, HP's MSRP list of November 1992 for peripheral products, and HP's "In Touch" newsletter for December 1992. This bid package, along with two blank copies of the price discount schedule (page 23 of the ITB) in case NDP decided to alter the discount it initially established in its bid before submittal, was shipped via Federal Express to Mr. Peterson at NDP's Tallahassee branch office. According to Mr. Peterson, the package was delivered to his office at or about 11:00 a.m., December 16, 1992, and placed on his desk. When he opened it, Mr. Peterson observed NDP's response to the ITB, as well as the MSRP lists heretofore discussed. Notwithstanding that the role of the Tallahassee branch was "very minor . . ., to act as courier for the bid and ensure that it was delivered in a timely manner," the bid package was disassembled at least twice within that office. First, Ms. Smith thought it would be a good idea to make a copy of the bid for their files, so she made a copy of NDP's bid, but not the MSRP lists. According to Ms. Smith, after making the copy she replaced the original bid on top of the MSRP lists on Mr. Peterson's desk. Second, NDP elected to change the discount rate it initially proposed so a new price discount schedule was typed by Mr. Peterson's staff, and he exchanged the new page for the old page in the bid document. Thereafter, according to Mr. Peterson, he inserted the bid package, including the price lists, into an envelope which he sealed and delivered to the Department shortly before the bid opening, to-wit: at 1:49 p.m., December 16, 1992. Both Mr. Peterson and Ms. Smith attended the bid opening and, at hearing, related what they recalled of the scene and procedures utilized. Regarding significant matters, their recitation of what occurred bore little resemblance to what actually transpired. For example, Mr. Peterson described the tenor of what occurred during the bid opening as one of confusion, when the more compelling proof demonstrates the contrary. Indeed, the two purchasing agents and the purchasing specialist who conducted the opening did so with precision and in accord with Department policy. Mr. Peterson, likewise, described the table upon which the bids were opened as being upon a raised platform when in fact it was not, and recalled that the purchasing agent who opened the bids separated the envelopes from the bid packages before passing the bid package to the purchasing specialist to announce the bid, which she did not. Finally, notwithstanding the limited nature of their involvement with the bid, as well as the fact that each was taking notes as each bid was announced, Mr. Peterson and Ms. Smith aver that they saw the price lists attached to NDP's bid when it was announced. As for Mr. Peterson, he averred that he noticed "stapled" booklets included with NDP's bid which could only have been the price lists. Ms. Smith recalls that the thickness of the bid package she observed at opening compels the conclusion that the price lists were attached. Given the circumstances, the testimony of Mr. Peterson and Ms. Smith regarding their observations at bid opening, and having specific recall regarding the presence of "stapled" booklets or the thickness of the package, is less than compelling. Regarding the bid opening procedure, the proof demonstrates that it was carefully and precisely run, consistent with Department policy. The first purchasing agent was seated on the left of the bid opening table, the purchasing specialist was seated in the center, and the second purchasing agent was seated to the right. The first agent had the sealed bids stacked alphabetically in front of her, opened one at a time, removed the contents from the envelope, placed the contents on top of the envelope and secured them with a rubber band, and passed the bid package to the specialist. The specialist opened the bid to the price discount schedule (page 23 of the ITB), read off the discount bid, and laid the bid package upside down to his right. Continuing through the responses, each bid or no bid was announced and placed on the appropriate stack to his right. The second agent recorded the bids on the bid tabulation sheet, as announced, and never touched the bid packages. Following the bid opening, the first agent retrieved the bids and, as to each bid, cut the date stamp off the envelope and stapled it to the first page of the bid form and, if the bid contained a form requesting notice of the bid result and a check for such service, removed the form and check and stapled them together for delivery to another employee to process. 3/ The bids, each separately secured by a rubber band, were then stacked and secured by another rubber band and taken to the office of another purchasing specialist for evaluation. When the agent took the bids from the bid room, no papers were left behind. The specialist who evaluated the bids found them in his office, as bound by the agent, between 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. that day, or approximately 45 minutes to one hour after the bid opening concluded. The specialist went through each bid separately to ascertain its responsiveness to the conditions of the ITB, and calculated the apparent low bidder by application of the evaluation formula contained in the ITB. Upon evaluation of NDP's bid, the specialist discovered that it did not include the price lists required by the ITB, and concluded that NDP's bid was, therefore, non-responsive. Considering the proof, it is most unlikely that the price lists that were to be included in NDP's bid were misplaced by the Department. Rather, it is more likely that such price lists were not included with NDP's bid, when it was delivered to the Department, because of an oversight at NDP's Tallahassee branch office. While the proof fails to support the conclusion that NDP's bid included the HP price lists when delivered to the Department, such failure is not dispositive of NDP's protest where, as here, such failing was a minor irregularity. Minor irregularity Rule 60A-1.001(31), Florida Administrative Code, defines the term "minor irregularity" as" A variation from the invitation to bid . . . terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid . . ., or give the bidder . . . an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders . . ., or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Here, the Department rejected NDP's bid based on a uniform policy which it has established that the omission of a price list from any bid can never constitute a minor irregularity and always renders a bid non-responsive. The justification for such policy was stated as follows: . . . The purpose of requiring price lists is to insure that the vendor is bidding on the material that he has offered, that he has been certified by the manufacturer to act in their behalf. It also gives [the Department] the information by which [the Department] can provide price lists to agencies so the using agencies know the price lists from which they expect the discounts. Tr. 247. . . . A bidder can obtain a competitive advantage over competitors by failing to submit price lists with its bid because the bidder would then have the ability to disqualify its own bid in the event their quotation was out of line with the other bidders. Tr. 246. Also, by failing to submit a price list, a vendor may attempt to rely on price lists reflecting higher prices for the ultimate contract with the state. Tr. 268. [Department proposed findings of fact 21 and 22.] While the Department's concerns or rationale may be legitimate, depending on the facts of the case, they do not rationally support a uniform policy that a failure to include price lists with any bid can never be a minor irregularity. Stated differently, to explicate application of its policy in this case requires that the Department demonstrate that the concerns underlying its policy are existent in the instant bid. Here, at least with regard to NDP's bid, the proof fails to support the Department's policy. Of import to the resolution of the issue in this case are the provisions of the ITB regarding the price discount schedule, as follows: Bidders of brand name microcomputer systems and optional components, shall complete the price discount schedule in the format provided. The following information will be included: a copy of the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail current Price list (current Price list is the latest price list in effect between the "date mailed" as shown on the ITB and the Bid opening date), number and date, bid discount for microcomputer configured systems, bid discount for optional components not purchased as part of a microcomputer system. NDP's bid, consistent with Waldec's bid, specified the Hewlett Packard price lists of October 1992 and November 1992 as being the "current Price list" upon which it based its bid. Such lists are readily identifiable, and permitting NDP to provide such price lists after bid opening would not affect the price of its bid, give it any advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or adversely affect the interests of the agency. Also of import to the resolution of the issue in this case is the proof which demonstrates that during the course of its evaluation the Department did not know what the current price lists were, relied upon the bidders to comply with the requirement to attach current price lists, accepted Waldec's bid as responsive although it failed to include the December 1992 addendum, and proposed to rely on the manufacturer to resolve any disputes regarding discrepancies between lists. Such proof demonstrates that the price lists were a mere technicality, and that the provisions of the ITB, which specified the basis on which the bids were predicated as the manufacturers "current" price list, defined as "the latest price list in effect between the `date mailed' as shown on the ITB and the Bid opening date," were sufficiently precise to allow the parties to confidently contract. Here, none of the announced concerns of the Department, as set forth in paragraph 24 supra, have any applicability to NDP's bid. NDP's response to the price discount schedule was sufficiently precise to identify the price lists on which it was bidding (the material being offered), it submitted the required manufacturer's certificate demonstrating NDP was authorized to represent Hewlett-Packard (page 21 of the ITB), the provisions of the ITB required the successful bidder to furnish the state agencies and political subdivisions with price lists (page 10 of the ITB) after award, and NDP's identification of the price lists in the price discount schedule would preclude it from altering its bid after bid opening. In sum, NDP's failure to include the price lists with its bid was a minor irregularity that did not affect the price of the bid, give NDP an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely affect the interests of the agency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding NDP's bid responsive, and awarding the subject bid to NDP as the lowest responsive bidder. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March 1993.
The Issue The Department of Corrections sought bids for construction of a health services building for a correctional facility. A discrepancy existed between the written specifications and the architectural drawings for the project. An addendum was issued to clarify the matter. The low bidder (Intervenor) did not acknowledge receipt of the addendum until several hours after the opening of bids. The Department accepted the Intervenor's bid. The Petitioner timely protested the action. The issue in this case is whether, in accepting the Intervenor's bid, the Department acted contrary to the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1990, the Department of Corrections (hereinafter "Department") issued an Invitation To Bid ("ITB") for PR-35-JRA, Project #90015, consisting of the construction of a Health Classification Building at the Columbia County Correctional Institution. In relevant part, the ITB requested price proposals for said construction, provided that the bid would be awarded to the responsive bidder submitting the lowest cost proposal, provided that "in the interest" of the Department, "any informality" in bids could be waived, and provided space on the bid form for acknowledgment of receipt of all addenda to the ITB. Bids were to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 11, 1990, the time scheduled for bid opening. Documents issued with the ITB included architectural drawings and written specifications for the building. The architectural firm of Jim Roberson and Associates, (hereinafter "JRA") had been employed by the Department to prepare the drawings and specifications. JRA was responsible for preparation and distribution of related addenda. Further, a JRA representative presided over the opening of bids on behalf of the Department. Following release of the ITB and supporting documents, JRA became aware of a conflict between sink faucets required by the drawings and those required by the written specifications. The specifications provided that sink faucets operated by hand levers or foot pedals were to be installed in the facility. The architectural drawings JRA indicated that sink faucets were to operate by means of "electric-eye" activators, rather than by hand levers or foot pedals. On September 10, 1990, JRA issued an addendum (identified as Addendum #2) 1/ to clarify that "electric-eye" type operators were to be included in the bids. The addendum was sent by telephone facsimile machine to all anticipated bidders. In part the addendum provides as follows: "This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Specifications and Drawings, dated 31 July 1990, as noted below. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to Disqualification." On September 11, 1990, the eight bids submitted in response to the ITB were opened by the JRA representative. The Intervenor, Custom Construction (hereinafter "Custom"), submitted the lowest bid at $898,898. The Petitioner, David Nixon (hereinafter "Nixon"), submitted the next lowest bid at $900,000. The bid form provided by the Department as part of the ITB materials to prospective bidders provided space for acknowledgment of addenda to the ITB documents. Upon opening the bid submitted by Custom, the JRA representative officiating at the opening noted that the Custom bid failed to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the appropriate space on the bid form. 2/ Robert L. Harris, president of Custom Construction, attended the bid opening. When the JRA representative noted the lack of acknowledgment of Addendum #2, Mr. Harris stated that he was unaware of the addendum. At hearing, Mr. Harris testified that his secretary told him that Addendum #2 was not received by his office. The JRA representative testified that his review of JRA's FAX transmission records indicated that the FAXed Addendum #2 was received by all bidders. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Addendum #2 was transmitted to and received by, all bidders. Upon leaving the bid opening, Mr. Harris immediately contacted his plumbing subcontractor, Jerry Stratyon, and discussed the situation. Approximately two hours after the bid opening, and after talking with Mr. Stratton, Mr. Harris notified JRA, in a letter transmitted by FAX machine to JRA, that his bid price did include plumbing fixtures required by Addendum #2. Mr. Harris concluded the letter, "[w]hen can we start work. I know you don't want the alternate." On October 8, 1990, JRA recommended to the Department, that the Custom bid be accepted. The letter of recommendation, in part, provides: The apparent low bidder however, did not verify receipt of Addendum No. 2 on the Bid Proposal. Our office did receive a, facsimile after the bid verifying Addendum NO. 2 receipt from the Contractor's Office." However, the actual letter from Custom to JRA states, not that Addendum #2 was received, but that it was included in the price bid by Custom's plumbing subcontractor. Both Nixon and Custom obtained plumbing bids from the same subcontractor, Jerry Stratton. The cost increase attendant to the requirements of Addendum #2 is approximately $2,400 over the plumbing fixtures indicated in the written project specifications. Mr. Stratton was aware of Addendum #2 and testified that the requirements of Addendum #2 were reflected in his price quotes to both bidders. Mr. Stratton provided the same price bid to Nixon and Custom. Mr. Stratton also provided bids to Nixon and Custom for HVAC work. Mr. Stratton was accepted as Custom's HVAC subcontractor. Nixon's bid indicates that another HVAC subcontractor will perform the cork should Nixon receive the contract. The ITB provided that bid modification or withdrawal was permitted on written or telegraphic request received from a bidder prior to the time fixed for opening. Mr. Harris did not attempt to either withdraw or modify Custom's bid prior to bid opening. No bid modification was permitted subsequent to the bid opening. The Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of the State and would not be unfair to other bidders. The evidence does not establish that Custom Construction's failure to acknowledge the addendum was purposefully designed to permit withdrawal of their bid subsequent to the public bid opening. The omission of acknowledgment of Addendum #2 provided Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid that was not available to other bidders. Custom could have informed the Department that the bid price did not include the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bid could have been withdrawn. Custom was therefore provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had no opportunity to, and would not have been permitted to, withdraw their aids. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order rejecting the bid submitted by Intervenor as nonresponsive and awarding the contract to the Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Transportation ("Department") erred by considering Willeby Construction, Inc. ("Willeby") a qualified bidder; whether the requirement to submit a bid bond or certified funds check or draft (hereafter "security on the bid") with the bid was a material requirement; whether the Department erred in treating Willeby’s failure to include security on the bid with its bid proposal as a minor, and, thereby, an irregularity which could be waived; and whether said decision of the Department was contrary to the terms of the bid, contrary to law, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact On November 14, 2000, the Department issued a bid solicitation notice for Financial Project No. 40509417201/Contract No. E3A78, a contract for routine mowing of grassed and vegetated roadside areas and litter removal from within the Department’s highway right-of-way in Gadsden and Leon Counties. The invitation to bid stated: In a letter dated November 17, 2000 from Richard Norris of the Department District Contracts Office to all prospective bidders, the Department reiterated the bid bond requirement stating "[i]f your bid is over $150,000, a Bid Bond of 5 percent of the bid amount is required and must be attached to your bid proposal. Failure to submit this with your bid will result in your bid being rejected." (Emphasis is in original.) The invitation to bid further stated: BID OR PROPOSAL BOND (If bid is over $150,000): Must be completely executed if bid is over $150,000. This 5 percent bid bond is required and must be included in your bid package. If bid is less than $150,000 no bid bond shall be necessary, however, the successful bidder shall be required to obtain a performance bond upon execution of the contract. The purpose of the requirement for security on the bid is to compensate the Department for damages in the event the low bidder fails to enter into the contract. The Department received bid proposals from six firms in response to its bid solicitation by the due date of December 7, 2000. The lowest bidder for Contract No. E3A78 was Willeby. Willeby submitted a business check drawn on Willeby’s business account no. 02-140168-01 with Farmers & Merchants Bank. This was an unsecured, personal check. At the time the bids were opened, Willeby’s Account No. 02-140168-01 contained insufficient funds to cover the check Willeby submitted as its bid bond in the amount of $11,996.52 for Contract No. E3A78. Willeby failed to submit the required security on the bid in the form of a cashier’s check, bank money order, bank draft of any national or state bank, or surety bond, payable to the State of Florida, Department of Transportation as required by the solicitation. The Petitioner, Phoenix, was the second lowest bidder. Phoenix submitted a bid bond equal to 5 percent of its total bid with its bid package. Phoenix fully complied with all the requirements of the invitation to bid. Bids for Contract No. E3A78 were opened on Thursday December 7, 2000. At that time, the Department's personnel discovered that Willeby had failed to submit security on bid as required by the terms of the bid solicitation. On December 15, 2000, eight days after the Department discovered that Willeby’s bid submittal was deficient, Starsky Harrell, the contract specialist with the District III office of the Department, telephoned W.J. Willeby, the president of Willeby Construction. Harrell informed Mr. Willeby that Willeby’s bid was non-conforming, and gave Willeby the opportunity to cure its non-responsive bid by submitting a check for certified funds or a bid bond as required by the bid solicitation. Willeby, at this point, had the opportunity to cure the defect or refuse to cure the defect, thereby, negating his bid. This gave Willeby an advantage not enjoyed by the other bidders. Willeby chose to cure its non-responsive bid, and submitted a certified check as its security on the bid. Willeby, thereafter, entered into the contract with the Department on Monday, December 18, 2000, eleven days after the bids were opened. The Department posted its intent to award Contract No. E3A78 on December 21, 2000, indicating its intent to award the contract to Willeby Construction. Phoenix timely filed this formal protest in opposition to the award of Contract No. E3A78 as contrary to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2000). Regarding the requirements for security on the bid required in the solicitation for the bid and accompanying materials, Richard Norris, the contracts administrator, made the decision to emphasize the language by having it in bold-face type and underlined. His purpose for underlining and placing in bold-face type this language was to "put some accent on it, to make it stand out." A basic tenet of competitive procurement is to protect the integrity of the bidding process and ensure open and fair competition. A responsive bid is one which meets all the requirements of the proposal documents. Mr. Willeby has entered bids on Department contracts seventeen times in the past. Willeby is an experienced participant in the bid process. A bidder who has the option of taking a contract or not taking a contract after the bidder knows what the other bids are on a project has a competitive advantage over other bidders. If the bidder has bid too close to the profit margin, the bidder can refuse to cure the bid defect and avoid performance on the unprofitable contract. It is not only less expensive for a person to submit a personal check for security on a bid, but a stop payment order can be issued on a personal check. The bid bond posted by the Petitioner cost $800.00. This amount is not refundable. However, the proposal provides alternatives to a bid bond to establish security on the bid; therefore, paying the cost of the bond is not a competitive disadvantage. It is noted that a personal check is not among the alternatives, and the bid proposal's provisions for bid security specifically provide that checks or drafts for less than 5 percent of the bid amount will invalidate the bid. The only checks or drafts permitted under the terms of the bid proposal are those checks secured by the banking institution's funds and not subject to stop payment orders of the person in whose behalf the check is issued. It is consistent with the stated terms of invalidation, that, in addition to an insufficient amount, that an instrument not meeting the stated terms of the provision would also invalidate the bid. If being a dollar short on the secured amount is disqualifying, being short the entire amount in secured funds would be similarly disqualifying. Evidence was received regarding whether Willeby was a qualified bidder. This information related to the nature and amount of the equipment which Willeby had, and its financial ability to obtain additional equipment. Although Willeby did not have some of the equipment necessary to handle this job and its other contract obligations, he had ordered this equipment and his bank indicated that it would loan him the money. It was not developed whether the bank's willingness was dependent upon the pendency of the challenged contract award, and it is concluded that Willeby is a qualified bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the bid of Willeby Construction on Contract No. E3A78 be rejected, and the contract be awarded to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 25th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Julius F. Parker, III, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian A. Crumbaker, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Respondent's proposed award on BID No. HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc., should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the solicitation of bids for and award of contracts for the construction of state buildings in Florida. Both Greenhut and Dunn are qualified contractors who are certified to bid on state construction contracts in general and this procurement in particular. In December, 1991, the Department issued an advertisement for bids for the project in issue herein, the construction of the Kirkman Complex Addition Data Center in Tallahassee, Florida. According to the Advertisement for Bids, all bids "must be submitted in full accordance with the requirements of the Drawings, Specifications, Bidding Conditions and Contractual Conditions, which may be examined and obtained ..." from the Department's designated architect/engineer, Clemons, Rutherford and Associates, Inc. in Tallahassee. Section B-21 of the request for proposals (invitation to bid) reads, in pertinent part: The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the owner. Bids received on this project were originally scheduled to be opened and read aloud on January 15, 1992 with the tabulation and Bid Award Recommendation to be posted the following days at the location where the bids were opened. The proposal as originally issued called for the submittal of a Base Bid with four Alternates, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. Alternate 1a was a deduct for merely extending the existing Johnson Controls System to incorporate the new work instead of providing a totally new and independent control system. Alternate 1b called for adding furniture and landscaping for certain of the rooms shown on the drawings; Alternate 2 called for adding a "shelled" fourth floor as described in the proposal; and Alternate 3, as originally issued, called for: Add a complete fourth floor as indicated in drawings including the finished interior partitions with full HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical Service. Include furniture and landscaping for rooms 414 and 419. (Includes items in Alternate No. 2) As a result of questions received from prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference which indicated some confusion as to the meaning and intent of the Department regarding Alternate No. 3, by letter to all prospective bidders, dated January 8, 1992 the Department's architect indicated: Alternate #3 shall be the fourth floor complete, as shown on drawings, which includes items in Alternate #2. Addendum #1 to the request for bids, dated January 10, 1992, clarified Item 1-3.6), PROPOSAL FORM, of the PROJECT MANUAL to ADD to "Alternate #3", "(Include items in Alternate #2)". Item #2-1 of Addendum #2, dated January 16, 1992, deleted the sentence changed by Item #1- 3.6, and revised the sentence to read as follows: This includes any items required in addition to Alternate #2 to complete the remainder of the work for the Fourth Floor. Information contained at the beginning of each Addendum calls the bidders' attention to the change and indicates that failure to incorporate it may result in disqualification. The due date for bids was extended at the instance of the Department. Both Petitioner and Intervenor submitted bids for this project as did several other concerns on January 23, 1992. Greenhut's base bid was $4,139,000 with a deduct of $63,600 for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b, 2, and 3 of $69,500, $239,000, and $209,000 respectively. Greenhut's total bid, therefore, through Alternate 3, was $4,592,900. Dunn's base bid was $4,079,000 with a zero deduct for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b through 3 of $67,000, and $428,000. Dunn's total bid, therefore, was $4,574,000 for a difference of $18,900. Greenhut's bid was submitted on a form which provided for the base bid, the deduct for 1a, and the additions for 1b. 2 and 3 with the figure for 3 being those costs in addition to those identified in Dunn's bid was submitted on a prior form which provided for a base bid, a 1a deduction if any, (there was none), and additions for 1b, 2, and 3 with the figure for 3 including the figure listed for 2. An initial review of Dunn's bid form, then, showed a base bid of $4,079,000, no 1a deduction, a 1b addition of $67,000, a 2 addition of $311,000, and a 3 addition of $428,000. This letter figure included the $311,000 figure for Alternate 2, which should have been deducted from the bid during tabulation. When the bids were opened on January 23, 1992 by Mr. Everline, each figure on each bid was read off and listed on the bid tabulation form in the appropriate area. No attention was given at that time to the appropriateness or correctness of the figures listed on each bid form, nor was any attention paid to any other technical requirement of the procurement. This was merely a transfer of figures from the bid form to the tabulation form, and when this was done, Mr. Everline announced to all in attendance, including many contractor representatives, that the "apparent low bidder" was Greenhut. In arriving at that conclusion, Mr. Everline added all of Dunn's figures together without deducting the $311,000 listed for Alternate 2, a figure which was included in the $428,000 figure listed for Alternate 3. This resulted in an incorrectly large total bid for Dunn. Sometime later that day, a representative of Dunn contacted Mr. Everline to indicate that Dunn had inadvertently bid on the wrong form which precipitated its misleading presentation. Mr. Everline properly declined to discuss the matter and referred the Dunn representative to the Department's legal counsel. Sometime thereafter, when the bids had been tabulated and reviewed for responsiveness and legal qualification of bidders, Mr. Everline suggested to representatives of DHSMV that in order to forestall a protest, only so much of the project as extended through Alternate 2 be awarded. DHSMV officials, however, had sufficient funds available for the entire project, including some additional funds, if necessary, for cabling, and insisted they wanted the entire project awarded. The Department's legal counsel, upon review of the situation, concluded that the Dunn's actual bid intent was clear to include the amount listed for Alternate 2 within that listed for Alternate 3, and not to consider the two as additives to each other. It further concluded that Dunn's use of the improper form on which to submit its bid was immaterial and afforded it no improper competitive edge over other bidders. Therefore, it was concluded that Dunn was the low responsive bidder and, on February 4, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Award to Dunn. Thereafter, Greenhut filed its Petition For Hearing taken as a protest to the award. Both the Department and Dunn agreed that Greenhut had standing to protest the award and that the protest was timely filed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Greenhut Construction Company, Inc., in regard to the proposed award of contact in bid number HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 21st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1297 BID 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 to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Argument and not Finding of Fact except for 1st sentence which is accepted. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. FOR THE INTERVENOR: Accepted. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 19. Accepted. 20. & 21. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Emmanuel, Esquire 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire 315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Suite 307, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Suite 309, knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Both DOT and Weekley submitted proposed Recommended Orders. Their proposed findings of fact have generally been adopted here but are addressed in detail in Appendix A, attached and incorporated in this Recommended Order. On or before July 31, 1985, DOT received sealed bids from three bidders for State Project Nos. 86070-3492 and 93220-3403, involving landscaping of interchanges in Broward and Palm Beach counties. Marvin's Garden was the apparent low bidder, with a total of $389,112.19 shown on the face sheet of the bid blank form. Weekley was the next lowest bidder with a total of $419,899.56, and P. J. Constructors, Inc., was the highest bidder with a total of $458,805.90. After review of the bid documents for compliance with DOT bid procedures, a discrepancy was found in the Marvin's Garden bid and DOT notified the parties by letter dated August 20, 1985, that Weekley was the apparent low bidder on the project. The discrepancy was found on page 001 of the bid blank form submitted by Marvin's Garden. For item 570-11, "Water for Plant Establishment," under the column, unit price written in words, Marvin's Garden showed "fourteen thousand two hundred eighty two dollars and sixty six cents." The column, unit price in figures, showed "14,282.66," and the final column, headed "amounts" showed "14,282.16." The bid item was supposed to show the unit price for a thousand gallons of water (which price was to be written in both words and figures) and a total, or extension price for 3,743.125 thousand gallons of water. When the unit price on Marvin's Garden's bid was multiplied by 3,743.125 (number of units), the resulting total price for that bid item was $53,461,781.71. This figure was entered on the form in red ink and was initialled by Raymond Patrick Haverty, the DOT reviewer. Marvin's Garden's total bid for the project was then adjusted to $53,836,611.04, a figure far in excess of either Weekley's or P. J. Constructors' bids. Marvin Gross is the individual responsible for preparing and submitting bids for his corporation. He has been doing bid work for DOT for approximately 20 years and is thoroughly familiar with the bid procedures, forms and standard specifications. He attributes the irregularity on his submission to his "tunnel vision." Unit prices are significant because the quantity designated by DOT is merely an approximate, best guess by the Department engineers. For item 570-II, unpredictable weather conditions will ultimately dictate exactly how much water will be necessary to successfully complete the landscape project. That exact quantity times the unit price will be the basis of payment to the contractor. DOT found no violations of bid requirements in the bids of Weekley and P. J. Constructors, Inc., and none have been raised in this proceeding.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, a final order should be issued declaring Weekley the lowest responsible bidder on project Nos. 86070-3492 and 93220-3403, and the contract awarded accordingly. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 2nd day of December 1985. APPENDIX In accordance with Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, the following are recommended rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent and Intervenor in this case. Respondent's Paragraph: Corresponding R. O. Paragraph or basis for rejection: The corporate status and the addresses of the bidders are not material. See Paragraph 1, R.O. See Paragraph 2, R.O. and Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Paragraph 6, R.O. See Paragraph 2, R.O. Intervenor's Paragraph: Corresponding R.O. Paragraph or basis for rejection: See Paragraphs 1 and 2, R.O. Facts which relate to the composition of bid packages are not material. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.0. See Conclusion of law 5, R.O., relating to the specifications of the department. The remainder of the paragraph proposed is immaterial. See Paragraph 5, R.O. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Marvin Gross, President Marvin's Garden and Landscape Services, Inc. 37 North McIntosh Sarasota, Florida 33582 Mel L. Wilson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent's rejection of all bids for Lease No. 540:0920 was improper.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent published an invitation to bid seeking to lease approximately 9,907 net square feet of office space in Broward County (the Lease). There was no evidence of any irregularities in the preparation or the issuance of the invitation. The Petitioner, whose responsive bid was rejected by Respondent, timely and properly brought its protest and has standing to protest the Respondent's rejection of all bids for the Lease. Lynn Mobley was the statewide lease manager of the Respondent and had the responsibility to generally oversee the preparation of the bid package and the bid opening procedures. Barbara Lollie was a staff member under the supervision of Ms. Mobley and was in charge of the preparation of the request for bid proposals. Ms. Mobley's supervisor was a Ms. Barron. Five bids in response to the invitation to bid were duly received by Respondent. An evaluation committee chaired by Don Walker, Respondent's area administrator, was appointed to inspect the proposed properties and to evaluate the bids. The evaluation committee ranked the bids in the following order of preference: 1/ 1. In-Rel ($499,141.80) 2. Taft ($519,090.30) 3. Donlon ($541,119.90) 4. Procacci ($618,373.30) 5. Stirlingwood ($761,906.30) Thereafter the responses to the invitation were forwarded to Ms. Mobley's office for evaluation. Ms. Mobley's staff determined that the top two bids, those of In-Rel and Taft, were non-responsive. 2/ Ms. Mobley, who did not actively participate in the evaluation of the proposals, then advised Mr. Walker of that determination and advised him of two alternatives: to award the bid to the lowest responsive bidder or to reject all bids and re-advertise. The evaluation committee chaired by Mr. Walker had wanted to lease the property to either In-Rel or Taft. Mr. Walker told Ms. Mobley that he wanted to reject all bids and to re-advertise. Pursuant to the request for bids promulgated by the Respondent and Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bid proposals for the Lease. The request for proposal of bids specifically stated: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the State, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. Following the telephone conversation between Mr. Walker and Ms. Mobley, Ms. Mobley sent a letter dated March 23, 1992, to all bidders which notified each bidder that all bids had been rejected. That letter did not state the reasons for the rejection of all bids. Mr. Walker sent a memo on March 20, 1992, to Ms. Lollie recommending the rejection of all bids. Although this memo predated the rejection letter and was subsequently made available to Ms. Mobley, the memo was received by Ms. Mobley's office after the rejection letter had been sent. The memo gave no explication of Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting to reject all bids. The Department of General Services (DGS) published lease rate guidelines for Broward County to inform the Respondent of maximum acceptable lease rates. The purpose of these DGS guidelines was to advise the Respondent that proposed lease rates above the guidelines would be summarily rejected. At the time of obtaining bid proposals, the DGS lease rate guidelines were the only established guidelines which could be consulted by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent calculate a pre-bid estimate of what the Respondent felt was an acceptable range of lease rates in order to be used in determining whether lease rates were too high. The Petitioner's bid, along with the other responsive bidders, were within the DGS lease rate guidelines. Mr. Walker made the request for re-bid after he learned that the bids of Taft and In-Rel were non-responsive. Mr. Walker's decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was based only on the information that the two top choices of the evaluation committee had been found to be non-responsive and on his desire to reopen the bid process in the hope of attracting more bidders. 3/ Mr. Walker wanted to modify the specifications of the invitation to bid in two regards. First, he wanted to amend the specifications to permit the leased premises to be in more than one building. Second, he wanted the geographical boundaries in which the leased premises could be located to be expanded to hopefully attract additional bidders. Mr. Walker believed that a re-bid would provide a wider range of buildings at comparable prices from which to choose and would give him an opportunity to make changes to the bid specifications. His decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was not based on a lease bid analysis or on lease rate guidelines. The recommendation was not dictated by budgetary considerations, but by his desire to shop the bid. It was Mr. Walker's understanding that at the end of his telephone conversation with Ms. Mobley that the decision to reject all bids had been made and that all bids would be rejected. Ms. Mobley made the decision to reject all bids pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Walker after obtaining input from Ms. Lollie and Ms. Barron. Although Ms. Mobley had Ms. Lollie's analysis of the five bids, that analysis made no comparison of the rates contained in the bids with existing lease rates or the DGS guidelines. Ms. Mobley did not consult the DGS lease rate guidelines, although she was generally familiar with those guidelines, and she was unaware of any budgetary constraints that would dictate the rejection of all bids. When Ms. Mobley decided to reject all bids, she did not compare the bid proposals to the existing lease rates paid by the Respondent for leased office space in Broward County. The decision to reject all bids was not made on the advice of an attorney. Although Ms. Mobley testified that all bids on the Lease were rejected solely for price considerations, the evidence presented established that the decision to reject all bids was not based on price, price guidelines, or the Respondent's budgeting constraints. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Mobley rejected all bids because that was the action recommended by Mr. Walker. Respondent's invitation to bid did not contain any lease rate guidelines that would notify prospective bidders of a lease rate ceiling. There was no significant difference in the lease rates between the Taft and In-Rel bids that were favored but non-responsive and the third lowest bidder, the Donlon bid, which was responsive but rejected. Mr. Walker conceded that the Donlon bid was not rejected because of price considerations. Mr. Walker was of the opinion that the Donlon bid was at an acceptable price. He did not testify that the Petitioner's bid was at an unacceptable price and he did not testify as to what, other than the DGS guidelines, would be the maximum acceptable price. The DGS Lease Guidelines applicable to the bid for the Lease were as follows: A full service Lease (including electricity) -- $17.84 a square foot. 4/ Lease without electricity -- $15.18 a square foot. The present rate for the existing lease which was to be replaced by the Lease was $16.60 a square foot; this rate did not include electricity. If electricity was factored in at $2.50 a square foot, which was a factor regularly used by DGS, the present lease rate would be approximately $18.00 a square foot. The three responsive bids to the invitation were lower than the present lease after factoring in electricity. Ms. Goodman was of the opinion that Respondent's budget with respect to the Lease would be based on lease rates already in existence and consequently, that the responsive bids received and rejected were within the budget guidelines. Respondent offered no evidence to controvert that opinion. There was no evidence that the decision to reject all bids was based on economic considerations. All lease rates submitted by the rejected bidders were under the ceiling set by the DGS lease guidelines of $17.84. The Respondent acted arbitrarily when it rejected all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent accept and evaluate the responsive bids submitted for the Lease and determine the proper recipient for an award of the Lease. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 29th day of June, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted an equitable adjustment to increase the contract price in the amount of $337,714 for a mistake in bid on project No. BR-7702/8701, Library/Auditorium, Florida International University.
Findings Of Fact In April 1974, Respondent advertised for bids for the construction of a library-auditorium building at Florida International University, Miami, Florida, State Project No. B.R. 7702/8701. Respondent's representative for this project was the architectural firm of Ferendino/Grafton/Spillis/Candela, Coral Gables, Florida. The advertisement for bids specified that sealed bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. on May 16, 1974, at which time they would be publicly opened and read aloud. In fact, the advertised time period was extended until the same hour on May 23, 1974. The advertisement provided that bids must be submitted on the proposal form furnished by the architect/engineer and be accompanied by a bid bond or an equivalent cash amount in a sum not less than five per cent of the amount of the base bid as a guarantee that the bidder would enter into an agreement with the owner if this bid was accepted. It further provided that the bid would remain in force for thirty (30) days after the time of opening. The advertisement also contained the following statement: "The Department of General Services reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive informalities in any bid whenever such rejection or waiver is in the interest of the State of Florida." (Exhibit 1a, testimony of Williams) In preparing its bid on the project, Petitioner utilized two company forms. One included columns for the various portions of the work with blocks opposite each portion for the insertion of the names of subcontractors and the amounts of their bids. The other form was a recapitulation of the low subcontractors' bid by the various segments of the contract, and the form also included spaces and amounts for the work to be accomplished by the contractor itself. The normal procedure followed by Petitioner in this and prior projects was to enter subcontractors' bids on the subcontractor's bid tabulation form when received over the telephone and, when all such bids had been received shortly before the deadline for submission of bids by the prime contractors on the project, to enter each low subcontractor bid on the recapitulation form. This would then be totaled to arrive at Petitioner's bid to be submitted to Respondent. (Testimony of Kearns). The subcontractor tabulation form for the instant project listed an item for "PRECAST STRUCTURAL." Opposite this entry in blocks on the form had been printed the names of subcontractors from whom Petitioner expected to receive bids, including Pre-Stressed Systems, Inc. (P.S.I.), Meekins, Stresscon, and Houdaille. However, since there were two different pre-case structural items called for under the specification, i.e., joists under section 3-B and pre-case panels under section 3-C, the words and figures "3B Joists" and "3C panels" were penciled in above and below the printed words "PRE-CAST STRUCTURAL" to show the need for entering bid figures for both items. However, there was no separation of these items in the various blocks for subcontractor's bids. (Exhibits 1b, 1c, Testimony of Kearns) Usually bids of major subcontractors were not received until the morning of the final day for submission of the total bids, and many were not received until immediately prior to the time the bid must be tallied and submitted. On the morning of May 23, 1974, the day for bid opening, Petitioner's employee, Edward A. Kearns, Jr., an estimator, was responsible for preparing Petitioner's bid. The only bid Petitioner had received for precast joists was that submitted by P.S.I. in the base amount of $460,000. This sum was entered on the bid tabulation from in pencil under the printed name P.S.I. Bids for the pre-cast panels were received from two of the subcontractors whose names were printed on the form an the amounts were entered in pencil as follows: "Meekins - 399,800, Stresscon - 400,00." No bid was entered for Houdaille. About 11:00 a.m., a telephonic bid on the panels was received from Cast-Crete Corporation of Kissimmee. This bid was considerably lower than that of Meekins and, because Petitioner had not heard of or dealt with Cast-Crete in the past, it asked all three bidders on the panels to verify the requirements and prices. While awaiting the return of this information, the Cast-Crete bid was not entered on the bid tabulation form. Thereafter, Cast-Crete informed Petitioner that it was raising its bid somewhat and this information was placed on a separate subcontractor bid form for cast-Crete, but not entered on the tabulation form containing all bids. The final Cast-Crete bid was in the amount of $337,714. By this time, Petitioner's office was quite hectic in that other bids were coming in at a fast pace and the phone was ringing continuously. Many bidders sought clarification on items or had to give their bids to Kearns which was time-consuming. As the time for submission by Petitioner to Respondent drew near, Kearns took the low subcontractor bids from the bid tabulation form and transferred them for each category of work to the recapitulation form. On this form, there was a single line for "Precast structural" and, on that line, Kearns entered the bid that had been received from P.S.I. for precast joists, but forgot to include any bid for the precast panes. Since no breakdown for joists and panels was shown on the recapitulation form, he assumed that bids for all portions of the work hand been included. All items on the recapitulation form were added and Petitioner arrived at a total base bid of $3,999,259, which did not include the bid for precast panels in the amount of $337,714. (Testimony of Shafer, Sr., Kearns, Exhibits 1b, 1c, 1f) Petitioner's employee, Ron Shafer, Jr., previously had been sent to the place of bid opening at Florida International University with the formal bid letter with the amounts left blank. Shortly before 2:00 p.m., Petitioner provided him by telephone with the amounts to place on the be bid form and submit to the Respondent's representative. He submitted the formal bid just prior to the deadline. The bids were thereafter opened and, although Ron Shafer, Jr., noted that Petitioner's bid was some $400,000 lower than the next lowest bidder, he was unaware of the circumstances of the mistake and returned to the office. The representative of Respondent had opened the bids and an officer of the architectural firm, Freeman J. Williams, was also present. Nothing was said at the time concerning the large disparity between Petitioner's bid and the other bids, and Williams saw no need to ask Petitioner to verify its bid at that time. (Testimony of Shafer, Jr., Williams, Exhibits 1d, 1v) Meanwhile, after Kearns had tallied the final bid figures and they had been called in to the employee at Florida International University, Petitioner's personnel sat around the office and discussed the job for several minutes. They then started to gather up all the sub-bids to put in a folder when they discovered a "subcontractor's bid form" for Cast-Crete Corporation and realized that it had not been included on the tabulation sheet or on the final recap sheet. Immediate attempts were made to telephone the architect about the mistake. When Williams was reached at his office some thirty minutes after he had left Florida International University, Petitioner requested that its bid be withdrawn after explaining the circumstances. Williams suggested that Petitioner immediately send a telegram to Respondent explaining this situation. Petitioner did so in the following language: "In reviewing our bid, we discovered we had omitted the cost of precast panels manufacturers bid from our tabulation sheet, in the amount of $282,714. We, therefor, regretfully must with- draw our bid on the FIU library and auditorium building. We could, however, accept award of contract if this amount could be added to either of our base bids. Please advise. SHAFER AND MILLER, INC. R C Shafer" In the telegram, an additional mistake was made by using the figure of $282,714 which did not include the erection of the panels in the amount of $55,000 that had been the subject of a separate bid by Cast-Crete. After receipt of the telegram, Respondent's representatives requested that Petitioner come to Tallahassee with their pertinent documents relating to the bid to discuss the matter. They did so and thereafter heard nothing further until June 5, 1974, at which time a letter was received from the Department of General Services, dated May 31, 1974, advising that, subject to final approval by the Governor and the Cabinet, it was propose to recommend acceptance of Petitioner's low bid and award the contract to it in the amount of $4,122,000 for Base Bid 1 and Priority 1 Alternate A, Priority 2, Alternate C, and Priority 3, Alternate D. The meeting of the Cabinet at which the award was to be recommended was stated in the letter to be held on June 4, 1975. Since Petitioner did not receive the letter until June 5, it had no opportunity to be present at the time matter was considered. By separate letter of May 31, 1974, the Department of General Services enclosed four copies of a standard form of agreement and performance and payment bond to be executed and returned. (Testimony of Williams, Shafer, Sr., Kearns, Exhibits 1e, 1g, 1h) Petitioner contacted legal counsel, James E. Glass, on June 5. He checked into the matter and found that the contract had already been awarded on June 4 by the Cabinet. He then telephoned Arnold Greenfield, General Counsel for the Department of General Services, and asked if the state could rebid the job at which time Petitioner would submit its original intended bid. Greenfield stated that the project was critical from a budget standpoint and that the state would not rebid it, and insisted that the Petitioner proceed or else forfeit its bid bond and be subject to suit for any excess costs of performance. Glass reminded Greenfield that Petitioner proceed or else forfeit its bid bond and be subject to suit for any excess costs of performance. Glass reminded Greenfield that Petitioner could seek injunctive relief in the matter, and the latter then stated that if Petitioner would proceed with the contract, Respondent would acknowledge its right to claim a modification of the contract. This conversation was confirmed in a letter from Greenfield to Glass, dated June 7, 1974, wherein it was stated "We further understand that your client may wish to seek a modification of such contract, after execution." Glass, in a return letter dated June 12, returned the executed contracts and bonds, stating that Petitioner was doing so in order to act "equitably and in good faith", and was fully reserving its rights to contest the erroneous bid by judicial action for equitable relief. Thereafter, Petitioner received notice to proceed with the work and in due course satisfactorily completed the contract within the required period. This was evidenced by a certificate of acceptance of the building by the using agency, which was approved by Respondent on December 4, 1975. (Testimony of Glass, Exhibit 1e, 1g, 1h, 1i, 1j, 11, 1m, 1s) In December, 1974, Petitioner had submitted its claim for an equitable adjustment in the amount of $337,714 which was the amount of the omitted Cast- Crete bid. During the ensuing year Petitioner submitted audits of its expenses on the job to Respondent and in January, 1976, further audit information was provided at the request of Respondent. On May 6, 1976, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would not approve any increase in the contract amount. Thereafter, on June 11, Petitioner filed its petition herein seeking an equitable adjustment in the amount of $337,714. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Respondent on August 2, 1976, and the undersigned Hearing Officer was assigned to conduct the hearing therein. (Exhibit 1r, 2, 4, 5, 6) By a Motion to Abate, dated August 23, 1976, Respondent requested that the matter be held in abeyance pending the submission of the petition to the project architect and his rendering of a determination indicating whether the relief should be granted or denied, as a "condition precedent to the contractor obtaining consideration of said petition in any proceeding authorized by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Respondent stated in its motion that the contract clearly provided that nay and all claims or disputes should be first submitted to the architect for determination, and that thereafter, either party could obtain administrative review of the determination by filing a written appeal to the Department of General Services within thirty days. The motion further stated that since this prerequisite had not been accomplished, there was no basis for an administrative appeal at that time. On the same date, Respondent advised the architect of the situation and requested expeditious consideration of the matter. On August 27, the architect issued its determination stating "From our personal knowledge of the events during the bid opening process, and the subsequent events that led to the awarding of the bid, we concur in the contractor's request." In November 1976, Respondent's general counsel advised the Hearing Officer that settlement efforts were in progress but requested that the matter be scheduled for hearing nevertheless. Notice of hearing was issued on December 15, 1976, and the case was heard on January 27, 1977. (Exhibits 1t, 1u, Pleadings) Petitioner's intended total bid, including alternates, amounted to $4,459,714. A change order of $194 was issued during the course of the work, amounting to a total of $4,459,908. Petitioner's direct costs on the project were $4,094,890. Overhead was computed at 2.85 per cent of direct costs in the amount of $116,705, for a total cost of $4,211,595. Overhead was computed based on the ratio of total general and administrative expense to total direct costs incurred on all of Petitioner's jobs in process for the year ending May 31, 1975. However, the audit reports included payment in the amount of $335,634 to Cast-Crete Corporation. The actual amount paid to that firm was $325,234 - difference of $10,400, making Petitioner's actual costs $4,201,195. During the course of the contract, Respondent paid Petitioner $4,122,194, resulting in a net loss to Petitioner of $79,001. An anticipated profit for performance of the contract was computed on the basis of the average profit on other jobs of 4.4 per cent, amounting to the sum of $180,377. The latter two sums total $259,378, and it is found that figure is the reasonable amount of Petitioner's claim. (Exhibits 2-5)
Recommendation That Petitioner's claim for equitable adjustment under Project No. BR- 7702/8701 be granted and that a change order be issued increasing the contract price by $259,378.00. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 388-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson and Daniel S. Dearing, Esquires Post Office Box 1118 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James E. Glass, Esquire 2600 First Federal Building 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 John A. Barley, Esquire General Counsel Department of General Services Room 110 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
