The Issue Whether Respondent was justified in cancelling the award of bid of HRS Lease No. 590:2054 to Petitioner, BOOZER, on the basis that it was nonresponsive. Whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of HRS Lease No. 590:2054 to Intervenor rather than to Petitioners or some other bidder.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: HRS caused an invitation to bid to be advertised regarding Lease No. 590:2054 on January 3, 1989 and January 10, 1989. The Invitation to Bid required that all bids be received on or before 2:30 p.m. February 1, 1989, for 9,168 net rentable square feet, plus or minus 3%, of existing office space. A pre- bid meeting was scheduled for January 11, 1989. The advertisement also advise that the bid specifications could be obtained from the Orlando Regional Office of HRS, and that the State of Florida reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The material provisions of the bid specifications at issue in this proceeding are: The space be made available on September 1, 1989 or within 175 days after bid is finalized. The proposed space must be in an "existing building", which was: defined to mean "dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage at the time of bid submittal". The bidder provide 2 clear photographs of the exterior front of the proposed facility and 2 scaled (1/8 inch or 1/4 inch 1 foot preferred) floor plan showing present configurations with measurements that equate to the net rentable square footage (HRS Exh. 1, General Specifications Requirement No. 10(a)) Emphasis in original). Building(s) in not more than 2 locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. Prior to the pre-bid conference, but after the initial publication of the bid invitation, representatives of NOTTUS contacted Ernie Wilson, the facilities services manager for District 7, HRS, to inquire regarding the propriety of submitting a bid for space in two buildings in which HRS presently had facilities, together with a facility that was greater than 100 yards from the existing facilities. At the time of the inquiry, NOTTUS was leasing facilities to HRS at its Lipscomb facility in Palm Bay, Florida. A portion of the square footage that NOTTUS inquired about leasing to HRS was the remaining square footage in two buildings that HRS partially occupied at that time. All of the premises submitted by NOTTUS under its bid package were located in the Woodlake PUD, which is all under single ownership. A representative from HRS advised the representative from NOTTUS that: the issue regarding the proximity of the locations would not be addressed as a bid specification, but rather, that would be a matter to be weighed by the evaluation committee in analyzing the bids. the bid proposal to be submitted would actually be for two locations as a portion of the space offered by NOTTUS was to be located in buildings in which HRS presently maintained facilities. The submittal of the bid package regarding the premises subject to occupancy by HRS, as ultimately submitted by NOTTUS, would definitely not disqualify the bid submittal. Mr. Wilson also received telephone calls from BOOZER and a third bidder making inquires regarding the bid package. The Pre-bid conference was held on January 11, 1989. No objections or questions regarding the bid specifications as to be utilization or definition of the terms "existing building" and "present configuration" were raised at that time. At no time prior to the submission of the bids were any objections or questions raised by BOOZER regarding the utilization of the term "existing building" or the term "present configuration" as those terms were defined within the bid specification. Each of the Petitioners in this action, the Intervenor, as well as two other parties, submitted bids to HRS within the time requirement set forth in the bid documents. The bids were opened at the time and place reflected in the aid documents and Invitation to Bid. Subsequent to the opening of the bids, John Stewart, who is Ernie Wilson's supervisor, and Ernie Wilson reviewed the bid packages submitted for Lease No. 590:2054 and made a determination as to which bids were responsive. As a result of that evaluation, a determination was made that all five bidders were responsive. These bidders were the Petitioner, Fred D. BOOZER, the Intervenor, Nottus, Inc. the Petitioner, Trust NB-1 Micah G. Savell and Professional Center V. Inc. These bid proposals were then submitted to the evaluation committee who viewed the property of each of the bidders on February 13, 1989. The bid documents of BOOZER contained an additional document, i.e., a site plan, which reflected that the premises subject to his bid proposal were an "existing building". The area submitted for the bid was shaded reflecting the entire square footage submitted for bid as being "in existence." The drawing further reflected the "existing building" as being the "proposed HRS building". The premises subject to the Petitioner's, BOOZER, bid were not in existence, as that term was defined in the bid specifications, in that approximately 2500 square feet had not yet been constructed. Two walls, a floor slab and a roof were not in existence. The only improvements located therein were palm trees, grass and a sidewalk. Petitioner stipulated that the area occupied by the palm trees, grass and sidewalk was in fact "not dry". The existing building at 2225 South Babcock Street that was dry at the time of the bid opening constituted approximately 6,900 square feet of premises subject to Petitioner's bid. At the time of the inspection, the Petitioner, BOOZER, was present. At no time did BOOZER indicate that the total facility bid was not in existence. The members of the evaluating committee who viewed the property for purposes of evaluating the bid were not aware of the fact that the entire premises subject to BOOZER's bid proposal was not in "Existence" and "dry". The floor plan showing the present configuration of BOOZER's facility reflected an open floor space for the area occupied by the palm trees, grass and sidewalk. The palm trees, grass and sidewalk were not reflected in the present configuration drawing. Both the floor plan and site plan were prepared by BOOZER's son with his approval. In evaluating the respective bid proposals, the evaluation committee rated the properties as follows: Fred D. BOOZER - 450 points Nottus, Inc.- 433 points Micah Savell - 384 points Trust NB-l - 360 points Professional Center V. Inc.- 357 points The location requirement found in Article D.3(b) of the bid package was taken into account. In evaluating the Nottus bid, including a zero rating from one of the evaluation committee members. As a result of the points awarded by the evaluation committee, a determination was made to award the bid to BOOZER, who was notified of this award on or about March 14, 1989 by letter dated March 14, 1989. On or about March 20, 1989, Petitioner, BOOZER, obtained a construction permit from the City of Melbourne to construct a fire wall and framing for additional shell building. This building permit was for the purpose of enclosing the area that was occupied by the palm trees, grass and sidewalk at the time of the bid proposal being submitted. Upon being awarded the bid, Petitioner, BOOZER then made a decision to commence construction to complete the premises subject to his bid proposal, and had expended $28,000 thereon through the hearing date. On or about March 29, 1989, HRS, through Ernie Wilson and Lynn Nobley, discovered the fact that approximately 2,500 square feet represented as being a part of the existing building, in fact was not existing pursuant to the bid specifications. At the time of this discovery, construction under the construction permit had not been completed. Mr. Wilson advised BOOZER at that time that he was concerned that BOOZER's bid was nonresponsive because the premises subject to the bid proposal were not in an "existing" building at the time of the bid submittal. The normal procedure for HRS in awarding a bid where the initial award is cancelled or thrown out is to award the bid to the second and next best lowest bidder. It is not the normal practice of the HRS evaluation committee to measure the applicable properties at time of evaluation to determine net rentable square footage. At the time of discovery of the foregoing status of BOOZER's building, Ernie Wilson, contacted a Nottus representative, Fred E Sutton, its President, to advise him of the possible nonresponsiveness of BOOZER's bid and requested information to determine whether Nottus, the second low bidder, still had facilities available pursuant to its bid documents and whether Nottus would agree to continue to continue to be bound by the terms thereof. Mr. Sutton advised Ernie Wilson that the facilities were still available and that Nottus would agree to abide by the terms of its bid proposal. Following the procedural steps necessary to advise the appropriate individuals within HRS of the possible nonresponsive bid by BOOZER, Ernie Wilson was advised by the Director of HRS General Services, King W. Davis, by letter dated April 2, 1989 to withdraw the award for the proposed lease 590:2054 from BOOZER because of approximately 2,500 feet of nonexisting space. He was also instructed to award same to Nottus as the second lowest bidder. On or about April 14, 1989, Ernie Wilson advised BOOZER of the Notice of Withdrawal of the award from BOOZER and award to Nottus, together with the reasons therefor, which was received by BOOZER on April 17, 1989. Petitioner, BOOZER, timely initiated these actions by filing his Notice of Intent to appeal the withdrawal of the award of bid to him and the award to Nottus, and by timely filing a formal written protest and request for formal hearing. Attachment "D" of the bid package required the submittal of a proposed plan to a division of the State Fire Marshal for review of any proposed construction or renovation to determine whether such construction or renovation complied with the uniform fire safety standards. Said plans were required to be prepared by licensed architects and engineers for certifications outlined in Attachment "D". These matters were all to be completed prior to the commencement of any revocation or alteration. Petitioner, BOOZER, commenced said improvements prior to said approval. In fact, BOOZER submitted no plans in compliance with these requirements prior to construction. Petitioner, BOOZER, is a licensed builder in the State of Florida, and has been for ten years. BOOZER further acknowledged that at the time of signing and submitting the bid proposal, he certified that he understood the terms of the bid specifications and agreed to be bound by them. TRUST NB-1 attempted to initiate an appeal of the award of the bid to Nottus by submitting a facsimile "notice of protest" to HRS predicated on the award of the bid to Nottus occurring greater than sixty (60) days following the bid opening date. TRUST NB-1 received notice of the award to Nottus on April 18, 1989 and attempted facsimile delivery on April 21, 1989. The facsimile "Written Notice of Protest" was not filed until April 25, 1989. The regular mail receipt of said Notice was received by HRS and filed on April 24, 1989. 38. The "formal written protest" was filed with HRS on May 1, 1989. 39. signature The facsimile Notice of Intent to Protest did not contain of a representative of TRUST NB-1. the original 40. Ernie Wilson is the custodian of records for bid protests for HRS, District 7, and is also the person designated in the bid documents as the contact person for the bid on Lease No. 590:2054. TRUST NB-1 was ranked number four in relation to the five bids submitted. Bidder Micah Savell, not a party to these proceedings, is the next low bidder after BOOZER and Nottus, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order: (a) Finding the bid of Petitioner, BOOZER, to be unresponsive and that the cancellation of the award by Respondent was justified. Find the bid of Intervenor, NOTTUS to be unresponsive. Find that Petitioner, TRUST NB-1, lacks standing and its protest should be dismissed. Reject all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Proposed Findings of Fact by Petitioner, Fred O. Boozer: 1-5 Rejected. 6 and 7 Accepted as incorporated in the Recommended Order. Proposed Findings of Fact by Intervenor, Nottus, Inc. Accepted. Accepted as modified. 3-30. Accepted. 31. The first two sentences rejected as argument and not supported by the evidence. Last sentence in paragraph accepted. 32-40. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Houck, Esquire 312 South Harbor City Boulevard Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida James A. Sawyer, Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler Secretary 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 Whether the Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the "School Board") should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the preliminary determination made with respect to School Board Project No. 349661 to reject all bids submitted and to readvertise.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the School Board issued an Advertisement for Bid (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (School Board Project No. 349661, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving HVAC replacement, reroofing and other renovation work at Jupiter High School's Building No. 2. The School Board indicated in the Advertisement, among other things, that it "reserv[ed] the right to waive informalities in the Bids, or to reject all Bids." The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a Project Manual that was made available for public inspection. Section 00100 of the Project Manual contained the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Definitions Bidding Documents include the Advertisement for Bid, Notice to Prospective Bidders, Policies of the School Board, Instructions to Bidders, Contract, General Conditions, Supplementary General Conditions, Special Conditions, Bid Bond, Performance and Payment Bond, Proposal Form, and the proposed Contract Documents including all drawings, specifications and addenda issued prior to bid opening. Addenda are written or graphic instruments issued prior to the execution of the Contract which modify or interpret the Bidding Documents, including Drawings and Specifications, by additions, deletions, clarifications or corrections. Addenda will become part of the Contract Documents when the Construction Contract is executed. Bidding Procedures All Bids must be prepared using the forms contained in these specifications and submitted in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders. A Bid is invalid if it has not been deposited at the designated location prior to the time and date for receipt of Bids indicated in the Advertisement for Bid, or prior to any extension thereof issued to the Bidders. Unless otherwise provided in any supplement to these Instructions to Bidders, no Bidder shall modify, withdraw or cancel his Bid or any part thereof for sixty (60) days after the time designated for receipt of Bids in the "Advertisement for Bid." Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: Each Bidder shall use Proposal Form contained in these specifications, indicate his Bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for the alternates, if applicable. Any erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained or noted over the signature of the Bidder. Proposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Each proposal shall specify a price written in ink in both words and figures for each of the separate items, as called for, except when the Bid is called for on a lump sum basis. Lump sum Bids shall be shown in both words and figures; where there is a variation between the written amount and figures, the lower amount will be taken as the Bid price. Bid Modification: Bid Modification will be accepted from Bidders if addressed to the Owners, at the place where Bids are to be received, and if received prior to the opening of Bids. Modifications must be in writing and must be signed. . . . Modifications will be read by Owner or Architect prior to opening formal Bids. Withdrawal of Bids: Bids may be withdrawn on written request received from Bidders prior to the time fixed for opening. . . . Negligence on the part of the Bidder in preparing the Bid confers no right for withdrawal of the Bid after it has been opened. 4. Examination of Bidding Documents: 4.01 Each Bidder shall examine the Bidding Documents carefully and, not later than eight (8) days prior to the receipt of Bids, shall make written request to the Architect for interpretation or correction of any ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein which he may discover. Any interpretation or correction will be issued as an Addendum by the Architect. Only a written interpretation or correction by Addendum shall be binding. No Bidder shall rely upon any interpretation or correction given by any other method. . . . 6. Rejection of Bids 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is in any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to readvertise for other or further Bid Proposals. Award of Contract The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 101030-Alternates. Section 101030 of the Project Manual, which addressed the subject of "Alternates," provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 1.3 Related Work Described Elsewhere: Pertinent sections of these specifications describe materials and methods required under the various alternates. . . . The method for stating the proposed Contract Amount is described on the Proposal Form, Section 00310. Base Bid: A. Shall include all HVAC replacement, construction of the building roofing and all items shown on drawings and included in these specifications other than as specifically listed alternates. Alternate Number One: Provide an Architect/Owner on-site construction trailer of size and features stipulated below in lieu of such being provided by the Owner. Section 00310 of the Project Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use. It provided, in pertinent part, as follows: DATE SUBMITTED: TO: The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida 3326 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach Florida 33406 PROPOSAL FOR: JUPITER HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING NO.2- HVAC REPLACEMENT/REFOOF/RENOVATIONS 500 NORTH MILITARY TRAIL JUPITER, FLORIDA 33458 PROJECT NO. 349661 Having become familiar with conditions at the Project Site and having carefully examined the Bidding Documents, including the Advertisement, Instructions to Bidders, and the Contract Documents, including but not limited to the General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, Specifications, Details, Schedules, Addenda and Drawings, the Undersigned proposes to furnish all materials, labor equipment and anything else required for the entire Project in accordance with the Documents for the following sum: BASE BID: STATE PRICE IN WORDS AND FIGURES: ($ ) (PRICE IN WORDS) (FIGURES) ALL ALTERNATES MUST BE BID FOR BID TO BE RESPONSIVE. State price in words and figures. ADDITIVE ALTERNATE NO. 1: (Owner/Architect On-Site Construction Trailer) ($ ) (PRICE IN WORDS) (FIGURES) * * * If he is notified of the acceptance of this Bid within sixty (60) days of the time set for the opening of Bids, the Undersigned agrees to execute a Contract for the above Work within eight (8) Owner business days after notice that his Bid has been accepted for the above stated compensation minus or plus any accepted Alternates in the form of a contract presented by the Owner. . . . On March 30, 1993, the School Board issued Addendum No. 1, which added a fire protection system to the Project's scope of work and provided as follows: RE: Jupiter Community High School Building No. 2 HVAC Replacement, Reroof, Renovations The School Board of Palm Beach County, Florida School Project No. 349661 OEF Project No. 50-005625 P&L Project No. 92-061 To all bidders on the above project: Please note contents hereon and insert into the bidding documents that were issued to you on the above entitled project. The following supersede and supplant corresponding items in the specifications, drawings and details. It will be required that each Contractor- Builder/Developer, upon submitting his proposal for this project, indicate on the proposal form in the space provided that all addenda are included in his proposal. Failure to do so may cause rejection of a company's bid or proposal. The School Board of Palm Beach County, Peacock & Lewis Architects and Planners, Inc. and their consultants assume no liability or responsibility for the information on printed materials for this project that were not distributed from the office of Peacock & Lewis Architects and Planners, Inc. GENERAL: AD1-1: FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM Contractor shall include within his bid and itemize on the proposal form the cost for a complete and functioning fire protection system as described by the attached specification Section 15500- Fire Protection dated 3/30/93, Addendum No. 1. Paragraph 1.2 A.6 of Section 15500, which was attached to Addendum No. 1, provided as follows: Contractor shall identify the cost associated with this scope of work on the proposal form as an itemized price which shall be included within the total bid price. Refer to proposal form. On April 5, 1993, the School Board issued Addendum No. 2, which revised the Proposal Form to reflect the additional pricing requirements imposed by Addendum No. 1. Addendum No. 2 added to the Proposal Form, immediately under the space provided for "Additive Alternative No. 1," the following: UNIT PRICE NO. 1: (Fire Protection System) Contractor shall include within his bid and itemize on the proposal form the cost for a complete and functioning fire protection system as described by the attached specification Section 15500- Fire Protection dated 3/30/93, Addendum No. 1. ($ ) (PRICE IN WORDS) (FIGURES) No other changes material to the instant case were made to the Proposal Form or to any of the other bid documents. It was the intention of those who were responsible for the preparation and issuance of Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to require bidders to include the price of the fire protection system in their "Base Bid;" 1/ however, they failed to clearly and unambiguously express their intention in these addenda or any of the other bid documents. No other bid document aside from the revised Proposal Form made any reference to a "unit price." Unit prices are typically used in the construction industry to price work added to the initial scope of work, as was the fire protection system in the instant case. In interpreting the bid documents, Joseph Pirrotta, Petitioner's chief executive officer, relied upon his many years of experience in the construction industry. Based upon his reading of these documents, he reasonably believed that the "Unit Price No. 1 (Fire Protection System)" was a separate and distinct component of the "total bid price" and that, although it was to be included in the "bid" he submitted, it was not to be a part of the "Base Bid." While the bid documents were also susceptible to a contrary construction, Pirrotta's was the more reasonable of the two interpretations. Pirrotta completed the revised Proposal Form accordingly. Petitioner was one of three bidders to submit bids in response to the Advertisement. The other two bidders were Intervenor and Janus & Hill Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Janus"). Petitioner quoted the following prices on the completed revised Proposal Form it submitted: "Base Bid"- $1,672,000.00; "Additive Alternate No.1"- $3,400.00; and "Unit Price No. 1"- $80,000.00. As noted above, Petitioner's "Base Bid" did not include the price of the fire protection system. Intervenor quoted the following prices on the completed revised Proposal Form it submitted: "Base Bid"- $1,947,000.00; "Additive Alternate No.1"- $6,000.00; and "Unit Price No. 1"- $36,484.00. Unlike Petitioner, Intervenor included in its "Base Bid" the price of the fire protection system; however, even if it had not done so, its "total bid price" would still have been substantially higher than Petitioner's. Janus quoted the following prices on the completed revised Proposal Form it submitted: "Base Bid"- $1,970,000.00; "Additive Alternate No.1"- $2,020.00; and "Unit Price No. 1"- $90,000.00. 2/ After bid opening, the School Board's contract administrator for the Project, Albert Paglia, correctly determined that Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder. Thereafter, he telephoned Pirrotta to congratulate him on his company's successful bid. Before his telephone conversation with Pirrotta, Paglia assumed that Petitioner's "Base Bid" included the price of the fire protection system. He learned otherwise, however, after speaking with Pirrotta, who informed him that Petitioner's "total bid price," excluding "Additive Alternate No. 1," was its "Base Bid" of $1,672,000.00, plus the $80,000.00 for the fire protection system reflected as "Unit Price No. 1" on its completed revised Proposal Form. Paglia and others with whom he was working on the Project perceived this as a problem. They therefore brought the matter to the attention of Lawrence Zabik, the School Board's assistant superintendent for support services. Zabik's initial reaction was to award the contract for the Project, including the fire protection system, to Petitioner for $1,672,00.00, Petitioner's "Base Bid." Pirrotta was unwilling to undertake the Project for that amount. By letter to Zabik dated May 5, 1993, Intervenor gave notice to the School Board of its intent to protest any award made to Petitioner. The letter provided as follows: Based on our review of the Bid Documents submitted by J.D. Pirrotta on April 20, 1992, we are notifying you of our intent to protest the award of the above referenced project to any firm other than Milne & Nicholls, Inc. We will base our protest on the non- responsiveness of J.D. Pirrotta's bid. As you are aware, Mr. Pirrotta requested an additional $80,000 to compensate him for his misinterpretation of Unit Price #1 as an additive alternate. It is now apparent that his bid is incomplete and therefore non- responsive. Please advise us of the Owner's intention with regard to the Award on this project. Zabik referred the letter to the School Board's Office of the General Counsel. By letter dated May 13, 1993, authored by one of the School Board's attorneys, the School Board announced that it intended to reject all bids and readvertise, giving the following explanation: In the instant case, since the bid is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which would be that the Fire Protection System was included in the base bid, and the other that it was not leads to an unfair economic advantage by one bidder over others. The example would be that the low bidder in the instant case is permitted to add the Fire Protection System on as an alternate when it was not intended. Given the ambiguity, the bid should be rejected and the specifications rewritten and readvertised. [Citations omitted.] In the instant case, rejection of all bids is the only reasonable solution so that all parties are given a fair playing field. The School Board has not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in arriving at this decision to readvertise, given the parties place a different interpretation on the bid proposal form. The concerns expressed in the letter that Pirrotta obtained an "unfair economic advantage" over the other bidders as a result of the "ambiguity" in the bid documents are unwarranted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter a final order sustaining the instant bid protest and awarding to Petitioner, as the lowest and best responsive bidder, the contract for School Board Project No. 349661 for $1,752,000.00, plus the price for "Additive Alternate No. 1" should the School Board choose to include this alternate within the Project's scope of work. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of July, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1993.
Findings Of Fact On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids on State Project Job No. 26000-3624. The job called for removing and replacing the roof on the DOT warehouse at Gainesville, Florida. Such bids were to be filed with the agency no later than January 23, 1985. As is pertinent here, the specifications called for the following type of flexible sheet roofing system: minimum Elastomeric sheet material, manufacturer's standard thickness but not less than 42 mils, 400 psi minimum tensil strength, 250 percent elongation (ASTM D 412), ultraviolet and ozone resistent, low temperature brittleness of -40 F (-40 C)(ASTM D 746), integral color white or aluminum. W. R. Grace and Company (Grace) is one of several companies who manufacture single-ply roof membranes that are generally compatible with DOT specifications. One of its factory representatives, John Cunningham, reviews all bid notices issued by DOT to determine what materials are required for a given project. The representative then calls DOT approved contractors in his service area who use Grace products and advises them of the requirements for the job. In this particular case, Cunningham read the specification for elastomeric sheet material and was initially confused as to whether DOT wanted a factory finish on the membrane or to have it coated in the field. This confusion arose since the specification called for an "integral color" on the material and a "manufacturer's standard thickness, but not less than 42 mils." Grace manufacturers two single-ply roof membranes, one having a 40 mil thickness with a factory applied coating (GRM-500), and one having a 50 mil thickness with a field applied coating (GRM-120). When DOT prepared the bid proposal, it was under the impression that the GRM-500 system would meet the specifications. However, if a factory applied coating on the membrane was desired, the GRM-500 system would not meet the specification as to thickness. Because of this, Cunningham contacted a DOT representative who advised that DOT wanted a factory applied coating, and that all bidders should base their bid using the GRM-500 product even though this appeared to be inconsistent with the specifications. The representative also told Cunningham it was too late to issue an addendum to clarify the matter. Based upon the above representation Cunningham telephoned each qualified contractor in his sales area who used Grace products, including petitioner Cheesbro Roofing, Inc. (Cheesbro), a roofing company located in Ormond Beach, Florida. He told them that DOT apparently wanted a factory applied coating, even though this was inconsistent with the specification as to thickness and that the GRM-500 system should be used. He also advised them that at least one bidder interpreted the specification differently, and was preparing its bid using the GRM-120 product so that the thickness specification as written could be met. Cheesbro had never bid a DOT project and was confused as to the type of product to use in preparing its bid. In an abundance of caution, Cheesbro submitted alternate bids, one with prices based on the GRM-500 system and the other using the GRM-120 system. This resulted in bids of $84,560 and $102,661, respectively. The alternate bid (using the GRM-120 product) was typed on the firm's letterhead and inserted in the bid proposal since the bid form did not contain a place to write an alternate bid. The $84,500 figure was the lowest dollar bid on the project out of twelve bids submitted. At about the same time, a second Grace sales representative, Richard Bray, contacted users of Grace products in his service area including Kent Construction Company, Inc. (Kent) of Chipley, Florida. Bray advised his customers to write their bids using the GRM-500 system. Kent had originally interpreted the specification as requiring the GRM-120 system, but, based upon Bray's representation, it submitted a bid of $86,800 using the GRM-500 system. This was the second lowest dollar bid on the project. By law DOT cannot design specifications with the object of soliciting products made by a specific manufacturer. Even so, there are only a few other manufactured roofing systems which have a factory applied coating and a thickness of at least 42 mils. However, most of the twelve bidders, including the two lowest, submitted bids using Grace products. After the bids were filed and reviewed, DOT noted that Cheesbro had submitted alternative bids. Because this is a ground for rejection, the bid was reviewed initially by a DOT technical awards committee which recommended the bid be rejected as being "irregular". That committee's decision was affirmed by the contract awards committee which reached the same conclusion. Accordingly, Cheesbro's bid, although the lowest, was rejected on February 11, 1985 and Kent's bid accepted on March 6, 1985 as being the lowest and most responsible bidder on the project. That prompted the instant proceeding. DOT bids are governed by the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1982 Edition. Section 2 - 6 of that document provides as follows: A proposal will be subject to being consid- ered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, addi- tions not called for, conditional or unau- thorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obvi- ously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. DOT has relied upon this section as authority for rejecting Cheesbro's bid. Cheesbro did not read this document before submitting its bid. According to DOT, the purpose of the section is to obtain standard bids from all contractors, and to prevent one bidder from having an unfair advantage over others through the use of alternate bids.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all bids on State Job Project No. 26000-3624 be rejected, and the project be relet for bids. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 1st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Burns, Esquire p. O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds certification with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a general contractor and a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license numbers CG C009484 and RC0043155, respectively. Tate has qualified a company known as Allstate Roofing and Construction, Co., under the terms of the aforementioned licenses, and at times relevant to this inquiry, operated under that company name. On February 17, 1983, respondent through his business name, Allstate Roofing and Construction, contracted with Wayne Lackey to furnish the necessary labor and materials to build a 28' by 78'brick-veneered housing shell in Clay County, Florida. The specified amount of the contract was $34,365 to be paid in four equal draws, or installments, in the amount of $8,591.25, following the completion of work related to each of the phases. In accordance with the contract terms, Lackey paid the respondent three draws in the amount of $8,591.25, upon assurances that respondent had satisfied the expenses related to subcontractors, suppliers, and materialmen. Respondent requested advance payment of the final draw and indicated to Lackey that this money was to be used to pay for materials related to the construction of the housing shell. Lackey complied with this request and made two advanced payments on the fourth draw in the amount of $2,700 and $500. The total amount of the three draws and the advance payments related to the fourth draw was $28,973.75. At the point of paying the advance on the fourth draw, Tate had also told Lackey that all subcontractors, materialmen and suppliers had been paid, and indicated to Lackey that a written lien affidavit acknowledging that all the costs had been satisfied would be provided to Lackey at the conclusion of the construction. While respondent was still obligated under the terms of the contract, Lackey began to receive phone calls and statutory notices of intentions on the part of materialmen, subcontractors and suppliers indicating that they would lien the homesite of the owner, Lackey. These demands were made on the basis that several of these claimants had not been paid for services or' supplies. When Lackey confronted the respondent, the respondent initially told Lackey to ignore those notices and that they had been paid on checks drawn on the Allstate account. In fact, the claimants had either not been paid, or had been paid with checks upon which insufficient funds were available to honor the checks drawn on respondent's business account. Under the circumstances, the claimants continued to press Lackey for satisfaction of their claims for labor and supplies. As a consequence the Lackey's had to expend money of their own to satisfy the contract conditions on the subject of costs for services by subcontractors, materialmen, and suppliers. These costs should have been defrayed by respondent pursuant to the terms of the contract. Some of the expenses, which are recounted below, were expenses incurred prior to the respondent's entitlement to his fourth draw. Payments by the owners to the claimants are as follows: Acorn Windows Mr. Silvers, carpenter Mr. Bruning for fill material Joe Williamson, brickmason & concrete =$1,875.50 =$1,183.57 =$ 551.00 =$1,100.00 Taylor Concrete =$1,629.85 Mr. Karneol, clean-up =$ 200.00 United Electric =$1,523.00 SUBTOTAL PAID BY CHECK BY THE LACKEYS =$8,060.92 Cash payments for which receipts were given: Williamson =$1,000.00 United Electric =$ 800.00 door hardware =$ 136.08 TOTAL EXPENDITURE BY THE OWNERS =$10,003.00 When the amount paid by the Lackeys to subcontractors, materialmen, and suppliers is added to the $28,973.75 paid directly to the respondent, the expenditure on the part of the Lackeys' was $38,976.75. Respondent is due credits for extras in the amount of $200 for rear concrete slab, $160 for extra brick, and $70 for an interior door. That sum of $430 when subtracted from the overall payments of the Lackeys leaves $38,546.75 expended by the Lackeys, which exceeds the agreement, or contract price, between the respondent and the Lackeys by $4,181.75. From the facts presented, it is evident that the Lackeys did not receive the performance from the respondent which they were entitled to under the terms of the contract, and as a consequence, had to pay an additional $4,181.75 above the contract price, before receiving what they had bargained for. This was at some considerable inconvenience in time as well as money. The proof is not clear on whether the respondent diverted monies or property which he had received to carry out the contract with the Lackeys into some other pursuit or whether respondent made a bargain with the Lackeys which could not be concluded with the amount of available funds which the respondent had accepted by contract as being sufficient for the Lackeys to perform their obligation under the contract.
Findings Of Fact State Project No. 46090-3511 (the project) is for construction of the West Bay Bridge on State Road 79 in Bay County, Florida. Competitive bids on the project were solicited in February, 1990. The bid letting on the project was held in March, 1990. The Petitioner, Fairchild, the Hardaway Company and ten other contractors bid on the project. The Hardaway Company submitted the lowest bid on the project in the amount of $9,487,258.17. Fairchild submitted the next lowest bid in the amount of $9,835,279.34. Divergent Unit Prices and Imbalances. The part of the Hardaway Company's bid relating to construction of the foundation for the approaches to the bridge (the "structural bid") is obviously below reasonable cost in several respects. The contract specifications require the use of sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid (biaxial type 2), and Class III (seal) concrete. The Hardaway Company's unit prices for these items were, respectively, one dollar per cubic yard for the sand fill, fifty cents per cubic yard for the shell fill, twenty-five cents per square yard for the reinforcement grid, and ten cents per cubic yard for the Class III seal concrete. As a result, the Hardaway Company's bid for these items is obviously significantly below reasonable cost and approximately $95,500 below what Fairchild bid for the same portion of the contract. In contrast to the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III concrete, the Hardaway Company's bid on some of the other parts of the structural bid were relatively high. The reinforcing steel for the substructure (Item 415-1-5) was bid at approximately twice reasonable cost (80 a pound versus, e.g., 42 in Fairchild's bid), resulting in $609,936.80 attributable to that part of the bid versus, e.g., $320,216.82 for Fairchild. The statistical average (the DOT's so-called "average 2") for the other serious bidders under this item also was 42 a pound. The Hardaway Company also bid obviously in excess of reasonable cost for the lump sum item of mobilization for pile installation--$600,000 versus $125,000 in Fairchild's bid and less in the bids of several of the others bidders. (The statistical average for the other serious bidders under this item was $225,000.) But the Hardaway Company bid only $60,000 for the lump sum item for removal of existing structures (versus $160,000 in Fairchild's bid) and only $30,000 for the lump sum item for removal and disposal of fender system (versus $110,000 in Fairchild's bid). The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to mobilization for the roadway work is significantly less than the Fairchild bid under this item ($200,000 versus $375,000) and partially counterbalances the excess in the part of the Hardaway bid for mobilization for the pile installation. The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to clearing and grubbing also was high, at $20,000 an acre versus a statistical average of $4,200 an acre for the other serious bidders, resulting in $216,000 for the Hardaway Company bid versus, e.g., $32,400 for the Fairchild bid and the $45,360 statistical average. DOT Review Procedures. Section 2-6 of the DOT's Standard Specifications applicable to the project provides: 2-6 Rejection of Irregular Proposals. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditioinal or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. The DOT is in the process of formulating a policy on the use of the Technical Review Committee in the bidding process. A proposed procedure has been developed, which has not yet been made final and has not yet been signed by the Secretary of the DOT, under which the Technical Review Committee would review the low bid on each contract, among other things not applicable to this case, for "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" and for "unbalanced bidding." The DOT has not yet defined "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" or "unbalanced bidding" for purposes of defining the event that triggers review by the Technical Review Committee. The DOT Director of the Office of Construction, Robert Buser, is of the opinion that the unit prices the Hardaway Company bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III seal concrete are "significant irregularities in unit bid prices." On the other hand, the DOT's Preliminary Estimates Engineer, Robert Griner, who, unlike Buser, is a member of both the Technical Review Committee and its Preliminary Technical Subcommittee, and is of the opinion that the Hardaway bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III (seal) concrete are "mathematical imbalances," not "significant irregularities in unit bid prices," which he would define as bids that omit a unit price, whose numerical values do not match words used to express the values, or that are not signed. Under Griner's approach, which was followed in this case, the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee looks at "mathematical imbalances" to see if they are "material imbalances." If the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee decides that it is not a "material imbalance," it simply reports this finding at the outset of the meeting of the Technical Review Committee, which accepts the finding and does not itself consider the matter any further. Only if the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee reports a "material imbalance" does the Technical Review Committee further consider the question. Front-end Bidding. Under the DOT contract for the project, like other items in the specifications, mobilization and land clearing and grubbing are paid in installments as the work proceeds. But, unlike the other items, all of the portion of the contract attributable to mobilization and land clearing and grubbing is paid by the time the entire project is half completed. Similarly, a contractor is paid for reinforcement steel (substructure) when it is delivered to the site. As a result, by shifting dollars in a bid to these "front-end," lump sum items, a contractor can manipulate the bid process and contract to reasonably insure himself of early payment of these inflated items regardless what may happen to the project later. In analyzing these front-end, lump sum items, Griner treated them (along with the unreasonably low bids on the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grids and C III seal concrete) as "mathematical imbalances." Following the guidance of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum, dated May 16, 1988, on the subject of "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids," Griner analyzed the Hardaway bid to be sure it would not be susceptible to cost overruns (it was not) and to be sure the quantities were correctly estimated (they were). He also analyzed the additional cost to the DOT of paying the Hardaway Company early (by the half way point of the project) for the inflated front-end items to determine whether the "mathematical" imbalance was "material," i.e., whether "the mathematically imbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." Based on a twelve percent interest rate, Griner calculated that the inflated front-end items would cost the DOT approximately an additional $98,000, 1/ still much less than the difference between the low Hardaway bid and any other bid. Based on this calculation, Griner concluded that the "mathematical imbalance" in the Hardaway bid was not a "material imbalance" and did not require the award of the bid to Fairchild or one of the other bidders. Griner overlooked and did not apply another portion of the method of analysis in the FHWA memorandum on "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids" that states: There are numerous reasons why a bidder may want to unbalance his/her bid on a contract. One reason is to get more money at the beginning of the project. The bidder does this by overpricing the work done early in the project. This is called "front loading" the contract. The leading case in the "front loading" area is Matter of: Riverport Industries, 64 Comp. Gen. 441 (1985). Here the Comptroller General held that if the bid is front loaded, regardless if it is the lowest bid, it "should be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the bid would result in the same evils as an advance payment. An advance payment is prohibited by law." The "front loading" may also be materially unbalanced due to the cost of money that must be paid out early versus over the normal construction fo the project. Under the Hardaway Company bid, the pile mobilization, the land clearing and grubbing, and the reinforcement steel (substructure) parts of the bid are "front-ended." 2/ Under the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, the Hardaway Company would be paid approximately $428,000 in "advance payments" under these two items if it is awarded the contract. Approximately $375,000 in pile mobilization, $183,600 in land clearing and grubbing, and $289,700 in the reinforcement steel were shifted to these front- end items from the unbalanced sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items. These dollars The shifted dollars are estimated by taking the difference between the statistical average for these items and the Hardaway bid on them. Since roiughly half of the shifted dollars would be paid earlier than they would be paid if they were bid under the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III (seal) concrete items, the amount of "advance payment," under the FHWA analysis would be approximately $428,000. Griner did not explain why he only followed part, but not all, of the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, other than to say he overlooked it. But he also testified that it is common practice for contractors to submit mathematically unbalanced bids, and the DOT always analyzes them the way he did in this case. Indeed, in the March, 1990, bid letting, Griner found "mathematical imbalances" in 21 of the 29 low bids but no "material imbalances." The Fairchild bid also contains "mathematical imbalances." It also "front-ends" several items. The total dollar value of the "front-ending" in the Fairchild bid (including roadway mobilization) closely approximates that found in the Hardaway bid and, under the FHWA analysis, would result in approximately the same amount of advance payment. Under Section 101-2.2 of the DOT's Standard Specifications for this project, contractors are limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total contract for mobilization. The Hardaway Company's total mobilization bid is within the maximum under the specifications. Notwithstanding the imbalances in the Hardaway bid, and the so-called "advance payments" that would result from the "front-ending" in the Hardaway bid, the Hardaway bid remains the lowest and best bid on the project, and it is the best interest of the DOT and the public to award the contract to the Hardaway Company. Even if the Hardaway Company had bid the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items exactly as Fairchild did, Hardaway still would be low bidder. "Value Engineering" and Alleged Alternative or Contingent Bidding. Inferences reasonably could be drawn from the evidence that the Hardaway Company may intend to propose to the DOT that the approach to the bridge be re-engineered so as to eliminate the need for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the C III (seal) concrete. If the DOT accepts such a proposal, the contract between the DOT and the Hardaway Company would have to be modified. If the re-engineered project were to allow the Hardaway Company to do the job for less than its bid price, half (or, if the proposal is innovative or unique, up to 80%) of the savings would be paid to the Hardaway Company under what the DOT calls "value engineering." Under DOT procedures, "value engineering" proposals are not made or evaluated until after the original contract is signed with the successful bidder. It is not an alternative bid or a contingent bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, enter a final order dismissing the bid protest filed by W. R. Fairchild Construction Company, Ltd., and awarding State Project No. 46090-3511 to the Hardaway Company. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1982 the Chancellor of the State University System approved Amendment 567, as revised, to the Capital Outlay Implementation Plan. This Amendment budgeted $6,350,000 for the construction and equipment of a teaching gymnasium at Florida International University on the Tamiami Campus. Included within that figure were $350,000 of planning expenses appropriated by the 1981 Florida Legislature and $6,000,000 appropriated by the Legislature in 1982 for the expenses of construction, art work and contingencies. In the early part of 1983 the State University System advertised for bids from contractors to construct the gymnasium. The bids were open on May 17, 1983 at 2:00 PM. on the Florida International University Tamiami Campus. Petitioner's base bid of $5,998,000 was the lowest of the 17 received, nevertheless it was $350,000 above the estimate in Amendment 567. The next lowest bid was for $6,045,000. The bid specifications required that six alternatives in addition to the base cost be bid on, but through an oversight Sanmar's bids on these alternatives did not conform to the bid specifications. Sanmar's alternative bids failed to indicate that the amount reflected was in addition to the base cost bid. However, because the issues in this case concern the base bid amount, Sanmar's error with respect to the alternatives is not material. At the May 17, 1983 bid opening Respondent's agent, the architectural firm of Greenleaf-Telesca, announced that it would recommend to the Board of Regents that all bids be rejected as being in excess of the funds available through legislative appropriations. Respondent intends to make design changes in the project to make it less expensive and to then rebid it. On May 18, 1983 Sanmar timely filed a protest to the rejection of its bid. Subsequent to May 17, 1983 and Respondent's decision to reject all bids, the Florida Legislature through Section 2(2)(y), Chapter 83-333, Laws of Florida (1983), appropriated an additional $500,000 for the construction of the gymnasium. This appropriation became effective on July 1, 1983. After its receipt of Sanmar's bid protest Respondent provided in a letter dated June 3, 1983 the figures on which the Respondent based its decision to reject all bids including Sanmar's. These figures follow: Architects fee including additional services $ 379,240.00 **Architects construction observation (included in architects estimate as part of the fee and contingencies) $ 90,000.00 Sanmar Base Bid $5,998,000.00 Equipment $ 200,000.00 Contingency (3 percent of construction cost) $ 179,940.00 Based on Sanmar's bid $6,847,420.00 Artwork $ 28,240.00 $6,875,420.00 **Estimated based on 18-month construction time. Petitioner has taken issue with the 3 percent contingency amount included in the above figures, however, the evidence shows that 3 percent is a reasonable amount based upon the State University System's experience with previous construction and is a fair estimate to insure that projects once begun can be adequately funded by the amount appropriated for their construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Regents enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for the construction of a teaching gymnasium at the Tamiami Campus of the Florida International University. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an invitation to bid (ITB) and solicited bids for district-wide miscellaneous property management maintenance services pursuant to ITB-DOT-94-95-4004. Kemp Services, Inc. (Kemp), submitted the lowest bid for the subject ITB. Petitioner, Urban Group, Inc., submitted the second lowest bid for the subject ITB. Section 1.1 of the ITB provided: Invitation The State of Florida Department of Transport- ation requests written bids from qualified firms to MAINTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS BY PROVIDING CLEAN-UP SERVICES, LAWN SERVICES, LANDSCAPE SERVICES, SECURING OF BUILDINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS HANDYMAN AND SKILLED LABOR SERVICES. ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR SIGN REMOVAL FOR STRUCTURES ILLEGALLY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ILLEGALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE COUNTY AREA: BROWARD, MARTIN, PALM BEACH, ST. LUCIE AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES. For the purpose of this document, the term "bidder" means the prime Consultant acting for itself and those individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations comprising the bidder's team by joint venture or subcontract. The term "bid package" means the complete response of the bidder to the Invitation To Bid, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation. [Emphasis in text.] The services were to be provided on an as-needed basis for the term of the agreement, two years. Section 1.7.1 of the ITB provided: Qualifications 1.7.1 Bidders must meet the following minimum qualifications: BIDDERS MUST HAVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE PROVIDING AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE SIX SERVICES OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IN EXHIBIT "A". BIDDERS MUST HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS BUSINESS FOR THE PAST TWO (2) YEARS AND COMPLETE FORM "F" WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED REGARDING WORK EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES. ALL REFERENCES WILL BE CHECKED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE FORM "F" AND THE WORK EXPERIENCE REQUESTED WILL CONSTITUTE A NON- RESPONSIVE BID. [Emphasis in text.] Section 1.7.4 of the ITB provided: Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise accepted by the Department's Contract Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the bid package. Section 1.7.5 of the ITB provided: Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the bid due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Other than the provisions above, no other licensure or authorization to do business was required by the ITB. Section 1.8.2 of the ITB provided: Responsiveness of Bids All bids must be in writing. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Bids may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A bid may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional bids, incomplete bids, indefinite or ambiguous bids, improper undated or unsealed signatures (where applicable). Section 1.8.4 of the ITB provided: Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of bids include evidence of collusion among bidders, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Bids will be rejected if not delivered or received on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. Section 1.8.5 of the ITB provided: Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other bidders. Minor irregular- ities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Bids by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Section 1.18.1 of the ITB provided: Award of the Contract The Department intends to award a contract to the responsible and responsive bidder who bids the lowest cost as identified in Form "C", Bid Blank, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The ITB did not specify a minimum number of employees, vehicles or hours of service for a bidder to be deemed responsible or responsive. At all times material to this case, Kemp has been in continuous business for the past two (2) years, and completed form "F" with the information requested regarding work experience and references. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. At all times material to this case, Kemp had at least two years experience providing at least two (2) of the six services outlined in the scope of services. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. While Mr. Gentile was authorized to check with all references listed by Kemp, the failure to do so does not discount the information obtained from the sources that were checked. Kemp had an appropriate occupational license to perform work in the tricounty area, but did not have occupational licenses with the City of Hollywood or Broward County. At all times material to this case, Kemp maintained a warehouse to secure the equipment to be used such as lawnmowers, trimmers, and cleaning supplies/equipment. After the bid protest was filed, the Department verified that Kemp had used the warehouse as it claimed. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The mailing address Kemp listed on the first page of its bid response was 8637 S. Sutton Drive, Miramar, Florida. Mr. Faluade resides at that address. He listed that address for mail purposes. The business address for Kemp listed on the bid response was 6200 Johnson Street, Miramar, Florida. This address is a store-front facility with limited office equipment and furniture. Kemp maintains an office at this location but stores its equipment elsewhere as noted above. Kemp was the lowest responsive, responsible bid for ITB-DOT-94-95- 4004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the award of ITB-DOT-94-95-4004 to Kemp Services, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5967 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 4, 6, and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 5, 7, and 16 noting that the additional emphasis is not in the text and that the citations are incomplete (and perhaps misleading), they are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. Corporate documents may have been filed on that date, however, the weight of the credible evidence established that Kemp had been in business the requisite amount of time. Paragraph 12 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The business conducted by the Kemp personnel continued regardless of the business entity structure that was used. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence was presented to establish that Kemp did not provide services as described in the ITB or that it was not in business the requisite time. Paragraph 17 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The mailing address listed by Kemp was a residential address. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Kemp probably does not have a Leon County occupational license either. It did have an appropriate occupational license at all times material to this case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Duffy Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mitchell B. Polay Mark H. Klein 750 S.E. Third Avenue Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1994, the Respondent received and opened bids for its Project No. HSMV 92044000, Repairs, Art Sutton Drivers' License Office, Miami, Florida (the Project). The bid specification documents (the Specifications) for the Project included requirements for a Base Bid and for specific alternate proposals with respect to three defined items of alternate work. Section 01100 of the Specifications stated that "[a]ll Alternates described in this Section are required to be reflected on the Bid Form as submitted by the bidder." Part 2 of that section provided: ALTERNATE NO. 1 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the removal of existing window units and the installation of new units as indicated in plans and specification Section 08520. ALTERNATE NO. 2 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the provision of communications conductors see specification Section 16400. ALTERNATE No. 3 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the installation of all landscape materials as indicated on plans and as per specification Section 02960. Also included in the Specifications as Exhibit 4 was a Proposal Form. The Specifications required each bidder to submit this form in triplicate on the bidder's letterhead. With respect to alternates, the Proposal Form required: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ The Respondent's architect received four bids on August 31, 1994. As recorded on the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation, three bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates, as well as a Base Bid. The Bid Tabulation shows that two bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates and included the alternate prices in their Base Bids. The Petitioner provided specific prices for the three alternates, but excluded the alternate prices from its Base Bid. The fourth bidder provided a specific price for only one alternate and excluded that alternate price from its Base Bid. (The fourth bidder was disqualified as non-responsive for failing to submit prices on all three alternates.) In pertinent part, the Petitioner's proposal read: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications: Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct . . . $4,400.00 Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct . . . $1,158.00 Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct . . . $2,084.00 These Alternates were in addition to the Petitioner's Base bid of $204,322.00. The proposal form submitted by the Petitioner comports with Exhibit 4 to the Specifications, which was the mandatory Proposal Form. On August 31, 1994, William Phillip Austin, Peitioner's President, wrote the architect: Per our telephone conversation this date regard- ing the confusion relating to the Add/Deduct for Alternates 1, 2 and 3 for the above project, please be advised that our base bid did not include the work described in the Alternates. As stated if you want work described in Alternates 1, 2 and 3, you must add the cost to our base bid. The base bid including Alternates 1, 2 and 3 would, therefore, be $211,964.00. If we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Respondent's architect completed and submitted the bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation to the Respondent in early September. The document clearly discloses the amounts of each bidder's Base Bid and Alternate proposals. Using plus (+) and minus (-) signs, the Bid Tabulation further shows each bidder's method of calculation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent had any problem in evaluating the bids and identifying the lowest bidder. The Petitioner was the lowest bidder on any combination of base bid plus or minus any or all alternates. Subsequently the Petitioner received a NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION dated October 4, 1994. The Notice informed the Petitioner that the Respondent "has recommended that the contract be awarded to your firm in the total amount of $211,964.00, accepting the Base Bid and Alternates #1, #2 & #3. The Administrator of Contracts Design and Permitting, Division of Building Construction, Department of Management Services, State of Florida will consider this recommendation." Larry R. Coleman, Construction Projects Administrator, signed the letter. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt. A representative of the second lowest bidder, Kalex Construction, then contacted the Respondent, complaining of the Award Recommendation. The grounds for the Kalex complaint are not in the record. However, on October 14, 1994, H. R. Hough, the Respondent's Contracts Administrator, sent the Petitioner a letter "to notify you of the State's decision to reject all bids on the above referenced project due to ambiguities in the specifications." Mr. Hough's reasons for the rejection are "other than those stated by the protestor," Kalex. The Respondent's Rule 60D-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, states: Determination of Successful Bidder. All projects except where competitive bidding is waived under the provisions of Rule 60D-5.008 will be publicly bid in accordance with the provisions in the project specifications bidding documents. Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder, determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents, that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract, taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Under the above-quoted rule, the Respondent compares bids beginning with the lowest "base bid." The Respondent is of the view that for this comparison to be fair and equal, all bidders must include the same scope of work in the "base bid." The Respondent does not interpret the above-quoted rule to allow deductive alternates from some bidders and additive alternates from others. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, the Respondent's interpretation and application of the above-quoted rule is erroneous.) The Specifications contain some ambiguous and inconsistent language regarding whether alternates should be treated as additive or deductive. The ambiguous and inconsistent language did not provide any bidder with an advantage or a disadvantage, nor did it otherwise affect the fairness of the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order in this case awarding a contract for the subject project to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: This is primarily a statement of position and is addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 2 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. Third sentence is accepted as an accurate statement of how Respondent has been interpreting the subject rule, but is not accepted as constituting a correct interpretation of the rule. Paragraph 8: Rejected as misleading and confusing because the "scope of work" to be performed under the contract can only be determined after the Respondent decides which alternates to include and which to exclude. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esquire Armstrong & Mejer Suite 1111 Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact On June 21, 1982, DGS issued specifications and contract documents as a basis for competitive bidding on a building construction project entitled "Rough Site Preparation and Grading for a Reception Center and Correctional Institution, Dade Co., Project No. DC-8037/8135," for the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. The specifications and contract documents were prepared by DGS' consulting architect/engineer ("A/E") Paragraph B-10 of the specifications provided that requests for correction or interpretation of the meaning of drawings and specifications or other bidding documents should be in writing, addressed to the A/E, and that all such interpretations and supplemental instructions would be in the form of written addenda to the bidding documents. In addition, subparagraph B-3 of the specifications for the project provided that each ". . . bidder is required to be familiar with all Federal, State and Local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that in any manner affect the work. Ignorance on the part of the bidder will in no way relieve him from responsibility." Further, subparagraph B- 11 of the specifications provides as follows: Bidders are required, before submitting their proposals, to visit the site of the proposed work and completely familiarize themselves with the nature and extent of the work and any local conditions that may in any manner affect the work to be performed and the equipment, materials and labor required. They are also required to examine carefully the Drawings, Specifications and other Bidding Documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner affect the work. By letter of July 6, 1982, Capeletti, as a prospective bidder, called to the attention of the A/E that an existing road near the north boundary of the property on which the project is to be constructed, which was designated on the site location plan drawing as Northwest 41st Street, was not a public road, but was, instead, a private road on private property. In fact, the road depicted as Northwest 41st Street on the plans and specifications is owned by Florida Power and Light Corporation, and has not been dedicated for public use. Capeletti has been granted an exclusive right-of-way by Florida Power and Light Corporation for use of that road. A fence with a gate installed by Capeletti at some time in the past blocks access to the road, and a sign on the gate advises visitors that the roadway is under private ownership. In its letter to the A/E Capeletti inquired whether another access road would be provided to the bidder ultimately awarded the contract. The A/E did not issue a written addendum in response to Capeletti's letter, nor were any prospective bidders notified in writing by the A/E of the absence of a public access road. Both Bergeron and Capeletti submitted bids on the project. Bids were opened on July 14, 1982, and the apparent low bidder was Bergeron, whose bid totaled $1,985,000. The amount of the second lowest bid was $2,390,000, and Capeletti's bid totaled $2,565,000, or $585,000 more than Bergeron's bid. The estimated DGS project budget for this project was established at $2,400,000 prior to the opening of the bids. Bergeron's bid was, therefore, $415,000 below the DGS estimate of the cost to do the project. By letter dated August 19, 1982, DGS gave notice to all bidders of its intent to award the contract to Bergeron. Within 72 hours after receipt of DGS' notice, Capeletti filed a Notice of Protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and within ten days thereafter filed its Petition for Formal Hearing. Capeletti's petition requested that the contract be awarded to Capeletti, since it was the only bidder having legal access to the project site, or, alternatively, that all bids be rejected and the project rebid. By letter dated September 22, 1982, DGS notified Bergeron and Capeletti that it was rejecting all bids, and further advised them that: We have determined that the specifications contained a mistake of material fact concerning access to the job site. Although there is no public road adjacent to the site and the state did not otherwise have access, the drawings indicated that a public street, Northwest 41st Street, adjoined the site on our north boundary. This was a misleading representation. When access is obtained, it may be at a different location and may affect the amount of the bid. The Department desires to give bidders an equal opportunity to bid on the project with knowledge of the access location after it is obtained. The Department proposes to rebid the project in the near future, combining the rough site preparation and the buildings into a single project, and you will be notified of the date when' specifications will be available. (Emphasis added.) After receipt of the DGS letter of September 22, 1982, Bergeron timely filed a Notice of Protest and its Petition in this cause, protesting the rejection of bids. The Capeletti and Bergeron petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes and for entry of a Recommended Order in this proceeding. Subparagraph B-22 of the specifications, entitled "Rejection of Bids," provides as follows: The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the proposal of a bidder who the Owner determines is not in a position to perform the Contract. . . At the time bids for the proposed project were invited, opened and rejected, there was no existing public road that contractors could use to gain access to the building site, and there was no private road adjacent to the state-owned property. That situation remained the same at the time of final hearing in this cause on October 25, 1982. DGS apparently knew, however, prior to the filing of Capeletti's protest that there was no public access to the job site. The DGS Chief of Construction for the Bureau of Construction testified that, prior to the filing of the Capeletti protest: . . . it was my understanding that the Department of Corrections had worked with . . . [Dade] county, and the county was going to provide the access and make arrangements for the access along the road designated as the Florida Power and Light private road and the A. J. Capeletti private road and along Northwest 41st Street. As required by the contract documents, Bergeron, prior to submitting its bid, visited the site of the proposed project and observed the aforementioned gate blocking what was delineated on the project drawings as an extension of Northwest 41st Street. Upon further inquiry, Bergeron determined that the roadway depicted on the project drawings as an extension of North West 41st Street adjacent to the north boundary of the project was in fact not publicly dedicated. As a result, Bergeron, in formulating and submitting its bid, contemplated the construction of a temporary haul road of approximately 4,200 feet in order to access the project site. Bergeron apparently factored into its bid amount approximately $155,000 to $160,000 for the cost of building this temporary haul road. The project specifications did not call for the construction of either a temporary or permanent access road into the project area. Bergeron does not have definitive plans for the location of any such temporary haul road, and has indicated only that it would attempt to obtain permission from adjacent private property owners to use their property for that purpose. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding from which it can in any way be concluded that such an arrangement cannot be accomplished. The State of Florida, Department of Corrections, is under a federal court mandate to have the entire facility, of which this contract is merely a part, available for use in the near future. There is, however, no evidence of record from which the exact date of such required availability can be determined, nor any indication that accepting Bergeron's bid would adversely affect that availability. The contract documents provide for delay damages payable to the contractor in case of a delay for reasons other than changes in the work of 10 percent of the contract price per day, divided by the number of days in the contract period. One of the reasons advanced by DGS for rejecting all bids is that failure to do so could result in claims for damages by Bergeron in the event of any delay in obtaining access to the job site. This fear would seem unfounded for two reasons. First, although the contract is a 150-calendar-day contract, the contract time does not begin to run until DGS issues a Notice to Proceed. No contractual provision sets an exact time in which any such notice should issue. Accordingly, it may well be that either DGS or Bergeron can solve any access problem before issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Secondly, Bergeron submitted its bid with full knowledge that there was no public access available, planning instead to furnish its own method of accessing the site. Indeed, Bergeron still contended in this proceeding that it was willing to perform the obligations of this contract at the price it had bid, including providing its own access to the site. Under these circumstances, it would seem improbable that any claim for delay concerning access could be deemed meritorious. The contract drawings show an entrance road running in a north-south direction from the buildings to be constructed on the project site to the northern boundary of the property. The bid drawings show the length of the entrance road to be built on the site as actually 103 feet less than will be necessary to join that access road to any improved roadway which would run east- west to connect with the current termination point of North West 41st Street. There is no showing in the record that this discrepancy in the plans in any way affected the amount of any bid on the project, and, as such, is not considered to be a "material error. DGS has also contended that re-letting the bids on this project may result in a cost-saving by combining with it certain other portions of the overall project. Only one witness was offered by DGS on this point, and his testimony regarding potential cost-savings is not persuasive, primarily because it appears to be based entirely on speculation, and was offered without any record showing of design criteria for any such revised project upon which to base such a conclusion. The testimony in this case reveals that DGS has been involved in siting and designing this project since 1974. DGS has failed to establish that it is in the best interest of the State of Florida, at this late date, to reject a bid that was directly responsive to the bidding documents, in an amount $415,000 below DGS' own project estimate, on the basis of speculation that some apparently hypothetical change in project plans might possibly result in a cost- saving.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 26th day of February 1996.
