The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation (DOT) acted correctly in deeming the bid of Petitioner White Construction Co., Inc. (White), to be nonresponsive for failure to meet the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for Project No. 220517-1-52-01 (the project) and whether the proposed award to Intervenor Mitchell Brothers, Inc. (Mitchell) is in accordance with governing rules and statutes or is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact The project is for work in Wakulla County. The deadline for submission of bids was June 17, 1998. White and Mitchell bid on the Project. Upon the opening of the bids on or about June 17, 1998, White was the apparent low bidder at $4,140,400.14, and Mitchell was the apparent second low bidder at $5,237,848.89. Pursuant to Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, bidders have three days after bid opening in which to submit detailed information regarding compliance with the project’s DBE requirements. The requirements of this project were that eight percent of the contract work be performed by DBEs. With the bid itself, a bidder only needs to submit a DBE summary, noting whether it will meet the DOT established goal of eight percent. Within the three day period, White submitted DBE utilization forms, one of which listed HSD as one of its DBEs, for work in the amount of $55,326.36. Mitchell submitted the required forms, showing compliance with the DBE goals. The DOT publishes a DBE directory for each bidding cycle. The directory indicates the bidding cycle to which it is to be applied. If a company is not listed in the directory, a contractor is on notice that such company is not a certified DBE. White is an experienced bidder and contractor with the Department of Transportation. The bid and the DBE submission in this case were prepared by a White estimator who had been an estimator for many years. White’s estimator admitted that, while he usually reviewed the DBE directory prior to submission of bids, he failed to do so in this case. White received a copy of the DBE directory for the June Letting, but did not consult it to confirm that HSD was listed. While White has substituted DBE subcontractors on jobs after performance has begun where the DBE cannot complete the work for which it was hired, White has never substituted a DBE subcontractor prior to the performance of the contract or changed subcontractors on its bid after the bid opening because a subcontractor it listed for purposes of meeting the DBE goal was not DBE certified. White, as a common practice, keeps a supply of HSD forms in its office for use in submitting the DBE Utilization Form that indicates White will meet the DBE goal for a particular project. White did not contact HSD or any of the DBEs it listed on the DBE Utilization Form and DBE Utilization Summary Form to confirm that they were DBE certified for the June Letting. White is aware that subcontractors may lose their DBE certification or not apply for recertification. White is also aware that it should not use subcontractors for purposes of meeting the DBE goal that are not listed in the DBE directory unless one calls the Minority Programs Office and confirm directly that a particular company which is not listed is DBE certified for that letting cycle. HSD was not aware that White listed it on the DBE Utilization Form submitted with White’s bid. For White, that is not an uncommon practice. Neither DOT or HSD are depicted by the evidence of having misled White into believing that HSD was a qualified DBE. It is the bidder’s (White) responsibility to verify whether a DBE is authorized for use on a particular project. White personnel did not do this and the applicable DBE directory clearly did not have HSD listed. HSD was not a qualified DBE at the time of the bid letting or proposed bid award. HSD sent a quote for work on the project to Mitchell and White. The quote sent to Mitchell contains a letter in which HSD notes that the company . . . is not listed in the DBE Directory for the June Letting. Unfortunately this means you will not be able to utilize Highway Safety Devices for DBE Goals for the June Letting. At the final hearing, a witness for White asserted that White did not receive the explanatory letter received by Mitchell. Such assertion cannot be credited in view of the demeanor of the witness when testifying. Subsequent to the final hearing in this matter, White submitted information indicating that HSD had received certification as a DBE, effective October 26, 1998. However, White’s submission does not change the fact that HSD was not certified at the time of the bid letting or opening in this matter. White’s bid was evaluated by DOT’s GFEC to determine whether or not White met the DBE goal or provided a good faith effort evaluation for the Project. DOT interprets Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code, as not permitting the substitution of a certified DBE for HSD, a circumstance that would have permitted White to meet the DBE goal for the Project. DOT’s Minority Programs Office does the initial evaluation of the DBE portion of the goal. If the goal has not been met, the bid will be reviewed by the GFEC. The GFEC makes a recommendation to the TRC, and the dollar amount of the bid is not a factor considered by the GFEC. The TRC will take into consideration the bid price in its evaluation. The GFEC reviews the bid package by going through every criteria set forth in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3,b, Florida Administrative Code, to see if there are any circumstances that would credit the prime contractor in meeting the DBE goal. The GFEC’s evaluation of White’s bid was to determine if the information submitted by White indicated whether good faith efforts were made to meet the DBE goal, not whether White could change HSD for a certified DBE. The GFEC reviewed White’s bid for compliance with the DBE goal and to determine if good faith efforts were made to meet the goal. White did not meet the DBE goal or submit documentation of its good faith effort to do so. The GFEC recommended to the TRC to deem White nonresponsive. The TRC reviewed the GFEC report and accepted the recommendation to deem White nonresponsive. The GFEC determined that Mitchell, however, did meet the DBE goal for the Project. The TRC determined that Mitchell’s bid was within the automatic award criteria and recommended Mitchell be awarded the contract. The TRC recommended to the CAC that White be deemed nonresponsive and award the contract to Mitchell. The review of White’s bid to determine whether it met the DBE goal by the GFEC, the TRC and the CAC were done in accordance with the governing statutes, rules and DOT policy and procedures. Although substitution of DBEs in the performance of a contract after bid-letting is permitted by DOT, the total amount of the bid submitted by a contractor is affected by the bids it receives from DBEs. White selected HSD, without confirming its present status at the time, because White had used this presumed DBE on previous occasions to obtain the best deal for White. White also asserted that, as it may change DBEs after a contract is awarded, the failure to submit a correct DBE is not a material error. However, a contractor may not change DBEs without good cause, such as its inability to perform the work, pursuant to Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code. That there is a procedure available after the contract is awarded does not affect the materiality of the failure to submit a qualified DBE in the first instance. If the DOT believes the responsive bids which it receives are too high, it can reject all bids. The bid submitted by Mitchell, at $5,237,848.89, was within the automatic award criteria. DOT’s decision to reject White’s bid for failure to comply with the DBE requirements is consistent with its practice and past policy. The use of an unqualified DBE is a material variation in a bid, as it may impact the price. DOT’s decision to reject White’s bid as non-responsive was not contrary to statute, rule, or policy, or the bid specifications. White did not show that DOT’s action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
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 awarding the contract on State Project Nos. 220517-1-52-01 and 220511-1-52-01 to Intervenor, Mitchell Brothers, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT") advertised for bids on State Project No. 72190-3530 in Duval County, Florida, with the bids to be closed on June 19, 1985. The notice to contractors and the special provisions included with the bid package provided that the subcontractor participation goal for the project for firms owned and controlled by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (hereinafter "DBE") was eight percent and for firms owned and controlled by Women Business Enterprises (hereinafter "WBE") was two percent of the total contract bid for that traffic signal installation and resurfacing project. In response to that advertisement for bids, Regency Electric Contracting Company (hereinafter "Regency") submitted a bid of $571,561.86 for the project. Mike Hunter, Inc.; Traffic Control Devices, Inc.; and Wiley N. Jackson Company also submitted bids for that project. Regency was the apparent low bidder. The bid submitted by Regency proposed to utilize 6.21 percent DBE subcontractors and .39 percent WBE subcontractors. Mike Hunter, Inc., proposed to utilize 5.4 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.8 percent WBE subcontractors. Traffic Control Devices, Inc., proposed to utilize 9.8 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.6 percent WBE subcontractors. Wiley N. Jackson proposed to utilize 39.9 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.7 percent WBE subcontractors. DOT, after reviewing the bids, issued a notice of switch in apparent low bidder for the project based upon the failure of Regency to achieve the DBE/WBE project goals and failure to submit documentation of good faith efforts to achieve those goals. Since Mike Hunter, Inc., (the second lowest bidder), also failed to achieve the project's DBE/WBE goals, DOT declared Traffic Control Devices, Inc. (the third lowest bidder), to be the low responsible bidder with its bid of $660,240.47 which is $88,678.61 more than the bid submitted by Regency. The 9.8 percent DBE participation proposed by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., was achieved by allocating a portion of the electrical work being performed by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., to a single DBE subcontractor at a price which was approximately double that proposed to be charged by Regency utilizing its own forces. W & T Enterprises, Inc., is the sole DBE subcontractor proposed to be utilized by Traffic Control Devices, Inc. Although W & T is a North Carolina corporation, it is certified by DOT as a DBE subcontractor for participation in contracts awarded by DOT. W & T qualified to transact business in the State of Florida on August 4, 1980, but its permit to transact business in Florida was revoked on December 16, 1981 for failure to file the annual report as required by law. Since that time, W & T has not re-qualified itself to do business in Florida, and W & T cannot now qualify to do business in Florida since there is now a Florida corporation under the name of W & T Enterprises, Inc. which is not affiliated with the North Carolina corporation, so that that name is no longer available in the State of Florida. Further, the North Carolina W & T Enterprises, Inc. is not registered under a fictitious name in Seminole County where it is alleged to maintain an office. Since Regency's Utilization Form No. 1 reflected that Regency had failed to achieve either the DBE or the WBE goals required for the project, an evaluation was made by DOT's "good faith efforts" review committee of Regency's "good faith efforts" documentation required to be submitted with its bid. In an attempt to evidence "good faith efforts" Regency submitted with its bid a one-page note which lists the DBE and WBE firms contacted by Regency. Regency only contacted a total of ten potential subcontractors and did not contact all of the potential subcontractors in any of the possible areas of subcontracting. The note further fails to indicate when the solicitations were made or that the solicitations were made at least seven days prior to the bid letting. Further, the few solicitations that were made were done by telephone and not by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand-delivery with a receipt. There is no evidence to indicate what information was given in the solicitations or that Regency offered to assist the firms contacted with preparation of their quotes, with review of the bid package, or with the obtaining of any required bonding or insurance. Lastly, none of the quotes obtained from any of the DBE or WBE firms contacted were attached to Regency's bid. DBE goals and WBE goals are established by DOT on a project-by-project basis. The evidence in this cause indicates that there were a number of facets to the project including, for example, grassing, asphalt/concrete, barricades/signs, guard rails, signalization and striping. Although one of Regency's witnesses who was not qualified as an expert made the statement that there was an insufficient amount of work available for subcontracting in the project, no specifics were offered as to the basis for that opinion other than the fact that Regency did not choose to subcontract any of the signalization work. No evidence was offered to show what portions of the project involved other-than-signalization work what portion of the project involved materials, or why no portion of the signalization should be subcontracted other than that witness's testimony that loop assembly work proposed to be subcontracted to W & T Enterprises Inc., by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., doubled the price of that portion of the work over Regency's estimate of the costs to do the loop assembly using Regency's own forces. Further, two of the four bidders were able to allocate sufficient portions of the project to subcontractors to meet the DBE goals set by DOT for the project, and three of the four bidders met the WBE goals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered declaring the bid of Regency Electric Contracting Company on State Project No. 72190-3530 nonresponsive, rejecting that bid, and dismissing with prejudice Regency's formal protest of intent to award a contract. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-2820 The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have either been adopted verbatim or have been adopted as modified to conform to the evidence: 3-6 and 16-19. The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but as constituting either argument of counsel or conclusions of law: 1, 2, 13-15, and 20. The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have been rejected as unnecessary: 7-12. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have either been adopted verbatim or have been adopted as modified to conform to the evidence: 1, 4, 7, and 8. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but as constituting either argument of counsel or conclusions of law: 2, 3, 6, and 11. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have been rejected as unnecessary: 5, 9, and 10. The following proposed finding of fact of the Department of Transportation has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence: 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the proposed award of a contract to PCL Civil Contractors, Inc. ("PCL"), for the rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek Bridge in Monroe County, Florida violates Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact On September 24, 1998, Respondent issued an invitation to bid ("ITB") on a proposed contract for the rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek Bridge in Monroe County, Florida. The ITB identified the project as Financial Project No. 250533-1-52-01 and contract number E-6844. Respondent budgeted $707,323 for the project and established two disadvantaged business enterprise ("DBE") goals. Eight percent of the total amount actually expended for the project was reserved for non-minority female DBEs. Four percent of the total project expenditure was reserved for Black American DBEs. On October 1, 1998, five bidders submitted bids. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $855,899.74. PCL submitted the second lowest bid of $940.471.50, and Coastal submitted the third lowest bid of $951,071.11. The fourth and fifth lowest bids were submitted by M&J Construction Co. ("M&J") and by The Walsh Group dba Archer Western ("Archer"). The respective bids of M&J and Archer were $1,100,471.88 and $1,149,000. Respondent determined that the bids from M&J and Archer were non-responsive. Neither M&J nor Archer protested Respondent's determination, and Respondent's determination is not at issue in this proceeding. Respondent proposes to award the contract to PCL as the second lowest bidder. Respondent proposes that the bid submitted by Petitioner is non-responsive because it does not meet established DBE goals; and because it fails to demonstrate Petitioner's good faith effort to meet applicable DBE goals. In addition, Respondent proposes that the bids submitted by PCL and Coastal are responsive because each meets applicable DBE goals for the project. It is uncontroverted that Petitioner failed to meet applicable DBE goals. The issues for determination are whether Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to meet applicable DBE goals and Respondent's proposed determination that PCL and Coastal met DBE goals is contrary to governing statutes, rules, and policies; and, if so, whether Respondent's proposed agency action is "clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious." Contrary to Applicable Statutes As a threshold matter, Respondent's proposed agency action is contrary to Section 120.57(3)(d)3. Section 120.57(3)(d)3 provides that if the subject of a protest is not resolved within seven days after the receipt of a formal written protest, "the agency shall refer the protest" to DOAH. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner first filed its formal protest of the proposed agency action on November 11, 1998. For reasons discussed hereinafter, Respondent did not refer the protest to DOAH within seven days. Rather, Respondent referred the protest to DOAH on May 20, 1999, approximately 190 days after the formal protest. On March 14, 1999, Respondent issued a second notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. Petitioner timely filed a second formal written protest on March 18, 1999. Respondent did not refer the matter to DOAH until May 20, 1999, approximately 33 days later. Unlike Section 120.57(3)(e), there is no provision in Section 120.57(3)(d)3 which authorizes Respondent to ignore the seven-day requirement upon stipulation by all of the parties. Even if such authority exists by implication in Section 120.57(3)(d)3, no evidence shows that the seven-day requirement in Section 120.57(3)(d)3 was waived by an express stipulation, written or oral, knowingly executed by all of the parties. Any stipulation would arise from a combination of implied statutory authority and tacit acquiescence or waiver by the all of the parties. Contrary to Applicable Rules Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV), Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d, and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)f and h. (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(I)-(XI) prescribes the criteria by which Respondent must evaluate Petitioner's good faith efforts to meet applicable DBE goals. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) requires Respondent to consider whether applicable DBE goals were met by the other bidders. Applicable DBE goals were not met by either PCL or Coastal. The information needed to consider whether PCL and Coastal met applicable DBE goals was included in their respective bids and available for Respondent's consideration in accordance with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV). Respondent did not consider the relevant information in the bids submitted by PCL and Coastal. Rather, Respondent merely accepted the conclusion of each bidder, on the face of its bid, that each bidder met applicable DBE goals. The PCL Bid The PCL bid contained two DBE utilization forms. One indicated an intent to subcontract $76,000, or approximately eight percent of the bid amount, to ABC Barricade Co. ("ABC") for traffic management. The other utilization form indicated an intent to subcontract $38,000, or approximately four percent of the bid amount, to TCOE Corporation ("TCOE") to furnish and install roadway steel. ABC is certified by Respondent as a non-minority female DBE, and TCOE is certified by Respondent as a Black American DBE, defined in Rule 14-78.002(18)(a)1. The bids of Petitioner and Coastal also included subcontracts with ABC. However, the amount of the subcontract in the PCL bid was approximately twice the amount of the respective subcontracts in the bids from Petitioner and Coastal. Of the $76,000 PCL was to pay to ABC, the PCL bid showed that $53,430, or approximately 70 percent, was designated for payment to off-duty law enforcement officers. The PCL bid did not specify whether ABC would perform a commercially useful function for the $53,430 earmarked for law enforcement or whether ABC would subordinate over 70 percent of its contract to a non-DBE, the law enforcement agency. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c authorizes Respondent to count toward the DBE goals achieved by PCL only those expenditures to DBEs that perform a commercially useful function. The rule states that a DBE such as ABC performs a commercially useful function when: . . . it is responsible for execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. If ABC did not perform a commercially useful function, ABC would subordinate more than 49 percent of the subcontract work. In such a case, Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.d provides that none of the DBE subcontract amount may be counted toward the DBE goals for PCL. Respondent counted the ABC contract toward PCL's DBE goals without considering whether the ABC contract complied with the requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d, pertaining to a commercially useful function and the subordination of more than 49 percent of the contract amount. Respondent has no authority under its rules to count the ABC contract toward PCL's DBE goals unless the contract complies with applicable requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d. Respondent violated Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) by counting the ABC contract toward PCL's DBE goals without considering whether the ABC contract qualified under Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)6 c and d. Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f(IV). The PCL subcontract with TCOE did not require TCOE to perform a commercially useful function. The vice-president of TCOE could not recall another project in which TCOE had ever furnished and installed roadway steel and did not recall any current jobs in which TCOE is performing such work. TCOE did not have a supplier lined up to supply the necessary steel. TCOE does not fabricate the particular type of steel required to be furnished and installed in this project. The vice-president for TCOE could not state a price for roadway steel which TCOE agreed to fabricate and supply to PCL. He could not state the factors TCOE used in preparing the estimate given to PCL. The square-foot price of the steel quoted by TCOE was between a half and a third less than the price quoted by the other two low bidders and approximately one third less than Respondent's average. In addition, the TCOE bid included 400 tons less than the other two bids. Respondent counted the TCOE contract toward PCL's DBE goals without considering whether the TCOE contract complied with the requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d, pertaining to a commercially useful function and the subordination of more than 49 percent of the contract amount. Respondent has no authority under its rules to count the TCOE contract toward PCL's DBE goals unless the contract complies with applicable requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d. Respondent violated Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) by failing to consider whether PCL's subcontract with TCOE could be counted toward PCL's DBE goals under Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)6.c and d. Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f(IV). The Coastal Bid The bid submitted by Coastal included three DBE utilization forms. Coastal submitted one form indicating an intent to subcontract $44,992 to ABC, or approximately 4.7 percent of the project. The subcontract with ABC is not at issue. Coastal also indicated an intent to subcontract Jayaldon Enterprises, Inc. ("Jayaldon") and Acutec, Inc. ("Acutec") for separate types of roadway steel. Jayaldon and Acutec are each certified as a DBE. The contract amounts were $51,973.36 for Jayaldon and $97,823.22 for Acutec. Pursuant to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f, Respondent counted 60 percent of each contract, or $31,184.01 for Jayaldon and $58,693.93 for Acutec, toward Coastal's DBE goals. Jayaldon would not perform a commercially useful function within the meaning of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c. In addition, Jayaldon is a sales representative company for Florida Structural Steel and is not a regular dealer. A regular dealer is defined in Rule 14-78.002(15) to mean: . . . a firm that owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials or supplies required for the performance of the contract are brought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of the products in question. A regular dealer in such bulk items as steel, cement, gravel, stone, and petroleum products does not need to keep such products in stock, if the dealer owns or operates the appropriate distribution facility. Brokers and packagers shall not be regarded as . . . regular dealers within the meaning of these rules. Jayaldon does not stock steel in a warehouse and does not fabricate steel. If Coastal had been awarded the contract, Jayaldon would have submitted an order to Florida Structural Steel and Florida Structural Steel would have fabricated the steel and shipped it directly to Respondent at the project site. Jayaldon would not have been responsible for execution of a distinct element of work by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. Acutec is an electrical contractor and is not a regular dealer in roadway steel within the meaning of Rule 14- 78.002(15). Coastal contacted Acutec after the bids were submitted and asked Acutec to serve as a pass-through for supplying steel roadway floor. If awarded the contract, Acutec would have ordered the structural steel from an independent supplier, marked it up, and had the supplier ship the steel to Coastal. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.h authorizes Respondent to count toward Coastal's DBE goals only prescribed expenditures from the Jayaldon and Acutec contracts. Pursuant to Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)6.h.(I), Respondent is authorized to count only the fees or commissions charged by each company for assistance in the procurement of materials or supplies. However, Respondent did not count the expenditures in the contracts with Jayaldon and Acutec pursuant to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.h. Pursuant to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f, Respondent counted 60 percent of the contested expenditures toward Coastal's DBE goals. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f authorizes Respondent to do so only if Jayaldon and Acutec are regular dealers. Neither Jayaldon nor Acutec is a regular dealer in roadway steel as defined in Rule 14-78.002(15). When Respondent counted 60 percent of the expenditures to Jayaldon and Acutec toward Coastal's DBE goals, Respondent violated Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f (IV) by failing to consider whether Coastal met its DBE goals. Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f and h(I). Contrary to Policy On February 9, 1994, Respondent issued a memorandum entitled, "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Good Faith Efforts Review Committee" (the "Memorandum"). The Memorandum officially stated agency policy for the organization of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee (the "Committee") and the Committee's review and recommendations concerning contractors' documentation of their good faith efforts to comply with DBE goals established by Respondent in a bid or request for proposal. The policy applies to local districts as well as the central office. The Committee consists of three primary and two alternate members. The chairperson is appointed by the director of administration. The other two members of the Committee are the manager of the minority programs office and an employee from the office of construction who is appointed by the director of construction. Alternate members are appointed by the director of administration and the director of construction. Prior to any meeting of the Committee, the minority programs office must prepare copies of relevant bid documents and other working papers to assist the Committee in its analysis. The Committee members then meet and review the bidders' good faith efforts in accordance with the criteria set forth in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f. The chairperson must prepare minutes to document the Committee meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, a member of the Committee must write a Committee report. The report must include the Committee's recommendations and its rationale in support of the recommendations. The report must also include copies of all materials used by the Committee in its analysis. Each member of the Committee must sign the report. The Committee must distribute the report to all members of the technical review committee as well as the members of the contracts award committee. Respondent's review of Petitioner's good faith efforts was contrary to officially stated agency policy in the Memorandum. After the bids were opened and evaluated on October 1, 1998, Respondent's Contracts Administrator for District 6 prepared a memorandum to the Technical Review Panel. The memorandum summarized the bids and stated that the "lowest bidder has not met DBE goals. Second lowest bidder has met goals." The memorandum recommended that the contract be awarded to PCL. The memorandum, including its recommendation, was distributed to members of Respondent's technical review committee. Rather than conducting a meeting of the technical review committee, each member of the committee submitted a memorandum indicating whether to reject or to accept the recommendation to award the contract to PCL. The Contracts Administrator for District 6 distributed Petitioner's bid, including the evidence of Petitioner's good faith effort to meet DBE goals, only to Respondent's district compliance officer. When the District Compliance Officer received Petitioner's bid from the Contracts Administrator, the District Compliance Officer reviewed the documents with the Assistant District Engineer for District 6. The District Compliance Officer and Assistant District Engineer discussed and evaluated Petitioner's good faith submittal, but did not report their conclusion to other members of the technical review committee. Rather, the District Compliance Officer submitted a memorandum to the Contracts Administrator stating, "Quinn Construction did not meet the goal therefore it's my recommendation to reject their bid." The District Compliance Officer submitted the memorandum in the name of his supervisor concluding that "Quinn Construction did not meet DBE goals." On October 29, 1998, Respondent posted its notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. On November 2, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its notice of protest. On November 11, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its formal written protest of the notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. As a result of Petitioner's protest, District 6 determined that it should formalize the process by which it reviewed good faith effort submittals. The supervisor for the District Compliance officer appointed the District Compliance Officer and the Assistant District Construction Engineer to the newly created District 6 Good Faith Efforts Committee. By telephone conference, the three District 6 employees met with three individuals from Respondent's central office. The three individuals in the central office were the Manager of the Minority Programs Office, a representative of Respondent's administration office, and a representative of Respondent's office of construction. The manager of the minority programs office prepared minutes of the meeting. The minutes are in evidence in this proceeding. The participants in the telephone conference concluded that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive. The Committee based its conclusion on several grounds. The Committee determined that Petitioner did not solicit from 47 of 68 companies listed in the DBE Directory as doing the types of work being solicited by the prime contractor in the geographic area where the work was to be performed. The Committee also determined that Petitioner sent solicitation letters by fax rather than by certified mail. Finally, the Committee determined that the second and third low bidders achieved applicable DBE goals. On March 14, 1999, Respondent posted its second notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. On March 18, 1999, Petitioner timely filed its second protest of Respondent's proposed agency action. The first proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to officially stated agency policy in the Memorandum. The first District 6 good faith review committee did not include the three members required by agency policy. The committee did not receive required information in advance of the meeting. The committee neither prepared minutes of the meeting nor authored a report which included the committee's recommendations and supporting rationale. The committee did not otherwise disseminate its findings to the contracts awards committee or to the technical review committee. The second evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals was contrary to officially stated agency policy in the Memorandum. The Committee was not constituted in accord with membership requirements prescribed in the Memorandum. A member of the Committee did not write a report, and all of the Committee members failed to sign the required report. Copies of materials used by the Committee in its analysis were not attached to a report of the Committee. A report was not distributed to all members of the contract awards technical review committee and the contracts award committee. Minutes of the telephone conference conducted by the Committee were sent only to the minority programs office. The minutes were not disseminated either to the contracts awards technical review committee nor to the contract awards committee. After the telephone conference meeting of the Committee, a subsequent meeting of the technical review committee did not occur. The technical review committee received no further information for their consideration in voting whether to award or to reject the bid. Petitioner's Good Faith Efforts Petitioner's bid contains a DBE utilization summary form indicating an intent to subcontract with ABC in the amount of $38,000, or approximately five percent of the total project. Petitioner's bid also contains documentation of Petitioner's good faith effort to obtain additional minority participation. Both the DBE utilization summary form and the documentation of good faith efforts comply with the requirements of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3. In its bid, Petitioner submitted proof of solicitation of 26 qualified DBE firms. Each firm is listed in Respondent's monthly DBE Directory as performing work included in the project, either in Monroe County or statewide. In relevant part, Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith effort to comply with applicable DBE goals states that Petitioner failed to contact 47 companies listed in the DBE Directory as doing work solicited by the contractor for the project. Of the 47 DBEs, 22 were maintenance or traffic subcontractors. Petitioner had a firm agreement with ABC. ABC was the same DBE used by PCL and Coastal. Another 17 of the 47 DBEs were painters who did not have the QP2 certification required for the project specifications. There was no reason for Petitioner to contact painters who were not QP2 certified. Another three of the 47 DBEs did not perform any item of work available on the project. Another four of the 47 DBEs had telephone numbers that were either disconnected or answered by different parties or entities. The remaining DBE was TCOE. TCOE was not interested in submitting a bid to Petitioner for this project. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(I) requires Respondent to consider whether a contractor contacts DBEs by certified mail. Although Respondent prefers that bidders contact DBEs by certified mail, Respondent does not require notice by certified mail. Petitioner provided reasonable notification to DBEs by fax. Petitioner included a fax log with its bid to show that the transmittals were successful. Petitioner selected economically feasible portions of the work to be performed by DBEs. Petitioner made all items in the contract available for subcontracting. Petitioner offered to assist DBEs in reviewing the contract plans and specifications. Petitioner submitted all quotations received from DBEs. Petitioner was not asked to assist any DBE in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance. Within the last six months, Petitioner has used DBEs on other contracts. Petitioner's utilization of DBEs has exceeded contract goals established by Respondent in each case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner submitted the lowest responsive bid to Financial Project No. 250533-1-52-01 and that Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to applicable rules and officially stated agency policies, and is clearly erroneous. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mike Piscitelli, Esquire 560 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Suzanne Grutzner, Esquire 1321 77th Street East Palmetto, Florida 34221 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Daniel Te Young, Esquire Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for procuring state term contracts. See §§ 287.012(28), 287.042(2)(a), 287.056-057, Fla. Stat. A “state term contract” is a term contract that is competitively procured by the Department. § 287.012(28), Fla. Stat. A “term contract” means an indefinite quantity contract to furnish commodities or contractual services during a defined period. § 287.012(29), Fla. Stat. The Department initiated this competitive procurement to establish a state term contract for information technology (“IT”) staff augmentation services. The procurement’s objective is to enable state agencies and other eligible users (“Customers”) to supplement their IT staff. The solicitation at the center of these protests is Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15- 80101507-SA-D (the “RFP”). The RFP is intended to replace an existing state term contract for IT staff augmentation services. The current contract has an estimated annual spending volume of approximately $66,800,000. As described in the RFP, the Department intends to award up to approximately 200 vendors with the ability to provide (temporary) IT staff services per specific position. Thereafter, a Customer who desires IT staff assistance will issue a Request for Quote, which is available for review by all vendors awarded with the state term contract (the “Contractors”). A Contractor who desires to fulfill the request responds to the Customer’s Request for Quote agreeing to provide IT staff who possess the technical skills needed. A Request for Quote also allows Customers to obtain pricing and service information from interested Contractors. See § 287.056(2), Fla. Stat. If selected, the Contractor will then charge the Customer for the assigned personnel on an hourly basis.6/ In other words, the Department will competitively procure IT staffing services from multiple vendors/Contractors. A vendor who is awarded a contract under the RFP is not given an actual IT job, but rather is included on a list of Contractors as a potential source to fill an IT position in the future. Thereafter, Customers may obtain IT staff assistance, through a Request for Quote, without having to conduct a separate, independent solicitation. The Department issued the RFP on February 5, 2019.7/ On February 11, 2019, the Department posted Addendum No. 1 to the RFP. Addendum No. 1 notified vendors that the RFP was a “new solicitation,” and that the previous solicitation had been cancelled and rebid. The Department subsequently posted Addendum No. 2 to the RFP revising and clarifying the bid specifications. The Department posted Addendum No. 3 to the RFP on May 20, 2019.8/ Addendum No. 3 instructed vendors that all proposals were due by March 19, 2019. On or before March 19, 2019, the Department received proposals from 378 vendors,9/ including ArnAmy and Seva. Under the RFP’s evaluation methodology, vendors’ proposals were scored in four Evaluation Criteria, as follows: Evaluation Criteria Maximum Possible Points IT Experience Certification (Attachment B) 100 Staffing Resource Management Plan 300 IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience 200 Price (Attachment C) 400 per Job Title Total Score Possible Per Job Title 1000 Regarding the IT Experience Certification criteria, vendors submitted information on an IT Experience Certification Form which was included in the RFP. The form was scored based on the number of years the vendor had been in the IT business. The Procurement Officer identified in the RFP, Joel Atkinson, scored this criteria. (Both ArnAmy and Seva received the maximum 100 points in this category.) Regarding the Staffing Resource Management Plan (the “Management Plan”) and the IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience (“IT Staff Contract Experience”) categories, the Department appointed three individuals (the “Evaluators”) to independently score these sections of each proposal. (The three Evaluators are referred to as the “Scoring Team”.) The Scoring Team consisted of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup. For the Management Plans, the Evaluators were to assign point values based on whether the vendors demonstrated “exceptional ability” (300 points); “intermediate ability” (200 points); “minimal ability” (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate ability” (0 points). For the IT Staff Contract Experience category, the Evaluators were to assess a point value based on whether the vendor demonstrated “extensive” experience (200 points); “intermediate” experience (150 points); “minimal” experience (100 points); or “fails to demonstrate experience” (0 points). Regarding the Price criteria, each vendor was required to complete a price sheet wherein the vendor quoted an hourly rate for each specific IT staff service for which the vendor desired to contract. The price sheet divided each staff service into “Job Families.” Within each Job Family, the RFP listed multiple “Job Titles.” The RFP included a total of 130 different Job Titles for which vendors could submit proposals. In addition, the price sheet further divided the majority of Job Titles into “Scope Variants,” which are degrees of experience within an individual Job Title (typically up to three Scope Variants per Job Title). For example, in the Job Family of Applications Development, the Job Title of Systems Analyst was broken out into Scope Variant levels of Entry, Intermediate, and Advanced.10/ Further, the RFP attached a “Ceiling Rate” to each Scope Variant. The RFP explained that the Department would not consider or evaluate a vendor’s proposal for a particular Job Title if the hourly rate the vendor quoted was higher than the Ceiling Rate. Finally, the price per hour the vendor quoted for the Job Title was considered a “not to exceed” price. In other words, after the state term contract was awarded, when a Contractor received a Request for Quote from a Customer, the Contractor could not charge a higher hourly rate than the price listed in its proposal. However, the RFP permitted Contractors to respond with a (competitively) lower hourly rate for the IT staffing services it would agree to provide. RFP, section 5.2.4 set forth a formula to calculate the score for the prices the vendors quoted for the specific Job Titles. The Department designed the formula to establish a base line with which to compare proposals. Using the formula, the vendor with the lowest price per Job Title or Scope Variant11/ was awarded 400 points (the maximum). Thereafter, every other vendor received points for price per Job Title using the following calculation: (X) x 400 = Z (N) Where: X = lowest price of all Proposals submitted per Job Title N = Respondent's submitted total price per Job Title Z = points awarded The Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, (not the Scoring Team) calculated and assigned the points for price. The Vendors’ scores for IT Experience Certification and Price (from the Procurement Officer) were added to the Evaluators’ scores for the Management Plan and Staff Contract Experience for a total score for each proposal. Upon winning a contract, Contractors are only permitted to provide services for the specific IT positions awarded through the solicitation. As explained in RFP, Exhibit A, STATEMENT OF WORK, the Contractors agree to provide IT staffing services described in a document entitled “Job Families Descriptions.” The Contractors will be responsible for the following activities: The Contractor shall possess the professional and technical staff necessary to allocate, outsource, and manage qualified information technology staff to perform the services requested by the Customer. The Contractor shall provide Customers with staff who must have sufficient skill and experience to perform the services assigned to them. All of the information technology staff augmentation services to be furnished by the Contractor under the Contract shall meet the professional standards and quality that prevails among information technology professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Florida under the same or similar circumstances. The Contractor shall provide, at its own expense, training necessary for keeping Contractor's staff abreast of industry advances and for maintaining proficiency in equipment and systems that are available on the commercial market. The Contractor shall be responsible for the administration and maintenance of all employment and payroll records, payroll processing, remittance of payroll and taxes, and all administrative tasks required by state and federal law associated with payment of staff. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, be responsible for adhering to the Contract background screening requirements, testing, evaluations, advertising, recruitment, and disciplinary actions of Contractor’s information technology staff. The Contractor shall maintain during the term of the Contract all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the information technology staff augmentation services. In short, the Contractors are responsible for finding, hiring, and recruiting qualified IT personnel. Thereafter, the Contractors must provide and manage their IT staff pursuant to the terms of the Request for Quote. Awards under the RFP were made by Job Title. RFP, section 5.3, explained the Basis for Award as follows: The Department intends to make multiple awards from this solicitation and anticipates awarding 200 contracts per Job Title. Contracts will be awarded to the responsible and responsive Vendors that are determined to be the most advantageous to the state based on, per Job Title, the highest total evaluation criteria scores, which includes price, IT Experience Certification, Staffing Resource Management Plan, and IT Staff Augmentation Contract Experience scores. The maximum possible total score per Job Title is 1000. * * * For those Job Titles where, in determining the 200th awarded Vendor, there are multiple responsible and responsive Respondents with the same numeric score, the Department reserves the right to award more than 200 contracts per Job Title to those responsive and responsible Respondents who are tied for the 200th contract award. Awards will be made per Job Title. A vendor was not required to submit a response for every Job Title. Instead, vendors were free to bid for only those Job Titles for which they desired to provide IT Staffing services. However, if a vendor did respond to a specific Job Title, the vendor was required to provide a price per hour for every Scope Variant within that Job Title. On June 5, 2019, the Department held a public meeting during which the three Evaluators, as well as the Procurement Officer, confirmed their scores. On June 24, 2019, the Department posted its Revised Notice to the Vendor Bid System listing all vendors to whom the Department intended to award IT staffing contracts. The Department awarded contracts to the top 200 vendors (plus ties) for each of the 130 Job Titles. ArnAmy bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department awarded ArnAmy 21 out of 130 Job Titles. In other words, ArnAmy finished in the top 200 for 21 of 130 Job Titles. Seva bid for all 130 Job Titles. The Department did not award Seva any Job Titles. In other words, Seva did not finish in the top 200 for any of the Job Titles. ARNAMY’S PROTEST: ArnAmy protests the Department’s decision to award it a state term contract for only 21 of 130 Job Titles offered through the RFP. Mr. Datta Kadam testified on behalf of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam is the founder and chief executive officer of ArnAmy. Mr. Kadam prepared and submitted ArnAmy’s response to the RFP. Mr. Kadam initially relayed that ArnAmy was formed in 2007 as an IT consulting and software development company. He further expressed that ArnAmy has extensive experience under the current (2016) state term contract, for which it is authorized to support all 130 IT staff positions. Approximately 85-90 percent of ArnAmy’s IT consulting practice is dedicated to providing IT staff augmentation services through contracts such as the Department’s state term contract. ArnAmy also services staffing contracts for Maryland and Texas. ArnAmy (through Mr. Kadam) presented three primary arguments protesting the Department’s award. The Scoring Team Failed to Evaluate ArnAmy’s Final Management Plan: ArnAmy argues that the Scoring Team was not provided with the final version of its Management Plan. Instead, the three Evaluators scored an incomplete, preliminary draft. Mr. Kadam believes ArnAmy would have received higher scores for Job Titles had the Evaluators scored the correct version of its Management Plan. ArnAmy attributes this mistake to a possible error in the MyFloridaMarketPlace (“MarketPlace”) program that interfered with or prevented Mr. Kadam from uploading, saving, and/or submitting the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for scoring. MarketPlace is the State of Florida online procurement system. MarketPlace served as the “web portal” for vendors to access the Department’s procurement documents, as well as a guide to assist them through the purchase process. The RFP required vendors to submit proposals through MarketPlace. The main software component of MarketPlace is a program called “Ariba,” which is a suite of programs or tools. MarketPlace (through Ariba) allowed vendors to electronically submit their responses to the RFP. A vendor may take three distinct actions within MarketPlace/Ariba: (1) upload documents; (2) save documents; and (3) submit documents to the Department. Mr. Kadam maintained that the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators scored was an “intermediate working copy” that he had saved “locally” to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam testified that he uploaded and saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to MarketPlace. He intended the Department to score the last version of the Management Plan that he saved and submitted on March 18, 2019. Mr. Kadam explained that he was not aware that the Department did not score the appropriate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan until after the Department posted its Revised Notice on July 24, 2019. Upon learning that ArnAmy was only awarded 21 Job Titles, Mr. Kadam conducted a “root cause analysis” to determine the reason. He initially reviewed the scores of several other proposals “to obtain a baseline of comparison.” He soon discovered that the Management Plan the Evaluators scored for ArnAmy was not the last (and correct) version he believes he uploaded to MarketPlace. Mr. Kadam suggests that a glitch occurred within the MarketPlace program that replaced or substituted an earlier version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan for the final version. At the final hearing, Mr. Kadam relayed that he did not find any error at the “front” or “user’s” (ArnAmy’s) end of the system. Nor did he receive any error messages after submitting ArnAmy’s Management Plan. He did, however, offer several possible, “logical” causes for the inconsistency. His theories included “deadlock,” or a situation that occurs on the system when one document is in use on the server that prevents another document (i.e., ArnAmy’s Management Plan) from being properly uploaded. Mr. Kadam explained that the difference between the early version and the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan was significant. RFP, section 5.2.2, instructed vendors to recite how they proposed to recruit, staff, and manage requests for IT services. The intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did not include the information referenced in RFP, section 5.2.2.B, which specifically directed vendors to identify and describe the roles and expertise of their Principal Personnel.12/ Mr. Kadam represented that the final version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan did contain this information. ArnAmy argues that if the MarketPlace error had not occurred, its proposal would have received a much more favorable score. Mr. Kadam specifically pointed to the score from one Evaluator, Stephanie Reaves, who only awarded ArnAmy’s Management Plan 100 out of 300 points. Mr. Kadam contends that if Ms. Reaves had just increased her score to the next level (200), ArnAmy would have been awarded most, if not all, of the 130 Job Titles. As more fully discussed below, despite Mr. Kadam’s detailed analytical investigation into the MarketPlace program, ArnAmy did not produce conclusive or direct evidence to support his theory that an error within MarketPlace was responsible for the submission of an intermediate version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to the Department, instead of Mr. Kadam’s final version. During his testimony, Mr. Kadam stated that “a lot could have happened” to the documents he uploaded. However, he conceded that he did not know exactly what that might have been. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: ArnAmy also charges that the Department failed to properly train the three Evaluators or provide them adequate guidance on how to effectively score the vendors’ proposals. Specifically, ArnAmy asserts that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite background, experience, and knowledge in the subject matter of the RFP, i.e., information technology. Consequently, the Evaluators could not have conducted a comprehensive or sound review of the IT staffing services listed in the RFP. In other words, the Department could not have competently or fairly decided that ArnAmy should not be awarded an IT staff augmentation contract because the Evaluators did not know how to properly score its proposal. To support its argument, ArnAmy points out that not a single Evaluator possessed IT experience. ArnAmy contends that the technical details involved in evaluating proposals for IT staff services require direct experience in the IT field or in acquiring and/or utilizing IT staffing services. Because the Evaluators were unqualified, as well as the fact that the Evaluators were under time pressure to evaluate all 374 proposals, ArnAmy alleges that they inconsistently applied the RFP’s evaluation criteria, and, in some cases, failed to apply it altogether. As discussed below, the facts adduced at the final hearing support a finding that the Evaluators were suitably qualified to score the vendors’ proposals. Therefore, the undersigned finds this argument insufficient to reverse the Department’s award. Evaluator Stephanie Reaves Incorrectly Scored ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience: Finally, as a direct result of the Scoring Team’s inexperience, ArnAmy asserts that one of the three Evaluators, Stephanie Reaves, failed to properly score its IT Staff Contract Experience. ArnAmy specifically alleges that, in her haste to review ArnAmy’s proposal, Ms. Reaves overlooked key information included in its IT Staff Contract Experience submission. RFP, section 5.2.3, advised that a vendor “will be scored” based on “the best representation of its experience in providing IT Staff Augmentation.” Section 5.2.3 specifically asked vendors to include information regarding: Total number of IT Staff Augmentation contract/purchase orders. Total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. At page 19 of its response to section 5.2.3, ArnAmy reported on its IT Staff Contract Experience document that ArnAmy had 11 years of IT staffing experience with the State of Florida involving 147 total contracts worth over $19,600,000. As discussed in paragraphs 93, 146, and 147 below, ArnAmy’s argument on this point has merit. Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience 150 out of 200 points. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves admitted that she did not see this information in ArnAmy’s proposal prior to formulating her score. SEVA’S PROTEST: Seva was not awarded any of the 130 Job Titles for which it bid. Seva protests the Department’s award arguing that the RFP’s scoring formula was built on an arbitrary evaluation system and a mathematically deficient price scoring system. Consequently, the evaluation process resulted in unfair and unreliable awards that should not have excluded Seva’s proposal. Danny O'Donnell spoke on behalf of Seva. Mr. O’Donnell prepared and submitted Seva’s proposal to the RFP. In addition, at the final hearing, Mr. O’Donnell was accepted as an expert in statistics, data presentation, and pattern analysis. Mr. O’Donnell explained that he is very competent at extracting and compiling data from spreadsheets and reports and presenting that information in a form that is more easily understood. Mr. O’Donnell testified that Seva is an IT consulting and software development services firm headquartered in Tallahassee, Florida. He further represented that Seva has extensive experience providing IT staffing services to the State of Florida. Seva has provided temporary IT staff for state agencies since 2009, and has participated in a total of 120 IT staffing contracts with the state worth over $19,800,000. Further, Seva is an active vendor supporting 129 of the 130 IT jobs awarded in the 2016 state term contract. Mr. O’Donnell also commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was substantially the same as its 2016 submission. Further, the 2019 RFP criteria was very similar to the 2016 procurement terms. In 2016, Seva received good (and winning) scores for its Management Plan. Consequently, Mr. O’Donnell was puzzled why Seva received such low scores under this RFP. To understand the reason the Department did not award Seva any Job Titles, Mr. O’Donnell culled through reams of Department data, charts, and spreadsheets. Based on his statistical analysis, Mr. O’Donnell reached two primary conclusions why the Department’s scores for the 2019 RFP are unsound. The RFP’s Price Scoring System: Initially, Mr. O’Donnell argued that the RFP’s “extremely flawed” price scoring formula set forth in RFP, section 5.2.4, produced arbitrary and unreliable scoring results. Specifically, the formula allowed vendors to propose “low-ball,” “unrealistic,” and “unsustainable” prices that are excessively below the market value for IT staffing services in order to procure higher scores for their proposals. Consequently, vendors who submitted these “unbalanced” bids received an unfair competitive advantage over vendors who presented realistic prices (i.e., ArnAmy and Seva) for their IT staffing services. Mr. O’Donnell further urged that the formula caused a very narrow “band compression of price points,” which gave rise to “price neutralization.” In other words, vendors who offered legitimately low, but realistic, prices for Job Titles received no corresponding benefit because the unbalanced bids “caused the relative value of the pricing criteria to be neutralized in value.” Concomitantly, the two subjectively scored criteria graded by the Scoring Team (Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience) took on much greater significance in determining whether a particular vendor was awarded a state term contract. A vendor could lose more points on pricing than it could earn for its Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience. As a result, vendors who tendered “unbalanced” bids (with unreasonably low prices) obtained an inequitable and unwarranted benefit. Mr. O’Donnell asserted that there is no correlation between winning vendors having the best price, and the responsible and responsive vendors who can provide the best IT staffing service to Customers. Mr. O'Donnell testified to his belief that the Department did not account for or prevent these artificially low, “unbalanced,” bids. Consequently, it was his opinion that the Scoring Team did not select vendors whose proposals will be the most advantageous to the State of Florida (i.e., Seva). Therefore, the Department’s decision not to award the IT staffing contract to Seva must be overturned. Mr. O’Donnell alleged that his extensive statistical analysis reveals that the three Evaluators used markedly different standards to review, then score, vendors’ proposals. To support his argument, Seva produced a chart showing that Ms. Reaves awarded 161 of the 374 Management Plans a top score of 300. Ms. Shoup awarded 116 Management Plans with 300 points. Ms. Roberts awarded only 66 Management Plans the maximum 300 points. Mr. O’Donnell stressed that these diverse scores indicate an arbitrariness that is outside any zone of reasonable results. Consequently, as a matter of fairness, all proposals must be reevaluated. Mr. O’Donnell further argued that the inequity is compounded by the fact that the Department limited state term contracts for each Job Title to 200 vendors (and ties). Not only is restricting the available Contractors to 200 arbitrary, but the 200 Contractor cap impacts whether legitimate vendors were awarded IT staffing contracts. In addition to Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis and conclusions, Seva presented expert testimony from Dr. Wei Wu. Dr. Wu is a professor in the Department of Statistics at Florida State University. Dr. Wu was accepted as an expert in statistics, including the chi-square correlation test, as well as the “p value” as applied to the solicitation scoring. To formulate his opinion, Dr. Wu applied basic statistical methods and tools. He explained that he conducted a “standard chi-square test” to determine whether the three Evaluators produced the same scoring distribution. Dr. Wu then analyzed the data, reviewed the intuitive results, and formulated his conclusion. He rechecked his data to ensure that it was mathematically correct. Based on his statistical analysis, Dr. Wu announced, with “very high confidence,” that the three Evaluators did not apply the same methodology when scoring Management Plans. Dr. Wu specifically opined that he was “99.99 percent confident that, of the three evaluators; they don’t have the same standard to give the score.” In other words, his research indicated that the Evaluators did not have the same, common understanding of the RFP’s scoring criteria. On the contrary, the Evaluator’s scoring distributions were arbitrarily and unreasonably different. Further, Dr. Wu expressed that the scores awarded for price were “crunched” in the final results, thereby reducing their importance in the proposals’ total scores. Dr. Wu testified that, if the Evaluators had followed the same scoring standard, the score distributions across the 374 proposals would not have been so varied. Dr. Wu acknowledged that some deviation between Evaluators is expected, but not this much. Based on Mr. O’Donnell’s analysis, as supported by Dr. Wu, Seva asserts that statistical data confirms that each Evaluator applied dissimilar grading scales, which manifested itself into erratic scoring. Each Evaluator appears to have a different understanding of what a vendors’ proposal would have to show in order to earn a top-ranked score. Despite his conclusions, however, Mr. O’Donnell conceded that he has no previous experience forming statistical inferences from procurement criteria. Neither does he feel qualified to explain the meaning of his statistical analysis of the scores. Consequently, he could not testify “why” the data shows what it shows. Similarly, Dr. Wu acknowledged that he has never researched procurement scoring formulas, scoring of requests for proposals criteria, or the scoring behavior of procurement evaluators. Nor did his opinion take into account the subjective opinions of the three Evaluators. The Scoring Team was Not Qualified to Score the Proposals: Secondly, similar to ArnAmy, Seva asserts that the wide-ranging scores show that the Department failed to select Evaluators with the requisite experience and knowledge in IT. Seva further charges that the Department neglected to effectively train the Scoring Team. The Department only provided the three Evaluators poorly defined guidelines explaining how to evaluate the vendors’ Management Plans. In addition, Seva argues that amount of time the Department allotted for scoring (eight weeks) was too short to reasonably evaluate 374 separate proposals. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE TWO PROTESTS: In response to ArnAmy and Seva’s challenges, the Department asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority, as well as the RFP specifications, to award the RFP to qualified responsive and responsible vendors. The Scoring Team Selection/Qualifications: Initially, the Department rejects ArnAmy and Seva’s allegations that the Scoring Team members lacked the requisite experience and knowledge to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. To score a procurement in a request for proposals solicitation, section 287.057(16)(a)1 directed the Department to appoint: At least three persons to evaluate proposals and replies who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which commodities or contractual services are sought. In accordance with section 287.057(16)(a)1, the Department appointed three individuals (Ms. Reaves, Ms. Roberts, and Ms. Shoup) to serve on the Scoring Team. The three Evaluators were selected by Cliff Nilson (Deputy Director of the Division of State Purchasing), and Joel Atkinson (the Department’s Procurement Officer). Thereafter, the Evaluators were approved by the Department’s Secretary. At the final hearing, Mr. Nilson testified as the Department’s corporate representative. In his role as Deputy Director of State Purchasing, Mr. Nilson oversees the Department’s procurement process, as well as the state term contracts awarded under the RFP. Initially, Mr. Nilson discussed how the Department selected the three Evaluators. Mr. Nilson explained that the state term contract in this solicitation is fundamentally a “staffing” contract. Mr. Nilson characterized the procurement as “essentially . . . a human resource function that’s outsourced to a vendor to recruit, employ, and manage those people.” Mr. Nilson explained that the RFP’s purpose is to solicit vendors who will find, recruit, and manage IT personnel; then effectively provide those employees to Customers to use on an hourly basis to perform IT work. Vendors awarded with a state term contract are only responsible for providing “a person,” not directing or overseeing an IT project. Accordingly, the Department sought evaluators who had experience in human resources and staff management. Further, Mr. Nilson did not believe that a working knowledge of IT services was necessary for a fair and reasonable evaluation of the vendors’ proposals. Mr. Nilson relayed that, because the RFP’s purpose was to identify staffing companies, extensive knowledge of the IT tasks and responsibilities listed in the 130 Job Titles was not necessary when reviewing the vendors’ Management Plans and IT Staff Contract Experience. At the final hearing, the Department elicited testimony from Mr. Kadam (for ArnAmy) and Mr. O’Donnell (for Seva) admitting that the “deliverable” under this state term contract is people and their time and expense, not the various vendors’ IT prowess. During the hearing, both Mr. Kadam and Mr. O’Donnell acknowledged that their primary responsibilities would be to find, recruit, and place suitable IT staff with a state agency. Regarding training the Evaluators, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department anticipated that scoring would be fairly straightforward. Therefore, the Department did not plan a lengthy training regime for the Evaluators. Mr. Nilson further commented that the grading criteria described in the RFP did not require specific knowledge of IT services. The Evaluators were to review how each vendor proposed to hire, manage, and retain persons with IT skills. The Evaluators were not scoring the specialized knowledge of the vendors or their employees. Before starting their reviews, the Department arranged for each Evaluator to receive a copy of each proposals’ Management Plan and IT Staff Contract Experience section. The Evaluators also received an Evaluators Guide, as well as Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Each Evaluator also received and signed a document entitled Evaluator Instructions for Ethics, Sunshine Law, and Conflict of Interest. Finally, the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, contacted each Evaluator separately to explain their role and answer any questions. The RFP gave the three Evaluators eight weeks to review and score every proposal. Mr. Nilson envisioned the Evaluators spending approximately 30 minutes on each proposal. Mr. Nilson recognized that the scoring would entail hard work, but he was comfortable that the Evaluators would have enough time to perform their responsibilities. The Evaluators scored Petitioners’ proposals as follows: ArnAmy: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points Ms. Shoup: 200 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Seva: Management Plan (out of 300 points): Ms. Reaves: 100 points Ms. Roberts: 0 points Ms. Shoup: 100 points IT Staff Contract Experience (out of 200 points): Ms. Reaves: 150 points Ms. Roberts: 200 points (maximum) Ms. Shoup: 200 points (maximum) Mr. Nilson testified that he was not concerned that the Evaluators’ scores were slightly different. He commented that in his experience, a one-step difference in the scoring spread between evaluators was “not unusual at all.” At the final hearing, each of the Evaluators testified about their background and experience in state procurements and IT staffing contracts as follows: Stephanie Reaves: Ms. Reaves testified that she has worked in the field of human resources for her entire career. She has hired, managed, recruited, and trained employees. At the time Ms. Reaves was selected as an evaluator, she was employed as the Director of Human Resources for the Department of Children and Families. During the RFP process, she transferred to the Department of Environmental Protection where she works as an Employee Relations Specialist. In addition, Ms. Reaves was previously employed with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, where she reviewed and scored proposals submitted in response to requests for proposals for public contracts. Ms. Reaves also holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, as well as a Masters in Human Resource Development. Prior to this RFP, however, she has never been involved in procuring IT staff services. Ms. Reaves declared that she had a firm grasp of her responsibilities as an evaluator. Before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the scoring criteria described in RFP, section 5. She also read the Evaluators Guide, as well as the score sheet instructions. She further relayed that she spoke with the Procurement Officer, Mr. Atkinson, who provided general guidance. Ms. Reaves expressed that she felt adequately trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had the necessary human resources experience to discern whether vendors sufficiently described their staffing abilities in their proposals. Ms. Reaves explained that, when evaluating a proposal, she read the vendor’s submission twice, as well as reviewed the applicable RFP sections. She then compared the proposal to the RFP evaluation criteria. At that point, she scored accordingly and submitted her scores electronically to the Department. Ms. Reaves spent approximately 20-30 minutes per proposal. Ms. Reaves rejected any concerns that her lack of IT knowledge affected her evaluation. She relayed that she did not find scoring difficult. She did not encounter terms in the RFP or the various vendors’ proposals that she did not understand. Ms. Reaves asserted that she worked fairly and independently. Further, she testified that she used the criteria set forth in the RFP and applied the scoring criteria consistently to each proposal. She relayed that she held vendors to the same standard and used the same method when evaluating each proposal. Finally, despite the large amount of commitment and work this evaluation required, Ms. Reaves firmly asserted that she had sufficient guidance and time to review and score each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Reaves testified that she awarded ArnAmy 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal would have to “demonstrate exceptional ability.” This score meant that she thoroughly understood how a vendor would provide prospective IT staff to Customers, and the vendor did an excellent job in describing how it would identify potential IT staff that would respond to a Customer’s Request for Quote. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, only showed minimal ability to meet the RFP’s objectives. Specifically, ArnAmy did not explain “how” it intended to accomplish or implement a plan to provide IT staff to Customers. In addition, ArnAmy failed to include information regarding the experience of its Principal Personnel to manage IT staff. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Reaves awarded ArnAmy 150 out of 200 points. Ms. Reaves explained that she did not find in ArnAmy’s proposal responses to two specific requests for information: 1) the total number of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders; and 2) the total combined dollar amount of IT Staff Augmentation contracts/purchase orders. However, as became apparent during the final hearing, ArnAmy’s proposal did, in fact, include information on these two specific points. What appears to have happened is that Ms. Reaves missed this information because ArnAmy presented these numbers at the very end (page 14) of its IT Staff Contract Experience section (and in tiny print).13/ In RFP, section 5.2.3, the total number of IT contracts and their combined dollar amount are the first two bullet points listed in the IT Staff Contract Experience criteria section.14/ Accordingly, Ms. Reaves looked for this information in the order set forth in the RFP, i.e., at the beginning of each vendors’ response to this section. (For example, Seva inserted its contract history in the first two lines of its IT Staff Contract Experience submission.) The RFP did not contain any specific instructions on how a vendor was to format its response to this section. At the final hearing, Ms. Reaves testified that she would still have given ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience a score of 150, even if she had found the entry for total IT contracts. It does appear, however, that Ms. Reaves plainly overlooked this information when evaluating ArnAmy’s proposal. Regarding Seva, Ms. Reaves awarded it 100 points (out of 300) for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva adequately explained “how” it was going to accomplish “what was critical” to performing the IT staffing contract. On the contrary, Seva’s proposal lacked specifics, which left Ms. Reaves questioning Seva’s ability to provide quality IT staff for potential Customers. Ms. Reaves awarded Seva 150 out of 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She testified that she could not determine the level or type of Seva’s staffing experience from its proposal. Denise Roberts: Ms. Roberts has spent her entire public service career working in the procurements field for various state agencies. When she was selected to serve as an evaluator, Ms. Roberts was employed as a Purchasing Agent for the Agency for State Technology. During her evaluation, Ms. Roberts moved to the Department of Lottery where she processed procurements, solicitations, and purchase orders. Notably, Ms. Roberts has previously procured IT staff augmentation services, as well as obtained quotes for IT staff assistance for the Agency for State Technology, the Department of Corrections, as well as the Department of Transportation. Additionally, Ms. Roberts is a Certified Public Professional Buyer and a Florida Certified Contract Manager. She does not, however, have any IT experience or training. Nor did she have knowledge of what the IT Job Titles listed in the RFP specifically entailed. Ms. Roberts testified that, before she scored the proposals, she reviewed and understood the RFP, as well as the documents she was to score. In addition, she spoke with the Department’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson) who provided general guidance on how to score the proposals. Ms. Roberts expressed that she followed the instructions the Department gave her and felt sufficiently trained to evaluate the vendors’ proposals. She also believed that she had enough experience to evaluate proposals regarding IT staffing services. Ms. Roberts explained that she generally conducted the following evaluation process: Initially, she read the vendor’s proposal, followed by a review of the RFP’s requirements. She then reviewed the proposal again to determine how the vendor complied with the RFP criteria. At that point, she scored the proposal. When scoring, Ms. Roberts handwrote all scores onto the RFP’s scoresheet. Thereafter, she input her scores online and submitted them electronically to the Department. Ms. Roberts spent about 30 to 45 minutes evaluating each proposal. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Roberts testified that she awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that, for a perfect score of 300, a proposal had to meet every aspect the RFP requested in great detail, as well as describe how the vendor was going to accomplish the RFP’s tasks. ArnAmy’s Management Plan, however, was missing information and provided less detail than she expected. Specifically, Ms. Roberts did not find a response to the RFP’s requirements that ArnAmy list the “Respondent’s Principal Personnel who will make management decisions concerning staff placement for services under the contract(s),” or the “role each Principal Personnel” would have in the contract. Regarding ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience, Ms. Roberts awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points. She found that ArnAmy provided “quite a bit” of information regarding its prior experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Roberts awarded it 0 points for its Management Plan. She explained that she did not believe Seva’s proposal provided the information the RFP requested. Specifically, Seva did not explain “how” it was going to accomplish “any” of the RFP’s staffing requirements. Seva simply offered general comments with no details or step-by-step processes describing how it would acquire, then manage, IT personnel for potential Customers. Neither did Seva include the role its principals would play in its Management Plan. Conversely, Ms. Roberts awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva provided all the information requested regarding its prior contract experience. Ms. Roberts asserted that she worked independently and did not communicate with the other Evaluators. Further, she testified that she conscientiously used the criteria set forth in the RFP and gave each proposal consistent and fair consideration. Despite the large amount of proposals, Ms. Roberts confidently voiced that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Heather Shoup: Ms. Shoup currently serves as the Director of Human Resources for the Department. In this position, she oversees all human resource activities for the Department, including recruitment and retention, benefit administration, classifications, compensation, employee relations issues, orientation, and retirement coordination. Ms. Shoup testified that her professional experience has been primarily in the areas of financial and human resources. In addition, she has experience hiring and managing individuals who provide IT services. However, she has no prior experience in public procurements. In preparing for her evaluations, Ms. Shoup met with the RFP’s Procurement Officer (Mr. Atkinson), as well as reviewed the RFP criteria, the Evaluators Guide, and the Instructions for the Evaluator Score Sheet. Ms. Shoup expressed that she understood her responsibilities and had sufficient training and time to evaluate each proposal. When evaluating, Ms. Shoup relayed that she worked independently through each proposal and scored as best as she could. For a perfect score, she was looking for answers to all RFP criteria. She wanted to see clear, precise responses that provided all information the RFP requested. She specifically reviewed “how” the vendor intended to deliver IT staff support for Customers. Ms. Shoup testified that she spent approximately ten minutes per evaluation. Regarding her specific scores, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy 200 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that ArnAmy’s Management Plan was missing information regarding its Principal Personnel who would make management decisions under a potential staffing contract. On the other hand, Ms. Shoup awarded ArnAmy the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that ArnAmy’s proposal reflected extensive IT staffing experience. Regarding Seva, Ms. Shoup awarded it 100 out of 300 points for its Management Plan. She explained that Seva’s proposal was “too broad.” Specifically, Seva did not answer the “how” questions in multiple categories. Conversely, Ms. Shoup awarded Seva with the maximum 200 points for IT Staff Contract Experience. She found that Seva’s proposal clearly showed its prior IT contract experience. Finally, Ms. Shoup testified that she fairly scored each proposal she evaluated. She did not have difficulties reviewing the various submissions. Ms. Shoup also expressed that she had adequate time to consider, then score, each proposal. Based on the testimony received, the Department persuasively demonstrated that the Scoring Team “collectively [had] the experience and knowledge” required to score the RFP. Each Evaluator convincingly conveyed her ability to ably participate in the Department’s solicitation process. Although, none of the Evaluators had prior experience in the IT profession, each possessed the acumen and ability to competently conduct a procurement for IT staffing services. Ms. Reaves and Ms. Shoup both had extensive experience in personnel and human resource functions, including hiring and managing employees. Further, Ms. Roberts had broad knowledge in procuring services, including IT staff augmentation services. Finally, upon reviewing their scores again at the final hearing, each Evaluator testified that they would not change their scores. They each credibly expressed that neither ArnAmy nor Seva adequately addressed some or all of the criterion set out in the RFP. Therefore, based on their various professional and educational backgrounds and vocational experience, the undersigned finds that the Scoring Team was fully capable and proficient to review and score all aspects of each of the 374 vendor proposals. The Evaluators were adequately knowledgeable of, and sufficiently experienced for, their task of understanding and evaluating the vendors’ IT staffing plans. Conversely, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established that the Department’s appointment of a Scoring Team consisting of Stephanie Reaves, Denise Roberts, and Heather Shoup was contrary to the governing authority in section 287.057(16)(a)1. The RFP was not Contrary to the Department’s Governing Statutes, Rules, Policies, or the Solicitation Specifications: In addition to describing the Evaluator selection process, Mr. Nilson explained why the RFP limited the number of awards to 200 Contractors per Job Title (plus ties).15/ Initially, Mr. Nilson conveyed that the Department desired that vendors continue to compete to provide staffing services. Two hundred potential Contractors for each Job Title would maintain active competition when Customers requested price quotes. This arrangement would help ensure that Customers would continue to receive fair and reasonable prices in response to a Request for Quote. Secondly, restricting the number of Contractors to 200 would enable the Department to more easily monitor the large pool of vendors. Finally, the Department hoped to keep the Request for Quote process as simple and straightforward as possible for the Customers. When seeking IT staff services, Customers would have a definite and finite list of prospective Contractors. Further, Mr. Nilson added that market research indicated that only about 90 vendors actually participated in the prior/currently existing state term contract. Consequently, the Department determined that economical and fair competition for IT staff services would reasonably end at approximately 200 Contractors. Finally, the Department called Kimberly Stiver to discuss the possibility that an error occurred in the MarketPlace online system that impeded ArnAmy’s attempt to submit the final version of its Management Plan to the Department. MarketPlace is operated by Accenture. Ms. Stiver is Accenture’s Program Manager for MarketPlace. Ms. Stiver testified that, after learning of ArnAmy’s allegations, she and her staff investigated the MarketPlace system to uncover any evidence that would justify ArnAmy’s claim. Ms. Stiver reviewed event logs, the attachment history log, and the system logs to determine whether an error took place within MarketPlace related to the uploading, saving, or transmitting of ArnAmy’s Management Plan. Initially, Ms. Stiver explained that responding to a solicitation takes two steps. First, the vendor uploads the document. Then, the vendor “submits” the document to the agency. After uploading the document, but prior to submitting it, MarketPlace allows vendors to replace, revise, or upload additional documents. After a vendor has “submitted” the document, the agency then accesses the last uploaded and successfully saved version of the document in MarketPlace. At the final hearing, Ms. Stiver declared that, following her detailed inquiry, she found no indication within MarketPlace that ArnAmy was not able to, was prevented from, or encountered any difficulties in properly submitting its Management Plan to the Department. Expanding on her assertion, Ms. Stiver explained that each procurement in MarketPlace is a unique and distinct “event” that tracks key activity from the vendor community. ArnAmy’s activity on MarketPlace relating to this RFP shows that ArnAmy submitted a Management Plan at approximately 1:41 p.m. on March 18, 2019. Based on the event log, Ms. Stiver stated that ArnAmy logged onto MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, and that ArnAmy only uploaded one document identified as its Management Plan at that time. The event log does not support Mr. Kadam’s suggestion that he uploaded multiple versions of a Management Plan which may have resulted in an earlier version being submitted to the Department instead of ArnAmy’s final intended version. The attachment history log also shows that ArnAmy logged into MarketPlace only one time on March 18, 2019, to upload, save, and submit documents. Ms. Stiver testified that, like the event log, the attachment history log does not support Mr. Kadam’s assertion that he saved at least three versions of ArnAmy’s Management Plan in MarketPlace. If Mr. Kadam had uploaded and saved, but not submitted, multiple versions of a Management Plan, Ms. Stiver asserted that the attachment history log would document the entries as “not submitted.” The attachment history log for ArnAmy, however, records no entries or messages with a status of “not submitted.” Finally, Ms. Stiver reviewed ArnAmy’s system log for the period of March 12 through 19, 2019, the time period during which MarketPlace was open to receive vendors’ proposals. The system log shows no system errors occurred at any time while ArnAmy was logged into MarketPlace from March 12 through 19, 2019. Based on her comprehensive explanation, Ms. Stiver persuasively testified that no errors or inconsistencies occurred in the MarketPlace online system that caused an earlier (incomplete) version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan to be submitted to the Department or prevented ArnAmy from effectively and timely uploading its Management Plan in response to the RFP. The logical conclusion is that the discrepancy between the version of ArnAmy’s Management Plan that the Evaluators eventually scored and the final version that Mr. Kadam claims he submitted in MarketPlace was the result of ArnAmy’s unfortunate oversight. The Possibility of “Unbalanced” Bids: Regarding Seva’s (and ArnAmy’s) complaint that the Department failed to identify and reject “unbalanced bids,” Mr. Nilson expressed that the RFP did not prevent vendors from presenting “unbalanced” proposals. Moreover, no statute, rule, or solicitation specification required the Department to reject a vendor’s proposal simply because the hourly rate quoted might be lower than market value for a certain Job Title or Scope Variant. Further, nothing in the RFP directed the Department to conduct a statistical analysis of vendor prices prior to awarding the state term contract.16/ The RFP clearly informed all vendors of the scoring criteria the Department would apply for price. Every vendor was free to submit a hourly rate for each Job Title for which it would agree to abide. The Department uniformly applied the RFP’s price formula to every Job Title from every proposal. Finally, while Seva asserts that the price formula could have led to unfair and/or misleading scoring results, the RFP allowed all vendors (including ArnAmy and Seva) to present “low-ball” prices in their proposals. Further, even if certain vendors did include unrealistic prices for their IT staffing services, the RFP protects Customers by binding a Contractor to the maximum price per Job Title or Scope Variant listed in its proposal. (In fact, a Contractor could offer even lower prices for its IT staff services in response to a Request for Quote.) Finally, regarding Seva’s complaint that its proposal was substantially similar to its previous proposal (which received a higher score), Mr. Nilson commented that Seva’s 2019 proposal was materially different from its 2016 proposal. Seva presented fewer Principal Personnel in 2019 (two versus four individuals). Mr. Nilson surmised this factor may have reduced the amount of IT experience Seva represented. In addition, Mr. Nilson believed that Seva’s prior proposal presented a clearer description of how it intended to recruit, and then place, prospective IT personnel for Customers. In that regard, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that Seva’s 2019 proposal contained several substantive differences from its 2016 proposal. To summarize the findings in this matter, neither ArnAmy nor Seva established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Department’s decision to award only 21 of 130 Job Titles to ArnAmy and 0 of 130 Job Titles to Seva was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The evidence does not demonstrate that either ArnAmy or Seva were placed at a competitive disadvantage in this solicitation. Neither is there evidence that the Department conducted this procurement in a manner that was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of the RFP. Regarding ArnAmy and Seva’s complaint that the Department did not assemble a qualified Scoring Team, the evidence establishes the contrary. Testimony at the final hearing demonstrated that the individuals the Department assigned to score the vendors’ proposals possessed the “experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which [the] contractual services [were] sought” as required by section 287.057(16)(a)1. The Evaluators’ scores for ArnAmy and Seva’s proposals were logical, reasonable, and based on a sound understanding of the criteria requested in the RFP.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services enter a final order dismissing the protests of ArnAmy and Seva, except that the Department should rescore ArnAmy’s IT Staff Contract Experience. Otherwise, the Department should award state term contracts under Request for Proposals for Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services – 3rd Bid, RFP 15-8010H07- SA-D as set forth in the Revised Notice of Intent to Award the RFP issued on June 24, 2019. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2020.
The Issue The issues to be resolved on this occasion concern the question of whether the Petitioner or Intervenor is the lowest responsible bidder in several State of Florida, Department of Transportation road projects in which the private parties offered competing bid proposals.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Transportation advertised for competitive bids related to state road building projects, Nos. 72220-3510, 72220-3511, and 72220- 3512, Duval County, Florida, which will be subsequently referred to as Projects 3510, 3511, and 3512, or together as the "Projects." In response to the advertisement, bids were received effective December 5, 1984. Petitioner Barco, was the apparent low bidder on all projects and the Intervenor was the second low bidder. Through its review process, the Department of Transportation determined that the Barco bid was "non-responsive" and notified Barco of the department's intent to deny contract awards to Barco. The department also made known its intention to grant the contracts for the subject projects to Wiley N. Jackson Company. In view of this proposed agency action, Petition sought timely consideration of this adverse decision by requesting a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1984) hearing. The Intervenor Jackson was allowed to participate in the case as a substantially affected party. The Jackson petition for intervention was timely filed. Related to the projects at issue, and in furtherance of the requirements of Section 339.0805, Florida Statutes (1984), the Department of Transportation enacted rules which were designed to assist women and socially and economically disadvantaged persons to receive part of the work identified in the job specifications. The rules are found in Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code (1984). The aforementioned statutory provision and rules chapter contemplate that job participation by the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, known as "DBEs," shall be based upon assigning a percentage of each project for the benefit of the DBEs. In essence it is a percentage of the dollar volume of the contract amount which is set aside for the benefit of the DBEs. In the cases under consideration, those goals were as follows: PROJECT PERCENTAGE OF DOLLAR VOLUME TO BE ASSIGNED TO DBEs 3510 10 percent 3511 12 percent 3512 15 percent As envisioned by Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code (1984), it was incumbent upon the bidders in the projects in dispute, to either comply with the goals established for DBEs or in the alternative to demonstrate that a good faith attempt had been made at gaining such compliance. Good faith compliance is measured in view of specific criteria and the basic impression of the department on the question of whether the quality, quantity and intensity of the efforts at gaining compliance were sufficient to allow a finding that the efforts were in fact in good faith. See Rule 14-78.03(2)(b)4.b., Florida Administrative Code (1984), infra. In these projects four companies offered bids. The dollar amount of those bids were as follows: PROJECT 3510: Barco $1,566,284.66 Jackson $1,794,878.40 Dickerson Florida Inc. $2,375,747.66 Anderson Contracting Co., Inc. $2,485,576.79 PROJECT 3511: Barco $1,721,294.99 Jackson $2,090,431.29 Anderson Contracting Co., Inc. $2,708,632.27 Dickerson Florida, Inc. $2,958,909.03 PROJECT 3512: Barco $1,956,065.94 Jackson $2,320,418.03 Anderson Contracting Co. $2,852,238.85 Dickerson Florida, Inc. $3,110,336.75 Through their bids, each of the bidders offered to comply with the DBE participation goals to the following extent: PROJECT 3510: PERCENT BIDDER ANTICIPATED DBE UTILIZATION BY DBE goal 10 percent Barco Jackson Dickerson Anderson 0 percent 10.2 percent 10 percent 4.6 percent PROJECT 3511: DBE goal 12 percent Barco 0 percent Jackson Dickerson 12.5 percent 12 Anderson 6.59 percent PROJECT 3512: DBE goal 15 percent Barco 0 percent Jackson 15.1 percent Dickerson 15 percent Anderson 12.65 percent This depiction demonstrates that Jackson and Dickerson complied with the DBE goals in each contract, whereas Anderson offered partial compliance with the goals and Barco offered no compliance with those goals. Consequently, if Barco were to be successful in gaining a contract to construct theme projects, it must demonstrate that its attempts at achieving the DBE participation goals were in good faith within the meaning of Rule 14- 78.03(2)(b)4., Florida Administrative Code (1984), which states in pertinent part: . . . award of the contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. Measurement of the attempt at compliance and the decision on the adequacy of that attempt is pursuant to Rule 14- 78.03(a)(b)4.b., Florida Administrative Code (1984), which states: b. In evaluating a contractor's good faith efforts, the Department will consider: Whether the contractor, at least seven days prior to the letting, provided written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, or hand delivery, with receipt, to all certified DBEs and WBEs which perform the type of work which the contractor intends to subcontract, advising the DBEs and WBEs of the specific work the contractor intends to subcontract; 2) that their interest in the contract is being solicited; and 3) how to obtain information about and review and inspect the contract plans and specifications. Whether the contractor selected economically feasible portions of the work to be performed by DBEs or WBEs, including where appropriate, breaking down contracts or combining elements of work into economically feasible units. The ability of a contractor to perform the work with its own work force will not in itself excuse a contractor's failure to meet contract goals. Whether the contractor provided interested DBEs or WBEs assistance in reviewing the contract plans and specifications. Whether the DBE or WBE goal was met by other bidders. Whether the contractor submits all quotations received from DBEs or WBEs, and for those quotations not accepted, an explana- tion of why the DBE or WBE will not be used during the course of the contract. Receipt of a lower quotation from a non-DBE or non- WBE will not in itself excuse a contractor's failure to meet contract goals; provided however, a contractor's good faith efforts obligation does not require a contractor to accept a quotation from a DBE or WBE which exceeds the lowest quotation received from any subcontractor by more than 1 percent. Whether the contractor assisted interested DBEs and WBEs in obtaining any required bonding, lines of credit, or insurance. efforts. Whether the contractor elected to sub- contract types of work that match the capabi- lities of solicited DBEs or WBEs. Whether the contractor's efforts were merely pro forma and given all relevant circum- stances, could not reasonably be expected to produce sufficient DBE and WBE participation to meet the goals. Whether the contractor has on other contracts within the past six months utilized DBEs and WBEs. This list is not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive and the Department will look not only at the different kinds of efforts that the contractor has made but also the quality, quantity and intensity of these The requirements of Rule 14-78.03(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code (1984), pertaining to achievement of DBE goals and the necessity to establish good faith efforts in the absence of that compliance, were provided to Barco with the bid packages for the several projects. In preparing its bid submission, Barco solicited quotations from a number of subcontractors, associations and clearing houses, through the use of a solicitation letter. The date of that letter is November 20, 1984. By this correspondence reference is made to the several job numbers and a description is given of the general classes of work sought for quotation. A replica of this correspondence was attached with each of the bid blanks for the three projects in question. Forty-three companies were solicited through the letter, with twenty-seven of those being certified DBEs, eight certified WBEs, and eight non- DBEs. All solicitations were through certified mail return receipt requested. Evidence of the solicitations, as shown in the bid blanks related to the three projects, was in the way of summary sheets which listed each of the companies solicited, identifying that those companies were solicited through return receipt mail. These sheets also indicate that four companies did not and further those other quotations are listed as being the prices used in preparing the bid submission on the part of Barco. That form does not designate the names of those companies from whom Barco indicates it received the lower quotes. In the bid blank for Project 3511, which is Petitioner's exhibit number 2, a similar Barco quotation form for DBE subcontractors may be found. In this instance, in addition to the several DBEs who gave quotations in the Project 3510, a quotation was also received from J. E. Hill, DBE. Those quotations are listed together with the specific categories of work and then additional prices are quoted related to unidentified contractors, which additional quotations are lower than the quotations received from the DBE subcontractors and were used in preparing the bid submission. The bid blank related to Project 3512 also contains a quotation from DBEs on a form by the Petitioner. This lists quotations from the same four DBEs as are set forth in the form for Project 3511. As in the instance of that prior project, Project 3512, sets forth prices received from unidentified subcontractors which are lower than the prices quoted by the DBE subcontractors. Again Barco utilized the quotes announced by those unidentified subcontractors when establishing its bid submission. None of Barco's bid blanks for the several projects at issue contained actual written quotations or recorded telephone quotations made by the aforementioned DBEs, non-DBEs, WBE subcontractor, materialmen or suppliers who offered quotations on those projects. BARCO did not submit any of the quotations received from DBEs with its bid blanks, notwithstanding the availability of some of those DBE quotations at the time of the submission of the bid blanks. In response to a request by the Department of Transportation subsequent to the submission of its bid blanks, Barco provided that information. Those materials may acknowledge receipt of this mail. Contrary to this representation, only three companies failed to acknowledge receipt of the mail. The summary sheets also indicated whether Barco received written or phone contact from those companies solicited. On the summary sheets Barco indicates whether the solicitation letters had been responded to in writing or by phone by placing a check mark in a column denoting a written or telephonic response. Copies of the bid blanks related to the several projects beginning with 3510 through 3512 in series may be found as Petitioner's exhibits numbers 1 through 3 admitted. Petitioner's exhibit number 12 is the return receipt information for the several projects as bid by Barco. Although this exhibit was not submitted with the bid blanks for the projects in question, it clarifies concerns which the Department of Transportation has about the information set forth in the summary sheets referred to in this paragraph. In effect, it vouches for the prima facia information set forth in those summary sheets. All told, as it relates to each of the projects, four DBEs offered quotes on some or all of the projects. Of these only one DBE was offering its quotation in response to the solicitation letter as described before. In Petitioner's exhibit number 1 pertaining to Project 3510, there is a form utilized by the Petitioner which indicates the general category, name of the DBE or WBE subcontractor and the price quoted by those subcontractors for the selected categories of work. Princess Construction was the WBE who gave the quotation. The other three named subcontractors are DBE subcontractors. Princess Construction's quotations were also depicted on that form as being the lowest price received and as a consequence, Barco points to this quotation in its satisfaction of WBE goals for this project. On the same form opposite the names of the DBE subcontractors, that is E. Thompson, B. Griffith, and Oglesby and Hug, other prices are quoted as being the lowest prices received be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 11, containing quotations which predate the bid opening and postdate the bid opening. The quotations set forth in the several bid blanks as discussed in the previous paragraphs are found in those materials. Petitioner's exhibit number 11 verifies the amount of quotations of the four DBEs set forth in the bid blanks and identifies those companies whose quotations Barco used in preparing its bid responses. The companies used were non- DBEs, with the exception of Princess Construction. Those responses as set forth in Petitioner's exhibit number 11 do not contain quotations which are the product of additional solicitations which might have occurred subsequent to the time of the bid opening. While Barco fails to specifically mention the fact, there is greater than a 1 percent differential between the DBE quotations and the non-DBE quotations which were used in the several bid submissions. The quotations by the non-DBEs were lower by more than 1 percent. In view of that circumstance, Barco felt that it was appropriate to use the non-DBEs quotations as envisioned by Rule 14- 78.03(2)(b)4.b.v., Florida Administrative Code (1984). This perception by the Petitioner relates to that portion of the rule which says: . . . a contractor's good faith efforts obligation does not require a contractor to accept a quotation from a DBE or WBE which exceeds the lowest quotation received from any subcontractor by more than 1 percent. Had Barco chosen not to avail itself of the opportunity set forth in that rule, it had received sufficient DBE quotes to comply with all of the goals set forth in the several projects. In making solicitations Barco did not solicit all available DBEs set forth in the Department of Transportation's Directory of certified DBEs and WBEs. See Petitioner's exhibit number 10. Availability refers to the type of work and the geographical area where those DBEs would be willing to do their work. An example of the lack of solicitation would be the concrete work in these jobs in which thirty-three DBEs were listed in the directory and only twelve were solicited by Petitioner. Having examined the nature of the projects, Barco, through its management, determined to limit its solicitations to a portion of the available DBEs. This decision can be described as a business judgment on the part of Barco based upon prior experience with DBEs, their location and anticipated costs of mobilization for DBEs. In making decisions on the award of the contract, such as contemplated in the projects in dispute, the Department of Transportation conducts a review of the bid blanks at various levels within the department. One of those reviews is conducted by the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. Its function is to ascertain whether the bids submitted comply with the requirements of Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code (1984). This committee makes a recommendation to the department's Technical Review Committee. Specifically, the recommendation made to that next level of review is one which comments on whether the bidders have complied with the requirements of Chapter 14- 78, Florida Administrative Code (1984). The Technical Review Committee is not bound by the finding of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. In turn the Technical Review Committee makes known its recommendation on the contract award to the department's Awards Committee. The Awards Committee, being a higher level in the hierarchy, can reject the recommendation of both the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee and the Technical Review Committee on the topic of compliance with requirements of Chapter 14- 78 Florida Administrative Code (1984). Finally, the Awards Committee makes its recommendation to the Department of Transportation Secretary, who as agency head has the power to accept or reject the recommendation of all subordinate levels of review on the topic of compliance with Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code (1984). Ordinarily the recommendations as to compliance with Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code (1984) as it is passed from one level of review to another is not disturbed. In due course, following the bid letting or opening on December 5, 1984, the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee examined the bid submissions related to the three projects as provided by Barco. As may be seen in the Petitioner's composite exhibit number 5, the recorded findings of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee, related to the Barco bids, the initial recommendation was to award Barco contracts on all projects. In the comments sections, reference is made to the fact that Barco submitted a copy of the solicitation letter which included the classes of work and enclosed copies of the appropriate quantity sheets. The comments sections also reference the fact that Barco had solicited forty-three addressees, including the twenty-seven DBEs and the fact that Barco indicated if a return receipt was received. The comments sections note that Barco did not provide copies of the certified mail receipts. The comments sections relate that the contractor only received three DBE bids in Project 3510 and four DBE bids in the other projects and the related fact that the contractor indicates receiving lower bids from non-DBE subcontractors in those categories of work. In the comments sections it is noted, parenthetically, that those non- DBE subcontractors were not specified. Finally, the comments sections indicate that the DBE bids, i.e. quotes, exceeded the lower bids/quotes by more than 1 percent. The Good Faith Efforts Review Committee in its initial recommendation favoring the award of the contracts to Barco, was giving a liberal interpretation to the nine criteria for review of the good faith efforts at compliance with DBE contract goals. See Rule 14-78.03(2)(b)4.b., Florida Administrative Code (1984), supra. This recommendation was then forwarded to the Chairman of the Technical Review Committee. Given the fact that other bidders on the projects had met the department's goals related to utilization of DBE subcontractors, Mr. Potts, Chairman of the Technical Review Committee discussed this circumstance with Mr. Hilliard, a member of the Awards Committee. Hilliard in turn requested a meeting with members of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. That meeting took place and two of the three members of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee were in attendance, to include the chairman, a Mr. Pitchford. In the course of this meeting, at which "executive guidance" was given to the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee attendees, Hilliard and Potts made known their desire to give a more stringent or literal interpretation to the underlying rules dealing with the question of good faith efforts at compliance with the DBE contract goals. Following this consultation, the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee met for a second time to consider the question of Barco's good faith efforts at compliance with the DBE contract goals. The summarization of the final findings of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee pertaining to Barco and other bidders may be found in the Petitioner's composite exhibit number 6. On this occasion Barco was recommended for rejection as to all three projects, based upon alleged failure to show good faith efforts at compliance with DBE goals. In these findings reference is again made to the fact that Barco provided a copy of its solicitation letter in all projects, which included the classes of work and enclosed with those letters copies of the appropriate quantity sheets for the projects. The comments note that the addressees log was provided to include the twenty-seven DBEs and a column indicating if return receipts were received; however, it notes that copies of the certified mail receipts were not provided with the bids. It again notes the names of the DBE bidders from whom quotes were received and the fact of rejection of those bidders in favor of nonDBE bidders, in view of the fact that the DBE bids exceeded the lower bids by more than 1 percent. Finally, in the comments sections, the Good Faith Efforts Committee expresses what they describe as their primary concern, that is, based upon the performance of other bidders, and the availability of DBE bids/quotes as provided to Barco, Petitioner could have easily supported the program and the objective of achieving DBE participation. Under the circumstances the committee did not feel that Barco had supported the spirit and intent of the program. The Barco bids were ultimately rejected for reason of failure to demonstrate a good faith effort in attempts at achieving the DBE goals. In making known its position on the Barco bids in the second review, the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee was acting in accordance with the "executive guidance" given it by Mr. Hilliard in his expression of concern about the fact that other bidders were able to achieve the department's DBE participation goals, while Barco failed to meet those goals in any of the three projects. Having rejected Barco's bid, Wiley N. Jackson Company was deemed to be the lowest responsible bidder for the three projects in question. Beginning with the bid letting in December, 1984, related to the Barco matter, the Department of Transportation has decided that solicitation would be in the form of certified mail, return receipt requested, or hand-delivery with appropriate receipt and that bidders would provide copies of the certified mail receipts or other receipts with the bid blank. The claim on the part of the bidder that the solicitations were made by certified mail, naming the persons who were solicited would not suffice even if those assertions could be proven by evidence submitted after the bid opening, which evidence tended to verify the claims as set forth in the summary letter. Moreover, the department decided that contrary to its prior interpretation of its rules, a substantial number of solicitations to available DBEs and WBEs listed in the department's directory would not be sufficient. Beginning with the Barco situation it would be necessary to solicit all available DBEs and WBEs, without regard for perceptions by the bidders on whether responses would be forthcoming from all available DBEs and WBEs. The department also determined that all quotations already received from DBEs or WBEs should be provided with the bid blank. A written summarization or itemization of those quotations would not be sufficient. The department takes the point of view in its decision to reject the Barco bids that it would not allow Barco to rely exclusively on the 1 percent differential between the quotations between non-DBEs and the DBEs from whom it received quotations, given what the department deemed to be unacceptable efforts in compliance with other review criteria as discussed. Finally, in the overview, the department rejected the Barco bids because of the impression that the efforts made by Barco at good faith compliance with DBE goals were not of the quality, quantity and intensity that was necessary. The bidder, which the department found to be responsive, namely Wiley N. Jackson, had used the DBE quotation of H. S. Thompson Construction Co. in complying with the requirements of the DBE goals. This Thompson was not solicited by the Petitioner and no quotation was used from that subcontractor in preparing the Barco bid responses. Nonetheless, the quotations from Thompson to Jackson exceeded by more than 1 percent the quotations from non-DBEs which were used by Barco in its bid responses in the projects. Another bidder of these projects had used Mikel L. Grassing, Inc., for that aspect of the project and Barco did not solicit Mikel Grassing, Inc. Obviously, no one is certain of the outcome had Barco solicited all available DBEs; however, the possibility existed that some of those DBEs would have offered a quotation which was no more than 1 percent above the non-DBE quotations that Barco used in preparing its bid responses in the projects. In July, 1984, Barco bid on a Department of Transportation project in which the DBE goal was 12 percent and that goal was achieved. Barco on one other occasion had submitted a bid in which it did not meet the DBE participation goal, based upon the fact that the non-DBE quotes were more than 1 percent lower than the quotations from DBE subcontractors and had been awarded the contract on that occasion.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in its award of Board Project Number BR-403, for the extension of Gemini Boulevard on the campus of the University of Central Florida, (UCF), to Amick Construction, Ltd., the second lowest bidder, instead of to Petitioner, Hubbard Construction Company, the lowest bidder.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Florida Board of Regents, was the state agency responsible for the award of major procurement and construction contracts for projects at the various state universities in Florida. On October 26, 1994, the Regents issued a Project Manual requesting bids for the Gemini Boulevard Extension Project at the University of Central Florida, Contract No. BR-403 . The procurement had a Minority Business Enterprise, (MBE) goal of 21 percent of the base bid. Included within the bid documents was the provision that: The Bidder must ascertain that a listed MBE is certified by the DGS in the appropriate Specialty Area to perform the services for which it is listed. The Bid Documents also provided that MBE's not certified with the DGS would be deleted from the calculation of the required participation of MBEs, and evidence of good faith effort in lieu of a showing of an adequate percentage of certified MBE's would be required. Hubbard picked up a copy of the Bid Documents from UCF on November 23, 1994. The Bid Documents did not specify the manner in which bidders were to verify certification status of the MBE's they proposed to use, and which were listed in their bid submittals. However, at the pre-bid conference held on November 30, 1994, UCF's representative advised the prospective bidders that DMS was to be used as the source for MBE certification. Susan Hodge, a DMS employee, was identified as the person to be contacted to verify the certification status of any particular MBE. Her telephone number and name were given out at the pre-bid conference, but this information, and the suggestion that prospective bidders call Ms. Hodge, was not made a written requirement of the procurement. This meeting was attended by Michael Jones of Hubbard. However, regardless of the fact that the prospective bidders were given Ms. Hodge's name and number and advised to call her, only Amick did so prior to bid opening. Hubbard did not. Notwithstanding the Bid Documents required DGS certification of MBEs, at the time of bidding there was no such agency. It had been replaced by the Department of Management Services, (DMS). This agency, however, does not certify MBE's. Required state certification is done by the Commission on Minority Economic and Business Development, (Commission). The terms, "Commission" and "DMS" were used interchangeably by witnesses at the hearing. When the Commission took over from DGS the responsibility for maintaining the list of certified MBE's it began the periodic publishing of written listings of certified MBE's so that prospective bidders could review the list to see if a particular organization or business was certified. A copy of the list was published in December, 1994, before the bids were opened. This vendors list was not intended to be the sole source for identifying certified MBE contractors. Bidders were free to contact the appropriate agency soliciting bids to determine specific agency criteria, if any. The State University System's, (SUS), Standard Practice for the Solicitation of Bids, written guidelines covering procurement practice by those entities within SUS, calls for each university to establish a geographic radius for identifying MBE's in mailing invitations to bid. This radius includes the distance which a contractor may reasonably be expected to travel to a project for which materials or supplies can be obtained on site at a competitive price. The guidelines also require each university to identify general and specialty trade units for each project; to identify MBE's consistent with the breakdown of specialty trade units within the geographic radius; and to prepare mailing lists of MBE's to which invitations to bid may be mailed. These guidelines, as published, are followed by UCF's minority purchasing coordinator, Mr. Puskas, in the performance of his duties. In actuality, however, the sequence of events is somewhat different than listed above. In practice, the project architect selects the commodity and trade areas from the directory, after which he selects minority vendors listed under each appropriate commodity and trade area on lists prepared by UCF. As established, the pertinent geographic area is a five-county local area in central Florida. Certain statewide vendors are also included. The final UCF list of MBE's is provided to bidders at the pre-bid conference for their use in locating MBE's. The list required by the Standard Practice guidelines is similar to that required by statute in Sections 255.102(c), and 287.0945(6)(h), Florida Statutes. In the instant case, however, because most of the MBE's on the initial list prepared for this project were of little value to prospective bidders, Mr. Puskas believed that list needed adjusting. Seven bids were received for the project in issue. The bids were opened on December 14, 1994 and it was determined that Hubbard had submitted the lowest bid of $1,544,000. Second lowest bidder was Amick whose base bid was $1,662,821. Section 1.1.1 of the Special Conditions contained in the Bid Documents required that at least 21 percent of the base bid be with certified minority business enterprises, unless the bidder could demonstrate the good faith effort to secure certified MBE's was made, as identified in paragraph 1.7. This requirement was incorporated in the bid proposal furnished to Hubbard. Hubbard's bid included a list of five MBEs it proposed to use on this project. Included on the list was Margie Woods Trucking. The total dollar amount proposed to be expended on the MBEs was $325,000, which constitutes 21 percent of Hubbard's base bid. This list of MBE's submitted by Hubbard was on a form which contains the words, "Include only MBE's certified by the DGS." When the bids were opened, and it was determined that Hubbard was the apparent low bidder, UCF procurement personnel verified that Hubbard proposal met the 21 percent MBE goal. Thereafter, Mr. Puskas placed telephone call to the Commission office in Tallahassee to determine if all MBE's listed by Hubbard in its bid were state certified. It was found that Margie Woods Trucking was no longer certified by the Commission, but was certified by the Florida Department of Transportation and by Volusia County. If Margie Woods Trucking could not be considered a properly certified MBE, Hubbard's bid would not meet the 21 percent MBE goal. When this situation became apparent, Mr. Newman, UCF's director of facilities planning, telephoned Terri Tabor, the Regents' project administrator, and advised her of the problem. Ms. Tabor instructed him to request that Hubbard find a substitute MBE for Margie Woods Trucking. Ms. Tabor indicated that when she had previously worked at DMS, substitutions of MBE's was permitted "all the time." Mr. Newman commented on Hubbard's failure to verify the certification of its proposed MBEs in an E-mail communication to the UCF administration on December 14, 1994. In any event, consistent with Ms. Tabor's suggestion, at 11:25 AM on December 15, 1994, Mr. Newman telephoned Hubbard's vice-president of estimating and contract administration, Mr. Lindquist, and instructed him to submit an MBE substitute for Margie Woods within 48 hours of the bid opening. At hearing, Ms. Tabor claimed that after her first call from Mr. Newman, she called him back and advised him that substitutions would not be allowed. On December 16, 1994, two days after the bid opening, Hubbard submitted its good faith effort package, along with a cover letter which provided a revised listing of its MBE's and requested that Florida Industrial Electric and C & M Jackson Trucking be substituted for Margie Woods. The value of the substitute MBE's was $51,000 and $8,000, respectively. This submittal was timely. Hubbard contends that Ms. Tabor did not call back to rescind her prior comments about substitution of MBE's. However, from her testimony and the fact that Mr. Puskas, UCF's minority purchasing coordinator, indicated he knew the Regents would not accepts substitutes, it is found she did call back, and that her information was transmitted to Hubbard. UCF's Minority Business Enterprise Advisory Committee met on December 19, 1994 to evaluate Hubbard's good faith effort package. The package was found to be "in compliance" with the MBE requirements of the bid documents but deficient in the areas of advertising, number of letters to MBE subcontractors or suppliers, and other documentation. In that regard, the committee determined that Hubbard should have sent letters to at least one half the MBE's on the list provided to prospective bidders. Nonetheless, the Committee considered Hubbard's substitutes even though Mr. Puskas knew such substitutes would not be and never had been accepted by the Board of Regents. It did not, however, fill out a good faith check list in its consideration of the package because, according to Mr. Puskas, it was satisfied Hubbard was not in compliance with the good faith effort requirements. Notwithstanding this conclusion, on January 4, 1995, Mr. Newman recommended award of the contract to Hubbard. This award was for the Base Bid plus Alternate 1, for a total contract price of $1,914,000. Mr. Murray, of UCF's Small Business Development Center recommended the award only subject to a Regents' review of Hubbard's compliance with the conditions of the contract. When the package was received in Tallahassee, Ms. Tabor, at the request of Mr. Newman, reviewed Hubbard's good faith effort submittal, along with the collateral documents and the MBE compliance checklist completed by UCF. She concluded that for a variety of reasons, Hubbard's good faith effort was unsatisfactory. One reason was that it did not appear that Hubbard's advertisement in the area's biggest newspaper had run for seven days prior to the bid opening, as required by paragraph 1.7.2 of the good faith effort requirements. The evidence on this point presented at hearing indicated that Hubbard submitted advertisements for publication to three newspapers in the Orlando area. Hubbard submitted a letter to the Orlando Sentinel dated December 7, 1994. The Orlando Sentinel is the primary newspaper in central Florida, not the Orlando Times, a minority newspaper targeting the African-American community. However, the affidavit of publication from the Orlando Sentinel was dated December 15, 1994 and received by Hubbard sometime thereafter. Consequently, Hubbard did not have that affidavit to submit at the time it sent in its good faith effort. Accepting that the newspaper advertisements were properly placed, however, this is but one of the several bases for the Board of Regents' determination of a lack of good faith effort. Others included the eleven letters sent to MBE's consistent with the requirements of Paragraph 1.7.3. In that provision, the Regents look for evidence that the bidder solicited specific trades for MBE participation, matching capabilities of MBE's solicited with the requirements of the contract. Of the eleven letters which Hubbard submitted, none but one bore dates or postal marks indicating when the letters were sent. That one letter bore date of December 6, 1994. This documentation was considered insufficient. Another basis for rejection, regarding the letters, was Ms. Tabor's conclusion that in light of the number of available MBE's in the area, in excess of 50 on the list, eleven was not a reasonable number. This is so even though many of the contractors on the list were in specialties not relevant to this project. The Board also determined that Hubbard's evidence of its attempts to follow up on initial solicitations by telephone was insufficient. Hubbard admitted it did not follow up by letter. Mr. Jones, a Hubbard estimator, indicated he contacted several MBE's by telephone because it was quicker and time was short. Hubbard submitted a telephone log in support of its contention but this log was discounted as an acceptable documentation. In addition, the log was considered substantively deficient because of what appeared to be a halfhearted attempt to make contact. This conclusion is considered reasonable. Another reported deficiency is the failure of Hubbard to submit information which would show it attempted to break down contracts into smaller units in order to increase the opportunity to participate by MBE's and to provide them with information sufficient to allow them to bid on time, as is required by Paragraphs 1.7.5 and 1.7.6. This point is well taken. The Board also contends that Hubbard provided no evidence that, as required by Paragraph 1.7.7, it negotiated in good faith with interested MBE's. It appears that Hubbard did, in fact, produce no such evidence, nor did it offer any explanation in its cover letter. It also appears that Hubbard failed to present evidence to indicate it effectively utilized the services of available minority community organizations, contractor organizations, governmental minority business assistance officers, or other similarly directed organizations, as called for in Paragraph 1.7.8. Hubbard's testimony at hearing regarding its disagreement with the Board's appraisal was non-persuasive on this point. In her evaluation of the matters submitted as Hubbard's good faith effort, Ms. Tabor did not review the telephone log submitted by Hubbard. Hubbard claims she had no idea what it did to try to verify whether the MBE's listed were certified by the commission. She did not try to obtain better copies of Hubbard's letter to MBE's seeking bids nor did she have available to her any of the state generated lists of certified MBE's to compare against Hubbard's submittal. There is some evidence that Ms. Tabor did not try to determine if Hubbard's good faith efforts were substantial or merely pro forma. She admitted at hearing she was not sure what the term "pro forma" means. In short, Ms. Tabor did not go much behind the documents submitted to her for evaluation by the Committee at UCF. Nonetheless, considering all the above factors, Ms. Tabor concluded Hubbard's submittal failed to establish either that it met the 21 percent MBE goal or that it made a good faith effort to do so. She also discussed her conclusions with the Board's Director of Capital Programs and its General Counsel who concurred with her analysis that Hubbard's bid was non-responsive and should be rejected. The Chancellor accepted this evaluation and recommended award to Amick, the second low bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Board of Regents enter a Final Order in this case awarding BR-403 to Amick Construction, Ltd. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 11. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of law. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the contents of a document received in evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. The conclusion of mistake was not proven. 25. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Rejected as contra to the better weight of the evidence. 29. & 30. First paragraph and first sentence of second paragraph accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence of second paragraph rejected as not supported. 31. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not supported. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. & 37. Accepted. 38. Accepted that the request for publication was submitted in advance of the bid opening but that request does not establish the ad was run. The affidavit dated December 15 was executed after the bids were opened and was not available to the UCF Committee on time. 39. Accepted. 40. & 41. Accepted. 42. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as an effort to transfer the burden of proof. 43. & 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. 45. & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47. & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. & 50. Accepted and incorporated herein. 51. - 53. Accepted. 54. & 55. Accepted. 56. Irrelevant. 57. & 58. Accepted. 59. Accepted. 60. - 63. Accepted. 64. Not proven. 65. & 66. Accepted. 67. Accepted and incorporated herein. 68. Accepted but not persuasive. 69. & 70. Accepted, but as to 70, there is no evidence of how this is done. 71. - 73. Accepted. 74. & 75. Irrelevant. 76. & 77. Accepted but information and opinion expressed in 77 is irrelevant to the issue in this matter. 78. & 79. Accepted. 80. & 81. Accepted. 82. Accepted but not determinative of any issue. 83. & 84. Accepted. 85. Accepted and incorporated herein. 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87. & 88. Accepted. 89. & 90. Not Findings of Fact but Conclusions of Law. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted. 15. - 18. Accepted. 19. Accepted. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. & 23. Accepted. 24. Accepted. 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. 48. - 53. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54. - 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58. - 60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE INTERVENOR: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein, Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33. Irrelevant. 34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. & 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38. & 39. Accepted. 40. - 43. Accepted. 44. & 45. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin F. Foley, Esquire William L. Grant, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. Two South Orange Plaza Orlando, Florida 32801 Jane Mostoller, Esquire Florida Board of Regents 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1522 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950 Eli H. Subin, Esquire Subin, Shams, Rosenbluth, Moran, Losey & Brennan, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 900 Post Office Box 285 Orlando, Florida 32802 Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Gilbert’s bid proposal was responsive to the Department of Transportation’s bid proposal, and whether the Department of Transportation (Department) erred in accepting the bid of Gilbert. State alleged that Gilbert failed to comply with the DBE bid information submittal requirements of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, in filing the DBE forms for the project.
Findings Of Fact State and Gilbert, among other prequalified bidders, submitted timely bids for State Project No. 86075-3423/03175- 3426, which involves the replacement of toll plazas on State Road 93 (also known as Alligator Alley) in Collier and Broward Counties. The project has been referred to in this proceeding as “the Alligator Alley project.” (Agreed Facts) The Department has adopted Rule Chapter 14-78, F.A.C., to govern utilization of DBE’s on state and federally funded construction projects. The specifications for the Alligator Alley project also include Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, which incorporate many of the requirements of Rule 14-78.003, Florida Administrative Code. Consistent with Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, and the Special Provisions, the Department assigned Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals to the Alligator Alley project requiring bidders to subcontract 4% of the work to black DBE’s and 8% of the work to non-minority women DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) State and Gilbert submitted their sealed bid packages to the Department before the advertised deadline for bids, 10:30 a.m. on August 28, 1996. A Department review of the amounts bid showed that Gilbert was the apparent low bidder, submitting a bid totaling $9,153,215.07, while State was the apparent second-low bidder, submitted a bid totaling $9,566,051.25. (Agreed Facts) Consistent with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, and the bid specifications, bidders were permitted to submit DBE Utilization Summary Forms and DBE Utilization Forms within 72 hours after submittal of their bid packages. State and Gilbert timely submitted DBE Utilization Summary Forms, showing the total amount committed to be subcontracted to DBE’s in order to meet each of the DBE goals set for the contract. The two companies also timely submitted DBE Utilization Forms that purported to commit each bidder to subcontract with DBE’s in amounts that totaled those shown in the DBE Utilization Summary Forms. (Agreed Facts) Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Summary Form stated that Gilbert would subcontract $369,000 (or 4% of its total bid) to black DBE’s and $734,600 (or 8% of its total bid) to non-minority women DBE’s. State’s DBE Utilization Summary Form stated that State would subcontract $400,000 (or 4% of its total bid) to black DBE’s and $800,000 (or 8% of its total bid) to non-minority women DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) The Special Provisions of the bid specifications that address the DBE Forms provide as follows: The contractor’s submission shall include the following information (submitted on Form Nos. 275-020-003 Utilization Summary and 275-020- 004 Utilization Form): The names, addresses of certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs certified by the Department at the time of the bid may be counted toward DBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm. If the DBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. (Agreed Facts) [Emphasis Supplied] Gilbert submitted DBE Utilization Forms for each of its DBEs stating the DBE’s name, address, telephone number, the signature of the DBE or authorized individual. Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Alco Trucking, a firm owned by a Black male, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $369,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) Various Hauling, aggregates, fill, on site trucking Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Swiftline Trucking, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $82,200, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) Various Hauling, aggregates, fill, on site trucking Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Jayalden Enterprises, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $264,000, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 735-74-A Toll Plaza (Partial) 735-74-B Toll Plaza (Partial) Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Precision Contracting, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $305,000, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 544-75-5 Impact Attenuator Vehicular (Partial) 102-1-A MOT (Partial) On each DBE form, Gilbert filled in the line for an “amount to be paid to DBE Subcontractor” and the total committed “toward the DBE goal,” but did not fill in the line for “Amount to be paid to DBE Supplier.” (Agreed Facts) State submitted DBE Utilization Forms for each of its DBEs stating the DBE’s name, address, telephone number, the signature of the DBE or authorized individual. State submitted a DBE form for Metro Engineering Constractors, Inc., a Black owned business, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $400,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 120-6 Embankment and 285-701 Limerock Base and Haul & Supply Materials 285-709 Limerock Base and Earthwork State submitted a DBE form for Freedom Pipeline Corporation, a non-minority female owned business, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $800,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 121-70 Flowable Fill 400-1-2 Class I Concrete Endwalls through Storm Drainage 514-71-3 Plastic Filter Baric (Riprap) and 1513120-118 Pipe Ductile Iron Pusyh on Joint 8” and 415-1-3 Reinforcing Steel Retaining Walls Retaining Walls and 635-1-11 Pull & Junction Boxes through Sewer & Water 1648100-7 Misc Water Fixt Blow Off Assy 285-701 Limerock Base and Haul & Supply Materials 285-709 Limerock Base and Earthwork State indicated on its DBE forms that both contractors were suppliers of materials and indicated that the total amount of the contract in both cases was to go to the DBE contractor. The Department’s Minority Programs Office is responsible for the implementation of the Department’s DBE program and reviews the DBE Utilization Forms submitted with bids. Kenneth Sweet, who is employed in the Minority Programs Office, had responsibility for reviewing Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms and determined that they complied with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, and the Special Provisions of the bid specifications addressing DBE’s. The Department did not contact Gilbert or any of the DBE’s listed on Gilbert’s forms to confirm or obtain clarification of the information stated thereon. (Agreed Facts) The Department posted the bid tabulations for the Alligator Alley project, showing an award to Gilbert as the lowest responsive bidder. State filed its Notice of Protest with the Department’s Clerk of Agency Proceedings on September 23, 1996, 1996, and filed its Formal Protest on October 2, 1996. After this matter was referred to the Division, Gilbert filed its Petition to Intervene on October 22, 1996, which was granted on October 25, 1996. (Agreed Facts) It was stipulated that all of the DBE’s reflected in the DBE Utilization Forms submitted by Gilbert and State were certified DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms were submitted to the Minority Programs Office within 72 hours after the project letting and the forms were signed by DBE representatives. The Department is dependent upon the accuracy of the information provided by the bidders to assess DBE participation. Gilbert and one of its DBE’s did not have the identical understanding of the exact scope of the work to be performed by the DBE which might impact how much of the value of the contract would be credited for DBE participation; however, there is no evidence of collusion or fraud in any of the quotes. The Department credits 60% of the value of a contract when the DBE contractor is a supplier of materials, and 100% of the value of the contract when the DBE Contractor furnishes and installs the materials designated as furnish and install items in the specifications. The toll booths and attenuators were not furnish and install items. Gilbert included 100% of the value of the contracts with Alco, Swiftline, Precision and Jayalden as DBE participation. The Department accepted Gilbert’s representations as presented in its DBE forms without questioning what services were being performed or provided by these DBE Contractors. Ken Sweet of the Department’s DBE programs office testified. The Department's justification for not examining the DBE proposals more closely was that the Department requires the prime contractor to adhere to the amount of the DBE work as presented in the forms. While this may be sufficient to maintain the integrity of the DBE program, it is insufficient review to insure that the contractor has complied with the rules for crediting DBE participation and to insure the competitiveness of the bid process. Although Gilbert asserted at hearing that its subcontractors, Swiftline and Alco, would be supplying and placing the materials, it did not so state in its forms. The forms for Alco and Swiftline said, "hauling, aggregates, fill, and on site trucking." There was no basis for the Department to conclude that the contractors were supplying and placing the materials. Further, there was no evidence that Alco and Swiftline were "regular dealers" in fill or aggregates, or identification of their sources of aggregate and fill. Gilbert indicated no item numbers with regard to Alco and Swiftline. If item numbers had been provided, the status of the work as furnish and install items could have been determined. Only two verb forms were used in the "Description of Work" portion of form: “hauling” and “trucking”. Petitioner showed that the value of the contract exceeded the reasonable value of the trucking and hauling to be done on the project. At hearing, Gilbert asserted that Swiftline and Alco were suppliers. This evidence may not be considered. The Department should have limited Gilbert's DBE credit to the value of the hauling and trucking. This was the only work described in the DBE utilization forms. Although the value of the trucking and hauling alone was not proven, it obviously was less than the full contract amount. Gilbert had stated the DBE participation amounts at the minimum required amount. Any reduction of amount creditable to a Black minority contractor would have placed Gilbert below the four percent goal stated in the specifications. The Department credited Gilbert with 100% of the value of the contract with Jayalden towards DBE participation. The DBE Utilization Form for Jayalden does not indicate Jayalden is a supplier or regular dealer. The form does not state Jayalden would install the toll booths. A contractor may obtain 100 percent credit for DBE participation for materials provided by a DBE manufacturer, a DBE regular dealer or a DBE who furnishes and installs items designated furnish and install items in the specifications. The Department knew there were only two approved manufacturers of toll booths. Jayalden was not one of the manufacturers. Neither of the manufacturers were DBE certified. Gilbert's DBE forms did not identify Jayalden as a "regular dealer," and the toll booths were not designated furnish and install items in the specifications The Department must approve additional items as furnish and install items if not designated in the specifications. The Department did not add the toll booths as furnish and install items. The evidence shows that the manufacturer offered to provide the toll booths and install the toll booths for $75,000 each. Jayalden agreed to acquire, ship and install the booths for $76,000 each. A question arises regarding the commercially useful function Jayalden was performing if the manufacturer would furnish and install the nine booths for $75,000 each. In response to the question regarding the commercially useful function Jayalden performed, evidence was presented that Jayalden assumed responsibility for this acquisition and installation of the booths and Jayalden relieved the contractor of "managing" that part of the project. The rules required the Department's approval of the commission or fee paid for management services of this type. The rules do not permit credit for DBE participation of the value of the toll booths. This would reduce the credit for minority non- Black participation by Jayalden from $684,000 to $9,000, less than the required non-Black minority DBE participation. The evidence regarding Precision established Precision was a regular dealer in traffic control devices, and contracted to supply, service and install these devices on the project. The DBE Utilization Form for Precision indicates the Item No. and indicates "Impact Attentuator Vehicular (Partial)" and "MOT (Partial)". Precision's form provided sufficient data to justify being given 100% credit. Gilbert's other DBE forms did not present any special condition warranting increasing DBE credit. The DBE Utilization Forms as submitted by Gilbert failed to mention or identify any special conditions or circumstances affecting the amount of credit Gilbert received for DBE participation. The facts submitted at hearing reveal that at least one special condition or circumstance was applicable to each subcontractor in order to justify crediting Gilbert with 100% of the value of the contract with the DBE toward DBE participation. With exception of Precision, the information was provided only after the bid opening and improperly supplemented the original proposal. The Department had previously approved DBE Utilization Forms providing the same type of information as contained on Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms. Had the Department reviewed the proposals as required, Gilbert would have been determined not to have met the DBE specifications. Gilbert did not justify its failure to meet the DBE participation because it facially had met the DBE criteria under the Department's existing policies. In contrast, the DBE form submitted by State for Metro indicates the items numbers involved, and that Metro will “Haul & supply materials and earthwork.” Similarly, the work to be performed by Freedom Pipeline was clearly identified and sufficient information provided to advise the Department of any special conditions affecting the credit to be awarded for DBE participation. One can readily ascertain that the subcontractor is a hauler, supplier and installer of the limestone, and that the contractor should receive 100% credit for minority participation of the contract's value. State was able to meet the DBE participation specification.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its Final Order finding that Gilbert was non-responsive; however, because Gilbert followed the existing policies of the Department which were erroneous, it is recommended that the Department reject all bids and republish the invitation to bid to afford interested contractors an opportunity to file new proposals. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1997.
The Issue 1. Whether the proposals submitted by Consultec and EDS met the mandatory requirements of the Request for Proposals, and, if not, whether the proposal submitted by GTE met the mandatory requirements; (2) Whether the evaluation of the proposals by HRS was infected with substantial, material irregularities which resulted in an arbitrary scoring and evaluation process; (3) Whether GTE has standing to contest the award of the contract to Consultec; and (4) Whether GTE has waived any of the issues it has raised due to its failure to timely challenge the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposals.
Findings Of Fact General Background of the RFP On January 6, 1987, HRS released a Request for Proposals for Florida Medicaid Program Fiscal Agent Services (RFP) for qualified organizations to implement and operate a certifiable Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) for the Florida Medicaid Program. There were several reasons why HRS wanted a new MMIS system for the Florida Medicaid Program. First, the current system was more than ten years old and, although enhanced and modified numerous times, had been determined to be archaic. Second, the federal government indicated to HRS that it would not participate in future funding of the operation of the current system. Third, the federal government recommended that Florida purchase a new system. In February 1986, HRS began the process of preparing the RFP to be used in selecting the fiscal agent for the new MMIS. The process began with the development of an Advanced Planning Document (APD). Since the federal government pays for the large majority of Medicaid services, the federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is very much involved in the various stages of the state procurement process. The purpose of the APD, which describes in detail the planned procurement process, is to obtain federal approval of the procurement process proposed by the state to ensure federal financial participation. The APD was submitted to and approved by HCFA. After approval of the APD, HRS contracted with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company-Compass Consulting Group (PMM Compass) for consultant services regarding HRS's Medicaid fiscal agent procurement. PMM Compass is a nationally known consulting firm in Medicaid procurements. Its function was to review the proposed evaluation section of the RFP and to prepare a detailed evaluation plan, including written evaluation instruments and an evaluation manual, evaluation procedures, and evaluation training and materials, which would be used in evaluating the fiscal agent business and technical proposals. After the RFP was prepared, it was submitted to HCFA for approval. HCFA oversees federal financial participation in the Medicaid program and reviews state RFP's for MMIS systems to ensure that federal acquisition regulations have been met. The HCFA approved the RFP on November 28, 1986. On December 8, 1986, the Information Technology Resource Procurement Advisory Council of the Department of General Services approved the RFP. On January 6, 1987, the RFP was issued. Section 60.800 of the RFP provided that any party adversely affected by the bid solicitation must file a notice of protest within 72 hours after receipt of the RFP. No one filed a protest contesting any of the provisions of the RFP. On April 6, 1987, proposals were received from the following three offerors: Consultec, Inc. (Consultec), EDS Federal Corporation (EDS), and GTE Data Services, Inc. (GTE), subcontracting with The Computer Company (TCC). The RFP The RFP was issued for the procurement of fiscal agent services for the Florida Medicaid Program. The contractor chosen will serve as the HRS fiscal agent to administer the state's Medicaid program. The contractor must furnish all computer hardware, computer software, personnel, and other necessary resources to process approximately 24 million Medicaid claims each year and to keep current track of all Medicaid providers and recipients. The contractor must design and implement the computer and personnel systems to provide these services, must implement necessary changes to the system during the life of the contract, and must perform certain tasks to turn the system over to the state or to the new contractor at the end of the contract term. The total dollar amount paid during the contract will be approximately 45 to 50 million dollars. The RFP is a two-volume document containing approximately 500 pages, including the Appendix which is Volume II. The RFP consists of nine sections which are numbered 10, 20, 30, and so forth through 90. Section 10 provides an administrative overview; Section 20 provides a summary of the present system; Section 30 outlines the scope of the work required setting forth the responsibilities of the contractor and of the state; Section 40 sets forth the Florida MMIS System requirements; Section 50 contains the terms and conditions of the contract; Section 60 sets forth the procurement procedures; Section 70 contains the required contents of the technical proposal, which includes sections concerning corporate background and experience, project organization and staffing, project management and control, work plan and schedule, MMIS system description, and data processing; Section 80 sets forth the required content and format of the business proposal, which contains each offeror's price information; and Section 90 relates to the manner in which the proposals will be evaluated. The RFP provided that the proposal should be submitted in two parts: the technical proposal and the business proposal. The technical and business proposals had to be sealed separately, though submitted simultaneously, and would be open at different stages. The technical proposals were opened on April 6, 1987; the business proposals were opened on June 15, 1987, after scoring of the technical proposals was completed. Each technical proposal was several volumes in length. The Evaluation Process The evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the formal evaluation plan developed by the RFP Project Director, Tom Arnold, and PMM Compass. Section 90 of the RFP set forth the manner in which proposals would be evaluated. The evaluation was conducted in five phases: Phase 1, Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements of Technical Proposals; Phase 2, Evaluation of Technical Proposals; Phase 3, Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements of Business Proposals; Phase 4, Evaluation of Business Proposals; and Phase 5, Ranking of Proposals. The way in which the proposals would be evaluated in each of the five phases was described in Section 90 of the RFP. Phase 1 The first phase of the evaluation process was to review the technical proposals submitted by the offeror to ascertain whether the proposals complied with all the mandatory requirements of the RFP. The purpose of Phase 1, as stated in Section 90.200 of the RFP, was to determine whether each technical proposal was sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. This phase of the evaluation was performed on a "pass-fail" basis and was conducted immediately following the proposal due date. Section 90.200 of the RFP lists the 27 questions that would be used to determine whether the technical proposals met the mandatory requirements of the RFP. HRS considered that an offeror met the mandatory requirements for the technical proposals if an affirmative answer could be given to all 27 questions. The 27 questions were divided into two categories, proposal submission and technical proposals. The questions under the proposal submission category were questions such as the following: Was the proposal received by HRS no later than 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) on April 6, 1987? Did the vendor submit separate, sealed business and technical proposals and the required proposal bond? Is this the only proposal? (Alternate proposals not allowed). Are there fifteen (15) copies of the technical proposal? Does each copy of the technical proposal contain the required transmission letter? The questions under the technical proposal category were simply questions to ensure that each of the sections required to be included in the technical proposal had in fact been included. There were eight questions to correspond to the eight sections that were required. Each question was worded in the same manner, such as, "Is a Corporate Background and Experience section included? All three offerors submitted technical proposals that were determined to be sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Each offeror received a "pass" designation for all questions except GTE. GTE did not receive a pass on Question No. 4, which required that 15 copies of technical proposal be submitted. GTE submitted only 14 complete copies of its technical proposal by the deadline. However, HRS determined this was a minor irregularity, and GTE was allowed to submit the missing volume of its technical proposal the following day. In the appendix to the RFP a "minor irregularity is defined as follows: Minor irregularities are those exceptions which will not have an adverse effect on costs or performance. The first phase of the evaluation process was conducted by Tom Arnold, Tom Wallace, and Barbara Thrower of HRS. This phase was completed within 3 or 4 hours after the proposals had been opened. The mandatory requirements portion of the HRS evaluation manual was used in determining whether each offeror met the mandatory requirements. The same 27 questions listed in the RFP were contained in the evaluation manual. The evaluators were instructed in the manual to assign a "pass" score to each item for which their response to the question defined in the item is "yes." Phase 2 After determining that all of the technical proposals met the mandatory requirements and were sufficiently responsive to permit a complete evaluation, Phase 2 of the Evaluation Process was begun. The purpose of Phase 2 was to measure the individual merit of each technical proposal in each of several areas according to preestablished criteria. A maximum of 2,000 points could be received for each technical proposal. The basic categories evaluated and their maximum number of points were: Corporate Background and Experience 200 pts. Project Organization and Staffing 225 pts. Technical Approach 225 pts. Project Management and Control 150 pts. Work Plan and Schedule 200 pts. MMIS Description 800 pts. Data Processing 200 pts. Proposals were evaluated through four separate methods: (1) Review of the written response to the RFP; (2) Oral presentation; (3) Visits to sites where each offeror operated a baseline system; and (4) Reference checks. The RFP advised the offeror of the scoring system for the technical proposals and the ways in which information would be obtained. The offerors were advised by the RFP that detailed evaluation criteria had been developed for each of the categories listed. Further, for each of the categories listed, the RFP contained a paragraph which was meant to "describe generally the factors covered by the detailed criteria." Section 90.390 of the RFP set forth the manner in which points would be assigned to the technical proposal. Section 90.390 reads as follows: Scoring of the seven areas in each technical proposal shall be done using preestablished criteria and predefined scoring values. Each criterion within an area will be independently scored by evaluators. Indivi- dual raw scores from the evaluators, for each criterion, for each offeror's proposal, will be averaged then multiplied by a predetermined weight to get a weighted point value for that criterion. Scoring weights will not be available to the evaluation committee, but will be applied to raw scores by other designated staff. Weighted point values for all criteria in an offeror's proposal will then be tallied. The final technical score for each proposal is then calculated using the following methodology: A maximum of two thousand (2,000) weighted points will be assigned to the highest passing technical proposal. . . . The formula to be used to award all other offerors a proportional amount of points was also included. The formal evaluation and initial scoring of the technical and business proposals was performed by a Technical Evaluation Committee (Evaluation Committee) appointed by the Secretary of HRS. The Committee consisted of eleven members with backgrounds and experiences in MMIS program development, data processing, and financial analysis. While the members of the Evaluation Committee did not formulate the evaluation criteria which were used, they were well-qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided. Further, on March 24-27, 1987, prior to the receipt of Proposals on April 6, HRS Sponsored a three and one- half day training session for the members of the Evaluation Committee. Judith Hansen, a consultant with PMM Compass, headed the training sessions. During the course of these training sessions, the evaluators went over each of the criteria on which proposals were to be judged to ensure that all of the evaluators understood the scoring criteria in the categories they would be scoring. Ten of the Evaluation Committee members were responsible for evaluating the technical proposals in Phase 2 of the evaluation process. The individuals were divided into subgroups representing each of the seven categories to be evaluated. Five of the categories had three evaluators. The MMIS Description category had six evaluators, and the Technical Approach category had five evaluators. None of the members of the Evaluation Committee was an evaluator in each of the seven categories; the most categories scored by any one evaluator was four. Each member of the Evaluation Committee scored each of the proposals in the categories to which they were assigned; however, to ensure that each proposal was judged solely by the detailed evaluation criteria provided rather than against each other, an evaluator was permitted to have only one proposal before him to score at a time. Evaluators were also instructed not to discuss their scoring with the other evaluators but to independently score each proposal. The Evaluation Committee began reviewing the technical proposals on April 7, 1987, the day after proposals were submitted. Proposals were evaluated by the committee members at the Government Employee's Credit Union, a location away from their normal work place. Each evaluator was given a technical proposal and was allotted two days simply to read the particular proposal and become familiar with it. They then began to evaluate the proposal in the categories assigned. When the evaluators had finished the first proposal, they turned in both the proposal they were reviewing and their scoring manual for that proposal and received another offeror's technical proposal to read and evaluate. Each evaluator was given a separate scoring manual for each of the offerors which contained the criteria to be used in scoring the proposal in the assigned categories. Each category had criteria to be scored. Different categories had a different number of criteria. For example, the Corporate Background and Experience category had fifteen criteria; the Project Management and Control had eight; and the MMIS Description had 49 criteria. Each criterion in every category was to be scored from zero to ten by the evaluator. A zero was to be given when the offeror had omitted the particular aspect of the area or did not establish the capability to perform it. One to three points was "poor," four to six points was "average," seven to nine points was "good," and ten points was excellent. The scoring manual was organized with the criterion to be scored, and matters that might be considered under that criterion, on the left-hand page. The scoring sheet for that criterion was on the right-hand page. The scoring sheet contained a space for the numerical points awarded and also provided space for comments to indicate the reason for the score given. All proposals were initially scored based on the information provided in the proposals. The scores were Subsequently reviewed and revised, if appropriate, as additional information became available through the reference checks, the oral presentations, and the on-site visits. The evaluations of the technical proposals took over two months to complete. Throughout this period, but after the initial scoring was completed, debriefing sessions were conducted with the evaluators to ensure that the evaluators neither misunderstood nor overlooked relevant information from the proposals, reference checks, oral presentations, or site visits. Reference checks were conducted to verify both the corporate capabilities of the offeror and the qualifications of proposed senior project personnel. The reference checks were conducted by two members of the Evaluation Committee, Diana Flagg and George Strickland. These two individuals were chosen to conduct the reference checking because of their skills and abilities--they both had experience in contract management functions and dealing with state agencies-- because their workload was such that they had the time available. Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland were given a reference check manual that had been prepared as part of the evaluation package which contained the questions to be asked; however, they were not told which references to call. After discussing the matter, they decided to contact three (3) different states as corporate references for each of the bidders. They used the following criteria to determine which states to contact: (a) whether the state used the same baseline system proposed by the offeror for Florida; (b) whether the state had recent experience with the offeror; and (c) whether the state had experience with the development and operations of MMIS systems that would be similar to Florida's. The term "baseline system" refers to the proposed subsections of a certifiable, operational MMIS. An MMIS is comprised of six to seven federally required general system design subsections. The RFP defined "Baseline System" as "[t]he basic systems code used for the FMMIS consisting of, at the minimum, the Claims Processing Subsystem, the Reference Subsystem and the MAR Subsystem." The RFP required offerors to propose a certifiable operational MMIS and stated that the baseline system had to be operational in some state. Therefore, contacting the states that had the same or a similar baseline system as that proposed for Florida was the important factor in choosing the states to be contacted. Based on the three criteria stated, HRS decided to contact Montana, Ohio and Washington for Consultec; Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia for GTE/TCC; and Arkansas, Kentucky and Georgia for EDS. The corporate reference checks were conducted in the following manner: After deciding the states to be contacted, Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland jointly called the person listed by the offeror as the corporate reference for that state. Upon reaching the listed person, Mr. Strickland asked the corporate reference the predetermined questions in the reference check manual regarding that state's experience with the offeror. The reference was asked to rate the offeror on a scale of 0 to 4 and to give comments supporting the score where appropriate. To insure accuracy, both Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland recorded both the scores and the comments given by the reference for each offeror. After each call was completed, they compared their notes to make sure the reference's scores and comments were accurately transcribed. The personnel reference checks were conducted by Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland in the same manner. The personnel references called were those listed as references in the proposal for the individual, except in one case the listed reference referred the evaluators to another individual who had worked more closely with the person being checked. After the corporate and personnel reference checks were completed, the reference check manual containing the information received was made available to all of the evaluators for use in scoring the proposals. Oral presentations by each offeror were held on May 26, 27, 28, 1987. The orals provided the offerors with a chance to present their proposals and provided the committee with an opportunity to obtain answers to questions developed during their initial review of the proposals, to observe the offerors in action, and to request clarification of an offeror's proposal. The offerors were advised at the beginning of the presentation that any answers given at the oral presentation would be considered part of the proposal. In addition to the oral presentation, six members of the Evaluation Committee, plus the project director and the evaluation oversight manager, made visits to one installation site where each offeror's baseline system was operational. The site visits gave the evaluators an opportunity to see the offerors in action and to speak with state personnel in person about the offeror. The following site visits were made: June 1-2 EDS Little Rock, Arkansas June 3-4 GTE Data Services/The Computer Company Nashville, Tennessee June 8-9 Consultec, Inc. Jefferson City, Missouri Columbus, Ohio For Consultec, two locations rather than one were visited because while Ohio utilizes the Consultec baseline system bid in Florida, Consultec does not-run the system. In Missouri, on the other hand, Consultec is operating an MMIS system originally designed by EDS. Thus, by visiting two locations, HRS was able to evaluate Consultec's baseline system and analyze Consultec's operations and capabilities as a fiscal agent. The information received as a result of the site visits was recorded in the Site Visits Manual for each offeror. The manual contained the questions to be asked at each site and was part of the evaluation package. As with the Reference Check Manual, the Site Visits Manual was made available to all of the evaluators. On June 15, 1987, after the scoring of the technical proposals was completed by the Evaluation Committee, the raw scores assigned by each evaluator for each criterion were transferred to a summary scoring document. The scores were averaged then multiplied by the weight factor assigned to that criterion. The weighted scores for each of the criteria in each category were then added together, providing a total score for category. The following are the weighted scores received by each offeror, rounded to the nearest whole number: Corporate Background Consultec EDS GTE and Experience 107 139 98 Project Organization and Staffing 128 115 112 Technical Approach 132 121 127 Project Management and Control 87 95 75 Work Plan & Schedule 88 118 80 MMIS Description 425 473 418 Data Processing 126 135 135 1093 1196 1045 34. Since EDS had the highest total points scored, it received 2,000 points for its technical proposal. The others received a comparable point value determined by dividing the offeror's score by EDS's score and multiplying the result by 2,000. Consultec received 1,828 points, and GTE received 1,747 points. The completed technical evaluation points were locked in a bank vault and were not disclosed. On June 15, 1987, the business proposals were publicly opened. Prior to that time the sealed business proposals had been kept in the vault. Thus, no one knew the contents of the business proposals while the technical proposals were being evaluated. At the public opening, the business proposal summary pricing schedules were read to all offerors and posted at HRS. Phase 3 Following the public opening of the business proposals, HRS reviewed the business proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements for business proposals contained in the RFP. HRS conducted this "pass-fail review" of the business proposals by determining whether the business proposals submitted by each offeror complied with the requirements of Section 90.400 of the RFP. The first two paragraphs of this Section read: The purpose of this phase is to determine if the business proposal is sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. The following items will be reviewed as mandatory requirements: Section 90.400 of the RFP then lists 19 questions regarding the business proposals submitted by offerors. HRS considered an offeror as having met the mandatory requirements for the business proposals if an affirmative answer could be given to all 19 questions contained in Section 90.400. All three offerors submitted business proposals which were determined to have met the mandatory requirements for business proposals contained in the RFP. Phase 4 The business proposals then underwent a more detailed review by three of the HRS evaluators, all of whom were accountants and two of whom were CPAs. This review was to determine whether the business proposal for each offeror was consistent with that offeror's technical proposal and whether the calculations in the pricing schedules contained in the business proposals were accurate. For each offeror, the overall business proposal was determined to be consistent with the technical proposal. Minor arithmetic errors and inconsistencies were noted by the evaluators on each of the business proposals. For example, GTE's installation task salaries appeared to be unreasonable compared to the effort required to complete the tasks proposed in the technical proposal. Although all three evaluators noted this problem, it was determined that the inconsistency was not significant enough, considering the entire project, to merit rejection of the bid. The evaluators noted that Consultec had combined the building and utility categories on the pricing schedules, but found this also to be insignificant Section 90.520 of the RFP provides as follows: "Any business proposal that is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsisten- cies or inaccuracies may be rejected by HRS. (e.s.) As specified in the RFP, points were awarded for the business proposal as follows: the lowest evaluated operational price, the total fixed price per claim for the five-year contract period, was awarded 850 points; the lowest total installation price, the sum of the planning, design and development, acceptance testing and implementation tasks, was awarded 50 points; the lowest systems personnel billing rate was awarded 50 points; the lowest total field representative price was awarded 25 points; and the lowest hourly cost of CPU time was awarded 25 points. The other offerors in each category were awarded a proportional share of the maximum points allowable. The price per claim category received 850 of the 1,000 possible points because this payment represents the most important work to be performed under the contract and because payment will occur during at least five years of the contract. The fixed price per claim is of vital importance to the state because it allows the risk of claims volume variance to be transferred to the contractor. A 10 million variance in annual claims volume, from 19 million to 29 million was established in the RFP, with provision for dealing with claims volume outside the range parameters. There is considerable risk for abnormal claims variance due to program changes that can occur during the life of the contract such as federal establishment of new eligibility groups, new services, or redefined claims definitions. The state legislature may require additional Medicaid services or additional eligibles. However, a fixed price per claim limits the cost of handling increased processing services. The following table displays the points awarded for the business proposals by offeror: Consultec EDS GTE Installation Price 23 43 50 ($7,439,321) ($4,030,129) ($3,433,822) Price Per Claim 850 620 689 ($.2652) ($.3637) ($.3270) Composite Hourly Rate 29 21 50 for Systems Personnel ($95/hr) ($134/hr) ($55/hr) Provider Field Reps 23 25 21 for Five years ($1,892,820) ($1,810,380) ($2,124,450) Price for CPU Time 25 13 4 ($1,100) ($3,625) ($400) TOTAL 951 722 814 Phase 5 After the proposals were rated by the Technical Evaluation Committee, points awarded to the business proposals were added to the technical points to determine the ranking and recommendation of the committee. The ranking and recommendation of the committee along with supporting materials were conveyed to the Steering Committee, composed of four HRS executives. The Proposal Evaluation Committee's Report to the Steering Committee provided a 116 page detailed summary of the overall evaluation results, concluding with the Evaluation Committee's ranking of proposals, which were as follows: Consultec EDS GTE Technical Proposal 1,828 2,000 1,747 Business Proposal 951 722 814 Total 2,779 2,722 2,561 Ranking 1 2 3 In addition to receiving the Evaluation Committee's report, the Steering Committee, through Mr. Moody, one of its members, became aware of a letter written by Senator Grant to the Secretary of HRS concerning the evaluation of the proposals. Attached to the letter was a position paper prepared by GTE which attempted to compare the business proposals submitted by Consultec and GTE by considering the "future value of funds" or "time value of money" based on interest that could be earned on the difference between Consultec's installation price and GTE's installation price. Mr. Moody, a CPA, had been assigned the task of responding to the letter and the position paper. Mr. Moody raised the topic with the Steering Committee and also explained the deficiencies in the GTE analysis. After a thorough review of the Evaluation Committee's report, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the evaluation process. The Steering Committee unanimously recommended the selection of Consultec as the contractor for fiscal agent services for the State of Florida. The Secretary of HRS concurred with the recommendation, and by letter dated July 9, 1987, the offerors were notified of the intent to award the contract to Consultec. GTE filed its notice of protest on July 15, 1987, and its Formal Written Protest on July 24, 1987. After announcing its decision to award the contract to Consultec, HRS informed HCFA of its choice and submitted to HCFA a revised APD reflecting the costs contained in Consultec's business proposal. After reviewing this document and, having previously approved the evaluation process used in selecting the successful offeror, HCFA informed HRS that it did not need any additional information in order to approve the contract award and that the initial review indicated that approval would be granted at the appropriate federal financial participation rate. However, HCFA cannot give the state final approval while the contract award is being disputed. DID THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY CONSULTEC MEET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP? FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Among the several sections required in each technical proposal was one entitled "Corporate Background and Experience." The required contents of this section were set forth in Sections 70.400 through 70.440 of the RFP. Section 70.400 stated: The Corporate Background and Experience section shall include for the offeror and each sub-contractor (if any): details of the background of the company, its size and resources, details of corporate experience relevant to the proposed fiscal agent contract, financial statements, and a list of all current or recent Medicaid or related projects. The detailed requirements for each of the required elements listed in Section 70.400 was contained in the subsequent sections to the RFP. The requirement for financial statements was detailed in Section 70.420 as follows: Financial statements for the contracting entity shall be provided for each of the last three years, including at a minimum: balance sheets statement of income statements of changes in financial position auditors' reports notes to financial statements summary of significant accounting policies The word "shall" is defined in the Glossary of the RFP as "[i]ndicates a mandatory requirement or condition to be met." After the RFP was released but prior to the submission of bids, HRS provided an opportunity for all prospective offerors to submit written questions to HRS regarding the terms and conditions of the RFP. After receiving these questions, HRS sent all prospective offerors both the written questions submitted by the various prospective offerors and HRS' written responses to them. During this process, one bidder, EDS, submitted the following question to HRS: Since our parent corporation does not publish financial statements for each of its individual subsidiaries, will the financial statements for the parent company be satisfactory? In response, HRS provided all prospective bidders with the following answer: It is the department's intent to review the financial stability of each offeror. Offerors should present appropriate documen- tation to meet this requirement. From the answer given, it is apparent that HRS did not intend to preclude the submission of consolidated financial statements but did intend that each offeror should include "appropriate documentation" to allow HRS to review, and evaluate, the financial stability of the offeror. Like EDS's parent corporation, Consultec's parent, General American Life Insurance Company (General American), has a policy of not releasing the financial statements of its subsidiaries. Based on this policy and HRS' written response to the EDS question, Consultec submitted with its proposal the consolidated financial statements of its parent, General American. Consultec also submitted an annual report showing Consultec achieved a before tax income of $3.4 million in 1985. In its response to the RFP, Consultec indicated that the financial resources of General American backed any agreement Consultec entered into, as follows: The considerable resources of General American ensure Consultec's financial stability. Additionally, our access to the resources of our parent company (including manpower, data processing facilities, and financial support) ensures the successful performance of any contractual obligations. Because of this support, Consultec has greater capacity now than at any time in its corporate history to meet any and all contractual requirements and commitments. However, the General American consolidated, audited financial statements contained in the Consultec proposal contained no ascertainable information about the separate financial condition or financial performance of Consultec. Section 90 of the RFP explained how the technical proposals would be evaluated and specified what items would be considered "mandatory requirements." Technical proposal Mandatory Requirement No. 21 asks only the general question, "Is a Corporate Background and Experience section included? (Section 70.400)". A Corporate Background and Experience section was included in Consultec's submission. The detailed evaluation of criteria under the Corporate Background and Experience section occurred under the Phase 2 Evaluation of Technical Proposals. Oral presentations were considered a part of the technical proposal evaluation process. During Consultec's oral presentation, HRS asked Consultec to clarify its proposal by stating whether General American would be financially responsible for the Florida MMIS project. In a follow-up question, Mr. Tom Arnold asked Consultec if it would consider either submitting separate financial statements for Consultec or agreeing that General American would guarantee Consultec's performance if Consultec were awarded the contract. Consultec responded to this request by submitting a letter to HRS wherein Consultec stated that General American was willing to guarantee Consultec's performance under the contract. This letter was signed by Richard Martz, Senior Vice President of Consultec. RFP specifically stated that the state reserved the right to request amendments to the proposals or to waive minor irregularities. The purpose of the oral presentations was to clarify any information provided in the technical proposals. Further, the financial statements were considered in scoring only one criterion in the Corporate Background and Experience section which was worth a total of 10 points. Finally, GTE included in its proposal the financial statements of its parent, GTE Corporation, and all three evaluators considered the financial strength of GTE's parent in award points for that criterion. GTE also scored more points in this area than Consultec. Consultec received no material advantage over other offerors by submitting consolidated financial statements. If Consultec's failure to include its own financial statements in the technical proposal can be considered a deviation at all from the requirements of the RFP, in light of HRS's clarification of those requirements, it certainly cannot be considered a deviation that would require the rejection of its proposal. CONSISTENCY OF THE BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL PROPOSALS Sections 90.500 and 90.510 of the RFP provide: 90.500.--Each business proposal successfully meeting the mandatory requirements reviewed in Phase 3 will be examined to determine if the business proposal is consistent with the technical proposal and its calculations are accurate. 9O.510--Any business proposal that is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies may be rejected by HRS. The state reserves the right to reject all proposals. In its Formal Protest, GTE alleged that Consultec's business and technical proposals were not consistent because Consultec "front-end loaded" its proposal. "Front-end loading" means moving a cost from the later part of a contract to the front or charging for a cost that will not be incurred until later in the contract. Section 80 of the RFP describes the RFP's requirements for the business proposals. In the business proposal, each offeror sets forth the costs of its proposed FMMIS. The RFP directs each offeror to include in its business proposal "a firm fixed price for each of the requirements contained on the pricing schedule. . . ." One of the five requirements is installation costs. Section 81.210 of the RFP states that Pricing Schedule B of the business proposal summarizes the four major tasks involved in the installation phase of the Florida MMIS system as described in the RFP. Those four major tasks are described in the RFP at Sections 30.120 through 30.450. The offeror is directed to "schedule the fees for each of these tasks on the detailed Schedules B-1 through B-4" and is told that "[t]hese fees will form the basis from which the installation price is determined." Section 80.120 similarly states that "the installation price will be calculated as the combined sums of the prices of the Planning Task, Design and Development Task, Acceptance Testing Task and the Implementation Task." As required by the RFP, Consultec submitted a business proposal including Pricing Schedule B, which set out the price components of its installation price by task. One line item of the price components is labeled "computer resources." GTE's argument is that the cost of certain computer equipment (computer hardware and software) which Consultec included in the installation price under "computer resources," should have been allocated over the life of the contract and included in the operational price. Consultec's total price bid for the installation phase was $7,439,321, as compared to $4,030,129 for EDS and $3,433,822 for GTE. These differences are largely explained by differences in the cost item, "computer resources." These costs total $3,049,809 for Consultec, $1,130,856 for EDS, and $608,493 for GTE. The treatment of the acquisition price of the computer equipment to be purchased by Consultec is not consistent with generally accepted accounting practices. Proper accounting practices would distribute the cost of the equipment over its useful life rather than charging the entire purchase price as an initial cost in the installation period. Nevertheless, nothing in the RFP required the use of "generally accepted accounting practices" in allocating costs. Nothing in the RFP required that the costs of purchasing the computer equipment be made a part of the operations costs, by allocation over the life of the contract, as opposed to being charged as an installation cost at the time of purchase. Section 30.220 specifically states that it is the contractor's responsibility in carrying out the Design and Development Task, described as part of the installation phase, to [a]cquire the equipment to be used for the design, development, implementation, and operation of the new system." GTE has failed to show how Consultec's business proposal was inconsistent with its technical proposal. The purpose of requiring consistency between the two proposals, generally, is to ensure that each bidder has sufficient funds in its business proposal to perform the tasks required in the technical proposal. If computer hardware to be used during the life of the contract is purchased during the installation phase, the expense is incurred and paid for at that time, and inclusion of such cost as an installation cost is appropriate. GTE also argues that Consultec's business and technical proposals are inconsistent because Consultec has failed to provide sufficient data entry operators in their proposal. GTE attempted to establish this shortage through the testimony of Ms. Clark. However, there were discrepancies in her calculations and she was confused in her testimony. Further, her testimony was based on several assumptions that Consultec did not necessarily make or have to make. Finally, Ms. Clark's calculations indicated that Consultec was short 10 data entry operators in the first year of operation, yet Consultec provided 49 data entry operators the first year--the same number provided by both EDS and GTE in their proposals. In short, there was no competent evidence presented to show that Consultec's proposal provided for an insufficient number of data entry operators. After HRS announced its intent to award the contract to Consultec, HCFA reviewed Consultec's technical and business proposals to determine whether they were consistent with one another. After conducting this consistency review, it was HCFA's conclusion that Consultec's technical and business proposals were consistent. PRICING SCHEDULES - CORPORATE REGISTRATION In its formal protest, GTE alleged that Consultec "modified several of the pricing schedules in its proposals so that the cost categories submitted were different from those required." This was not included as an issue in respondent GTE's prehearing statement, and at the hearing, GTE presented no evidence that any such modifications were material or gave Consultec an advantage. In its formal protest GTE alleged that the corporate charter number provided by Consultec in its transmission letter was for a corporation named "General American Consultec, Inc." This was not included as an issue in GTE's prehearing statement, and there was no evidence presented to support this allegation. WAS THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS BY HRS INFECTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL, MATERIAL IRREGULARITIES? CRITERIA USED IN THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION. In evaluating the technical proposals, the HRS evaluators used an evaluation or scoring manual which contained the criteria to be used in scoring the technical proposal in each of the seven sections or categories. In its Formal Protest, GTE alleged that the scoring manual used by the HRS evaluators contained criteria and tests which were materially different from those set forth in RFP. The RFP evaluation criteria for the "Corporate Background and Experience" section of the proposal included, among others: (a) large scale data processing development and implementation experience, (b) medical claims processing experience, and (c) medicaid and MMIS experience. The RFP evaluation criteria for the "Data Processing" section of the proposal included, among others: (a) telecommunications network support, and (b) telecommunications experience. GTE has no previous MMIS contracts, but is the country's fourth-largest data processing company. It designed and submitted its proposal expecting to be graded on large-scale data processing experience, telecommunications network support and telecommunications network experience. Mr. Brandenburg, a Medicaid project director for GTE, testified that he felt HRS' scoring manual did not give any weight to an offeror's large scale data processing experience or telecommunications network experience even though these were listed as items HRS would consider in the RFP. However, several of the scoring criteria reference communication links, telecommunications network support, telecommunications network experience and number of persons engaged in claims processing operations. Further, in scoring GTE on criteria 8, 13 and 5 under the Data Processing section, the evaluators referred to GTE's section on telecommunciation experience and support. Section 90 of the RFP made it quite clear that proposals would be evaluated based on preestablished criteria that had been developed for each of the various sections of the technical proposals. The RFP stated that paragraphs 90.320 - 90.380 described "generally" the factors covered by the criteria. In essence, because "large-scale data processing development and implementation experience" was listed as one of the factors that would be covered by the criteria under Corporate Management and Experience, GTE assumed that it would be accorded more weight than it was in the evaluation criteria. Mr. Brandenburg felt that too much consideration was given to MMIS experience in the evaluation process and not enough to experience outside the MMIS industry. However, section 90.310 of the RFP provides: Offerors should note that the entire evaluation will place considerable emphasis on demonstrated experience directly applicable to MMIS transfer or replacement, modification development, and Medicaid fiscal agent operations. In summary, there was no competent evidence presented to support GTE's allegation that the scoring manual used to evaluate the proposals contained criteria that was materially different than those set forth in the RFP. THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND REFERENCE CHECKS Although the RFP set forth generally the criteria to be used in evaluating the technical proposal, the specific criteria used in evaluating the proposal were not included in the RFP. However, the RFP made it clear to offerors that there were predetermined criteria that would be used. The RFP indicated that information would be obtained from reference checks, from the proposal itself, from site visits, and from oral presentations. The RFP specified that the raw scores from the evaluators for each criterion would be averaged and then multiplied by a predetermined weight to get the point value for each criterion. None of the offerors protested the method of evaluating the proposals. Further, there was no evidence presented to suggest that the use of undisclosed weights was irregular. The initial recommended weights from the evaluation expert, PMM Compass, were modified by the Issuing Officer to reflect the areas most important to Florida, then reviewed with and approved by HCFA officials. Mr. Larry Platt of HCFA confirmed that the use of non-disclosed weights is very typical. Indeed, he had not been involved in any procurements in which weights were disclosed to offerors. He also confirmed that it was customary not to include the detailed evaluation criteria in the RFP. GTE also challenged the manner in which corporate reference checks were conducted. In this regard, Dr. Elton Scott testified that it would have been better if the HRS evaluators had contacted all the states where the offerors had certifiable MMIS systems even though this would result in as many as 18 states being contacted for one offeror and as few as 3 for another. Dr. Scott admitted, however, that if, due to time restraints or other reasons, less than all of the listed references could be contacted, it was reasonable to contact those states which used a baseline system similar to the offeror's proposed system for Florida, to contact states with recent experience with the offeror, and to contact states with experience similar to Florida's. Larry Platt has had extensive experience with state RFPs in his position with HCFA and his testimony is accepted. He testified that it was important that an equal number of references be contacted for each offeror and that a state's decision to contact three corporate references for each offeror was reasonable. He further testified that contacting states with recent experience with the offeror and states with the same baseline system were the criteria normally used in determining which states should be contacted as references. In support of its contention that the corporate reference checks were unreliable due to the number of references contacted, GTE introduced into evidence the depositions of Joel Schnedler, Jeff Harriott, Helen Condry, Ruth Fisher, and Robert Kelly, to show that, had additional references been contacted, GTE's corporate reference checks would have been better. However, with one exception, these individuals are Medicaid officials in states purposefully not contacted by HRS as corporate references. Mr. Schnedler is employed by the State of Missouri, which was not contacted because the baseline system operated by Consultec in Missouri was designed and installed by EDS. Ms. Condry is employed by the State of West Virginia, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because TCC's responsibilities in West Virginia are limited--TCC does not perform many of the provider relations and some of the other operations. Ms. Fisher is employed by the State of Delaware, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because the baseline system used in Delaware has not been certified by the federal government, a requirement for the baseline system proposed for Florida. Robert Kelly is an employee of the State of Pennsylvania, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because the baseline system operated in Pennsylvania was not developed, designed or installed by GTE or TCC. GTE contended that it received lower scores on the corporate background and experience questions dealing with MMIS experience solely because the experience shown in its proposal for that area was that of a subcontractor, TCC. In fact, the evaluators did not penalize GTE's proposal in this or any other manner. If the evaluators had not considered the MMIS experience of TCC in evaluating GTE's proposal, GTE would have received zero points in this area for the simple reason that GTE had no previous MMIS experience. Although Ms. Flagg testified that her scoring might have been different if GTE's and TCC's roles were reversed, it does not mean GTE did not receive proper credit for TCC's experience. If their roles were reversed, GTE and TCC would be performing different functions, and thus the scoring would very likely be different. The evaluation of the technical proposals in this case may not have been perfect; however, a review of the entire evaluation package and the evaluation manuals completed by the individual evaluators reveals that the evaluation was thorough and fair. The evaluation package was reviewed by HCFA section by section to determine whether the evaluation process ensured open and free competition. The evaluation package was approved by HCFA. Mr. Platt felt that the evaluation manual was "a very thorough job." Mr. Platt reviewed the evaluation itself after it was completed to ensure that the evaluation plan had been followed. He was satisfied with the process. The completed evaluation manuals show that the evaluators performed their tasks conscientiously and were well-informed. The analyses performed by Dr. McClave revealed high consistency among evaluators and good inter-evaluator reliability. These results support the conclusion that the evaluation procedure was reliable. There was no evidence to suggest that scores were assigned arbitrarily or that the evaluation process was infected with substantial material irregularities. PRESENT VALUE EVALUATION: As stated previously, the RFP provided that business proposals would be scored according to a preestablish point system for the five different types of costs required to be bid. The various categories of costs and the maximum number of points to be awarded to the low bidder for each category were: Max. Pts. Available Installation Price 50 Price Per Claim 850 Hourly Rate for Systems Personnel 50 Provider Field Representatives 25 Price for CPU Time 25 From the above scoring system contained in the RFP, prospective offerors knew or should have known that the State did not propose to evaluate bids on a present value basis. At the time that the RFP was developed, Mr. Arnold was aware of Section 287.0572, Florida Statutes, which requires the use of present value methodology to evaluate the cost of contracts "which require the payment of money for more than 1 year and include provisions for unequal payment streams or unequal time payment periods." Mr. Arnold did not believe that the statute applied to this RFP, and therefore did not change the scoring system. Merrill Moody is the Assistant Secretary for Administration. In that capacity, Mr. Moody oversees personnel, budget, finance, accounting, staff development and training, revenue enhancements, contracting, purchasing, leasing, management systems, audit, and quality control for HRS. Mr. Moody is a CPA, has been employed by HRS for nine years, and oversees a 60 million dollar budget. Like Mr. Arnold, Mr. Moody had considered whether Section 287.0572, Florida Statutes, applied to this procurement prior to the issue being raised by GTE. It was Mr. Moody's considered opinion that the statute did not apply because the contract does not call for an uneven payment stream. Dr. McClave, an expert in econometrics, testified that there is not enough certainty in this RFP to say whether or not there are unequal payment streams, and, accordingly, whether or not the statute applies. He also explained why the application of the statute would be an exercise in futility. First, the only part of the contract arguably subject to present value analysis is the installation phase. This takes place within the first year of the contract and, accordingly, makes it practically impossible to do a useful present value analysis. Furthermore, even if the installation phase payments could be construed as an unequal payment stream within the meaning of the statute, the statute does not require a present value analysis to be applied to unequal payment streams which are to take place under a contract whose duration is less than one year. To apply a present value analysis to the installation phase price would be counterproductive. During the installation phase, the contractor is to be paid at certain points during the first year at which milestones or tasks are completed. At such points, the contractor is to be paid a certain percentage of the total installation price. If a present value analysis were performed, the proposal most highly valued would be that in which all tasks would be finished on the last day of the contract, clearly not a result in the state's best interest. The application of present value analysis to the remaining four fixed price components of the bids is simply not necessary. Each one of the remaining categories called for a fixed price for a certain unit of services to be delivered to HRS by the contractor. There is clearly not an unequal payment stream or unequal time payment periods for these items. Where there is a fixed price for a unit of service, there is obviously no need to apply a present value analysis. If, for example, HRS knows that it will be charged $.2652 per claim by Consultec as opposed to $.3270 per claim by GTE, Consultec's price will always be lower regardless of claim volume. To apply a present value analysis to the cost per claim, systems personnel hourly rate, and CPU hourly rate would create uncertainty in the cost evaluation. This is because the RFP did not specify the number of claims or hours involved. The RFP contained an estimate of between nineteen and twenty-nine million Medicaid claims per year, a ten million claim difference. Likewise, the number of hours of systems personnel time and CPU time is not specified. To conduct a present value analysis assumptions would have to be made. If the assumptions prove wrong, the lowest present value cost bid could become the most costly contract. Dr. James E. Pitts, an expert in the field of economics, agreed with Dr. McClave's conclusion that given the range of possible volumes on the number of claims as well as in systems personnel and computer time, a present value analysis would provide a "horrendous" range of possible present values and the analysis would be extremely sensitive to the assumptions that would be made. Although a present value analysis of the cost of the proposal would require certain assumptions to be made, and thus swould provide a comparison of costs that is not as accurate as comparing the fixed rate costs, a present value analysis can be performed using reasonable assumptions. However, the present value analyses of both GTE and HRS show that Consultec's business proposal yields the lowest present value. Accordingly, had a present value analysis been performed, Consultec would remain the lowest bidder. GTE's expert Dr. Scott, HRS' expert Dr. McClave, and Consultec's expert Dr. Pitts all agreed that even when a present value analysis was used, Consultec's bid remained less than GTE's. THE EDS BID GTE alleged that the proposal submitted by EDS did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the RFP in two respects: (1) It submitted consolidated financial statements; (2) it proposed to supply one element of the FMMIS by using a subcontractor's "propriety" software. The first allegation has been previously discussed in reference to the Consultec proposal. The submission of consolidated financial statements did not make EDS's proposal unresponsive. The financial statements were used as a source of information from which the financial stability and corporate background of the offeror could be evaluated. As to the second allegation, GTE has simply failed to show how EDS's proposal materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. EDS's transmittal letter stated that EDS would use Health Information Designs (HID) as a subcontractor to produce Drug Utilization Review Reports, thus subcontracting out a total of .78 percent of the work as measured by total contract price. The letter from HID stated that it would not "convey access to or title in any of HID's proprietary DURbase software or system documentation." When EDS was questioned at the oral presentation about how it would comply with Section 50.900, which would be part of the contract to be entered into and requires that HRS shall receive "a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use . . . all software . . . and documentation comprising the Florida MMIS", EDS responded that the purchase of DUR-based services was the procuring of services, not software. Further, if the subcontractor's statement in its letter is considered a deviation from the requirements of the RFP, then EDS complied with the requirements of Section 70.100 of the RFP by identifying and explaining the deviation in the transmittal letter. There was no evidence presented to show that the deviation was material or that the state could not accept the proposal with the deviation. Section 50.000 provides that modification of the contract can be made by mutual agreement of the state and contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order awarding the contract for the Florida MMIS system to Consultec. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3188BID GTE's proposed findings of fact 1-19. Accepted generally, though not with same wording or quotations. 20-21. Rejected due to contrary findings. 22-27. Accepted as true but not included in detail in RO because unnecessary. 28-33. Rejected as irrelevant, except to the degree these paragraphs reflect that Consultec intends to purchase computer equipment in the installation phase and charge the cost during the installation phase. Rejected - no competent substantial evidence (CSE) that Florida will pay for costs not attributable to this contract. Accepted in part; rejected in part by contrary finding. 36-40. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by CSE. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by CSE. 44-45. Accepted. 46-53. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence accepted, second rejected. Rejected. 58-59. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted to the degree relevant. Accepted generally. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted generally. Accepted generally. Rejected. 66-70. Accepted to the degree relevant. 71. Rejected. 72-73. Accepted, except for last sentence which is rejected as not supported by CSE. 74-77. Accepted generally. 78. Rejected as irrelevant, there was no evidence of bias in scoring. 79-81. Rejected generally by contrary finding. Rejected as unnecessary, last part of last sentence rejected for lack of CSE. Accepted generally. 84-85. Rejected by contrary findings. HRS's proposed findings of fact 1-26. Accepted generally. 27-34. Accepted to the degree that Dr. McClave's analyses support the conclusion that the evaluation process was reliable. Accepted generally. Rejected, not supported by cited reference. Though criterion 2 related to the prime contractor, the criterion also related to financial resources not MMIS experience. Last part of paragraph accepted. 37-39. Accepted generally. Accepted generally; however, first sentence rejected because the evaluation manuals of all three evaluators reflect that the guarantee was factor in scoring. However, the comments also reflect that it was not the only consideration. Accepted in part. Part relating to GTE rejected as unnecessary. Last sentence rejected in that letter is not in the exhibit cited. 42-51. Accepted generally. 52. Rejected as unnecessary. 53-54. Accepted generally that Consultec had computer equipment costs in installation phase. Unnecessary. Accepted generally. Unnecessary. Unnecessary. 59-60. Accepted generally. 61-80. Accepted generally. 81-82. Unnecessary. Consultec's proposed findings of fact 1-18. Accepted. 19. Accepted, except as to date and when scoring was begun. 20-38. Accepted generally. 39. Accepted generally, except third from last sentence. 40-42. Accepted generally. Rejected, in that was not reflected in information known at time of evaluation. Accepted generally. Rejected as unnecessary, but accepted as true. 46-55. Accepted to the degree necessary considering Ms. Clark's testimony was not credible. 56-98. Accepted generally but included in order only to the degree necessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire M. Stephen Turner, Esquire BROAD AND CASSEL 300 E. Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Jann Johnson, Esquire Steven C. Emmanuel, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE CAROTHERS AND PROCTOR Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. Michael Madsen, Esquire James Hauser, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH AND MADSEN First Florida Bank Building Suite 701 215 South Monroe Street P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Florida Department of Transportation to award the bid on State Project No. 79002-3429, for construction of a highway project, SRI- 95/11th Interchange, in Volusia County, Florida, to PCL Civil Constructors, Inc., departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) issued an Invitation To Bid (ITB) on State Project No. 79002-3429 (Project), construction of a highway project--SRI-95/11th Interchange in Volusia County, Florida. The project is 100 percent federally funded. On July 28, 1993, the bid letting was held. The apparent lowest bidder was Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. (Petitioner), with a bid of $10,480,685.71, and the apparent second lowest bidder was PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. (Intervenor), with a bid of $10,794,968.22 1/ Included as a requirement of the bid by Respondent was a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of 12 percent. On its face, Petitioner's bid met and exceeded the DBE goal with an intended DBE utilization of 12.2 percent. However, one of Petitioner's DBEs, Gearing Engineering (Gearing), was not certified by Respondent as a DBE. Without Gearing, Petitioner fell short of the DBE goal. The bid specifications in the ITB provided in a section entitled "Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" that only DBEs certified by Respondent at the time that the bid is submitted will be counted toward the DBE goal. At the time Petitioner submitted its bid, Gearing had for the first time filed an application with Respondent to be certified as a DBE. At no time prior to this had Gearing been certified as a DBE by Respondent even though it had received certification as a minority business from local government. By the bid letting, Gearing had not been certified as a DBE by Respondent. On July 29, 1993, representatives of Respondent contacted Petitioner to inform it of the DBE problem and to inquire about its good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal. Petitioner responded the same day by written communication indicating, among other things, that it had contacted Gearing about its DBE status and that Gearing informed Petitioner that Respondent's DBE office had informed Gearing that it was appropriate for Gearing to submit a proposal and that certification was required, not at the time of submitting the proposal, but at the time work began. In the communication, Petitioner offered to substitute two certified DBEs for Gearing if Respondent determined Gearing could not be used. Also, Petitioner included with its response a letter from Gearing outlining the communication it (Gearing) had had with Respondent. Petitioner is no stranger to Respondent's bid process as it has prequalified to contract with Respondent and has been doing business within the State of Florida full-time for approximately five and one-half years. 2/ At no time prior to submitting its bid, did Petitioner contact Respondent's DBE office to determine Gearing's DBE status. Petitioner depended wholly upon the representation made by Gearing. Petitioner's division manager, who approved Petitioner's bid proposal for submission, directed his subordinates to only use DBEs certified by Respondent and appearing in Respondent's DBE Directory (Directory) when Petitioner was attempting to reach a DBE goal set by Respondent in a bid. The subordinates knew that Gearing was not in the Directory but failed to inform the division manager of Geary's non-certificate, deciding instead to depend on the representation made by Gearing. Had the division manager known of Geary's non- certification, he would have chosen another DBE from the list of DBEs on his selection list that were certified. Once a business becomes certified by Respondent as a DBE, it is added to a list of certified DBEs maintained by Respondent. A printed list of Respondent certified DBEs--DBE Directory--is provided to bidders, prior to the submitting of bids, so that bidders will know what businesses are certified and when their current certification expires. If a business appears in the DBE Directory for a bid, even though its certification may be listed as expiring before the bid letting date, the business can be included as a DBE on the bid. This procedure is used by Respondent because a renewal application may have been timely filed by a certified DBE, but Respondent may not have completed its renewal process at the time of printing of the Directory or that Respondent may not have timely furnished a certified DBE with a renewal notice or may not have received notification by return receipt that the DBE had received the renewal notice. Therefore, the DBE is retained on the list during Respondent's review process. 3/ Even if a DBE is found by Respondent to no longer meet the DBE requirements, if that DBE was on the DBE Directory at the time of a bid submission and used by a bidder for a project, the bidder would not be penalized. Furthermore, a business not appearing on the DBE Directory may become certified after the list is printed, but before bid submission deadline, and, therefore, be eligible to submit a proposal to a bidder for the particular project named. The DBE Directory also contemplates this situation by directing bidders on the first page of the Directory to contact Respondent directly if the status of a business, as a certified DBE, is in question, whether the business is listed or not. Moreover, Respondent informs bidders in the front of the Directory, printed in noticeable type, i.e., all capitalizations and boldtype, that only DBEs certified by Respondent will be counted towards meeting Respondent's DBE goals. At no time did Respondent's DBE office inform Gearing that it could submit a proposal on the Project without first receiving certification from Respondent as a DBE. The testimony of Respondent's operations and management consultant in its DBE office, who is the individual with whom Gearing communicated, is credible that anyone inquiring about a business submitting a proposal as a DBE to a bidder must first be certified by Respondent as a DBE in order to submit proposals on Respondent's contracts. Further, Respondent's continuous practice and procedure is to require DBE certification before a business can submit a qualified proposal as a DBE. Moreover, it is readily apparent that there was a miscommunication between the principals (husband and wife) of Gearing, causing a misinterpretation of what Gearing could or could not do before being certified. The subordinate principal (husband) who directly communicated telephonically with the DBE office denied that the DBE office informed him that Gearing could submit a proposal as a DBE before it was certified; whereas, the majority principal (wife) believed that he (husband) had informed her that Gearing could submit a proposal as a DBE during the pendency of its DBE application and she so informed Petitioner. On August 4, 1993, Respondent's Good Faith Efforts Review Committee reviewed the bids, including Petitioner's documents submitted on July 29, 1993. Its recommendation was (a) to declare Petitioner's bid nonresponsive due to Petitioner not meeting the DBE goal and not being able to document a good faith effort in attempting to meet the goal and (b) to award the bid to Intervenor. When the DBE goal is not met, the bid specifications in the section entitled "Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" provide that awarding the contract is conditioned upon the bidder demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goal, with the documentation being submitted with the bid. Furthermore, the said section enumerates what information will be considered in evaluating good faith efforts and provides that failure to show good faith efforts will result in disqualification of the bidder. The bid documents contain a DBE Utilization Summary form which displays a notice providing that, if the DBE goal is not met, documentation must be included with the bid to demonstrate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal, and if they are not included, the bid may be considered nonresponsive. Although good faith effort documents are to be submitted with the bids, generally, they are not because a bidder believes the goal has been met, as evidenced by its DBE percentage. Consequently, no bidder has been able to document good faith efforts when a good faith effort question arises after bid submission. Petitioner did not submit good faith effort documents with its bid because it believed that it had met, and even exceeded, Respondent's DBE goal. On August 11, 1993, Respondent's Technical Review Committee reviewed the bids and the accompanying recommendation. It concurred with the recommendation of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. On August 17, 1993, Respondent's Contract Award Committee reviewed the bids and the recommendations. It concurred with the recommendation of the Technical Review Committee, i.e., declaring Petitioner's bid nonresponsive for failure to meet the DBE goal and awarding the contract to Intervenor. On September 3, 1993, Respondent posted its notice of intent to award the contract for the Project to Intervenor. Petitioner timely filed a protest to the intended action. Respondent has filed a proposed rule change which would change the way it handles bidders attempting to meet DBE requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Transportation enter its final order awarding State Project No. 79002-3429, for construction of a highway project, SRI-95/11th Interchange, in Volusia County, Florida, to PCL Civil Constructors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 28th day of December 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Transportation (DOT), should award State Project No. 97160-3320 to Intervenor, Smith & Company (Smith), notwithstanding the bid protest filed by the Petitioner, Hubbard Construction Company (Hubbard), alleging that its bid was responsive and lower than Smith's bid.
Findings Of Fact State Project No. 97160-3320 (the project) is for work on the Polk County Parkway in Polk County. This project is funded entirely with state funds. It had a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal of twelve percent, consisting of four percent black, and eight percent non-minority female. The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) manages two separate DBE programs--a federal DBE program for federally funded projects, and a state DBE program for state-funded projects. The state program is based upon a disparity study conducted by MGT of America for the DOT in 1993. This study was conducted as a result of the case of City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 109 S.Ct. 706 (1989), which determined that a preferential contract system which was not based on actual discrimination was unconstitutional. The MGT disparity study found that there was evidence of disparate treatment by DOT in Florida, and in a very small number of counties outside of Florida. As a result, the state DBE program only certifies DBEs with home offices in Florida or the other counties identified in the disparity study. The DOT publishes a DBE directory for each bidding cycle. The DBE Directory includes DBEs certified or in the process of renewing expired certifications at the time the directory is published. The DBE directory includes DBEs for both the federal and state DBE programs but clearly indicates which DBEs are approved only for projects with at least some federal funding. Under DOT's policies and practices, a bidder can use any approved DBE listed in the directory even if the DBE's certification expires between publication and the bid letting. The deadline for submission of bids for the project was October 29, 1997. Hubbard's initial bid included a DBE Utilization Summary form indicating that it would achieve the DBE goal established for the project. The DBE Utilization Summary form gave Hubbard notice that another DBE Utilization Summary form listing the DBEs Hubbard would use, along with the dollar amounts of the subcontracts for each DBE listed, together with completed DBE Utilization forms for each DBE, had to be received by the DOT no later than 5 p.m. on the third business day after the bid letting. The DBE Utilization Summary form also gave notice that, otherwise: "Bids may be declared non-responsive . . . ." On November 3, 1997, Hubbard submitted a completed DBE Utilization Summary form, together with completed DBE Utilization forms. These forms stated that Hubbard stated would be using Suncoast Fabrics for erosion control work to meet $160,000 worth of the non- minority female goal for the project. Without the subcontract with Suncoast Fabrics, Hubbard would fall $160,000 short of meeting the non-minority female goal. In fact, Suncoast is not certified as a DBE for projects funded entirely by the State (i.e., without any federal funding). As a result, Hubbard's bid was $160,000 short of meeting the non-minority female goal for the project. After November 3, 1997, Hubbard discovered its error in relying on Suncoast Fabrics as a DBE for the project and on November 5, 1997, submitted another DBE Utilization Summary form and DBE Utilization form stating that, instead of paying Suncoast $160,000 for erosion control work, it would pay Margie Woods Trucking an additional $160,000. Hubbard's bid was reviewed by the DOT's Good Faith Efforts Committee of the DOT's Minority Programs Office for compliance with the project's DBE goals and was found to be non- responsive because Hubbard's DBE utilization forms relied on Suncoast Fabrics, which was not an approved DBE for state-funded projects and because, without Suncoast Fabric's participation, Hubbard's bid did not meet the project's DBE goals. Hubbard did not submit a package to demonstrate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goals (because Hubbard thought its bid met the DBE goals). The Good Faith Efforts Committee found that Hubbard's bid did not demonstrate good faith efforts to meet the DBE goals, a finding which Hubbard does not dispute. The Good Faith Efforts Committee did not consider Hubbard's November 5, 1997, submission attempting to substitute Suncoast Fabric's participation with an increase in Margie Woods Trucking's participation because it was submitted after the deadline for submitting DBE utilization forms. The findings and recommendations of the Good Faith Efforts Committee were submitted to the DOT's Technical Review Committee. The Technical Review Committee concurred with the Good Faith Efforts Committee that the apparent low bid and second low bid were non-responsive and that the project should be awarded to Smith. The findings and recommendations of the Technical Review Committee were submitted to the DOT's Contract Awards Committee. The Contract Awards Committee concurred with the Good Faith Efforts Committee and the Technical Review Committee that the apparent low bid and the apparent second low bid were nonresponsive, and awarded the contract to Smith. None of the DOT committees reviewing Hubbard's bid in the process of deciding to award the contract to Smith gave specific consideration to the question whether Hubbard's failure to timely submit DBE utiJization forms meeting the project's DBE goals should be waived as being a minor irregularity. The Department's policy is to strictly enforce the three-day period for submission of completed DBE utilization forms and to consider failure to submit DBE utilization forms meeting a project's DBE goals to be a material error mandating rejection of a bid as non- responsive. From January 1995 through December 1997, the Department rejected 18 out of 254 problem bids because the bids failed to meet DBE goals. The DOT rejected the bid of Edward M. Chadbourne and Associates in a prior letting on facts very similar to those in this case. Chadbourne proposed Suncoast Sod Farms, Inc., a DBE firm based in Alabama, for a project wholly funded by the state. As reflected in the DBE Directory for that letting, Suncoast Sod was not eligible for non-federally funded projects. In two prior state-funded projects for the Polk County Parkway, Suncoast Fabrics had been used by a contractor in its DBE submissions. The Department allowed the use of Suncoast Fabrics to count towards the contractor's DBE percentage because the DBE Directory for those projects erroneously failed to indicate that Suncoast Fabrics was certified as a DBE only for federally-funded projects. Similarly, the DOT awarded a contract to Murphree Bridge Corporation in a prior letting although Murphree did not meet the three percent DBE goal for that project. In that case, DOT advertisements prior to the letting erroneously stated that the goal was two percent, and Murphree met the advertised goal but not the actual 3 percent goal. In the two prior instances involving Suncoast Fabrics and the prior instance involving Murphree Bridge, the DOT declined to penalize the contractors for DOT's errors. However, there was no change in DOT's policy regarding the three-day period for submission of completed DBE utilization forms that meet a project's DBE goals. In addition, in those instances, DOT was unable to count the DBE utilization for purposes of its affirmative action program, for which it must report to the legislature. Suncoast Fabrics apparently did not realize it was not approved for state-funded contracts, and it misled Hubbard when Hubbard inquired as to Suncoast's DBE eligibility. But regardless whether Suncoast had an excuse for its erroneous belief, it was Hubbard's responsibility to use the DBE Directory to verify whether a DBE is authorized for use on a particular project, and the applicable DBE Directory clearly noted that Suncoast Fabrics was not approved for this project. In fact, Suncoast Fabrics was appropriately identified as not qualifying for state-funded projects in each DBE Directory since March 1997. DOT made no statement, representation or indication of any kind to Hubbard that would have misled Hubbard to think that Suncoast Fabrics was qualified as a DBE for State Project No. 97160- 3320. In this regard, Hubbard's situation is significantly different from the two prior instances involving Suncoast Fabrics, the prior instance involving Murphree Bridge. The Department did not intend for bidders to use the three- day period for submission of completed DBE Utilization forms to shop DBEs' prices, attempt to drive DBEs' prices down, or continue to solicit quotes from DBEs. The Department has no statute, rule, procedure, or policy permitting substitution of DBEs more than three days after a bid letting and before work begins. The Department does not permit substituting DBEs after an award is posted unless the DBE fails to perform, and then only with the express prior approval of the Department. Allowing a bidder the ability to shop DBEs' prices, attempt to drive DBEs' prices down, or continue to solicit quotes from DBEs after the three-day period could give the bidder a competitive advantage over bidders who do not. The amount of the bid submitted by a contractor can be affected by the bids it received from DBEs. The bid submitted may be based upon quotes received from particular DBEs. If one contractor were allowed to use an unqualified DBE whose price was low, and the other contractors did not rely on such quote, knowing that the DBE was unqualified, the first contractor could enjoy a competitive advantage. Although Hubbard asserted that it did not decide which DBEs to use until after its bid was submitted, the possibility of an advantage exists. Hubbard also contends that its failure to submit DBE Utilization forms meeting the DBE goal for the project is similar to Smith's alleged error in submitting a single DBE Utilization Summary form for both of the split goals (black and non-minority female), contrary to the instructions for the form. Suffice it to say that submitting the information on a single form is different from Hubbard's error. It is clear from Smith's submission that Smith's bid met the project's DBE goals; it was clear from Hubbard's bid that Hubbard's did not. DOT's decision to reject Hubbard's bid for failure to comply with the DBE requirements was not contrary to statute, rule, policy, practice or the bid specifications. Hubbard did not show that the Department's action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order awarding State Project No. 97160-3320 to Smith & Company. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Alan Cummings, Esquire Cummings & Thomas, P.A. Post Office Box 1116 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302-1116 Paul Sexton, Esquire Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
