The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s proposed award of a contract to Intervenor is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications, pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 15, 2002, Respondent advertised for bids for Contract E4D18 (ITB). The ITB requires bidders to submit their bids with a bid bond and power of attorney no later than 11:00 a.m. on March 8, 2002. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted bids at the specified location. Petitioner’s bid price was $2,094,748.99, and Intervenor’s bid price was $2,095,530.00. Petitioner and Intervenor have standing to participate in this case. In preparing its bid, Petitioner obtained a bid bond and power of attorney from Great American Insurance Company through its local bonding agent, Nielson, Alter and Associates. (All references to bid bonds shall mean the bid bond and accompanying power of attorney.) Nielson, Alter and Associates and its predecessor has provided bid bonds for Petitioner for 12 years. Pursuant to its standard business practice, Petitioner received the bid bond from Nielson, Alter and Associates the day prior to the deadline for submitting bids. The bond was in proper form, duly authorized, and validly executed, so it was enforceable upon delivery from Petitioner to Respondent. If Petitioner in fact delivered the bond with the bid on the following day, Respondent would have no basis to reject Petitioner’s bid as unresponsive. Petitioner’s employee responsible for assembling and delivering Petitioner’s bid has been so employed by Petitioner for three and one-half years. She testified that she placed the bid bond in the package with the bid itself, sealed the package, drove it to the assigned location, and submitted the sealed bid package to Respondent by 10:30 a.m. on March 8, 2002. Respondent’s employees accepted Petitioner’s sealed bid package and, without opening it, placed it in a locked filing cabinet, where they placed the three other timely submitted bids for the subject project. At 11:00 a.m.--the time specified for the opening of bids--one of Respondent’s employees removed the four sealed bid packages and took them to the conference room for the opening of the bids in response to the ITB. At the same time and place, Respondent’s employees were opening 21 other bids in response to five other invitations to bid on projects unrelated to the subject project. The conference room was small and contained a table. On one side of the table sat three of Respondent’s employees, who remained with the bid packages continuously from when they arrived in the conference room until, after they were opened, they were taken upstairs to a data processing center. On the other side of the table sat Petitioner’s employee and a representative of another bidder. The 25 bid packages were in six separate piles, divided by project. One of Respondent’s employees opened each bid and handed it to a second employee who announced the name of the bidder and the amount of the bid. The second employee then passed the bid to the third employee who recorded the bid. As was consistent with Respondent’s past practice, no one announced whether each bid was complete. At the end of the opening of the bids in response to the ITB, Respondent’s employee announced that Intervenor had submitted the lowest bid. Due to a mathematical error in Intervenor’s bid, it appeared from the cover sheets that Intervenor’s bid was the lowest. Only later, after the mathematical error was corrected, did Respondent’s employees discover that Petitioner had submitted the lowest bid. After Petitioner’s employee and the representative of the other bidder had left the conference room, Respondent’s three employees examined the bid packages more closely. They could not find the bid bond in Petitioner’s bid package, nor could they find the bid bond in the bid package of a bidder for one of the other contracts. The first of Respondent’s employees to discover that she could not find the bid bond in Petitioner’s bid package reexamined Petitioner’s bid package in search of the documents. The three employees then checked inside every envelope for the documents that were missing from the bid packages of Petitioner and the other bidder, but they could not find the missing documents. It was highly unusual for a bid bond to be missing from a bid package and probably unprecedented for bid bonds to be missing from two bids for separate jobs opened at the same time. Consistent with their practice then and now, Respondent’s employees separated the bidders’ checks from the bid packages and placed the checks in a secure location. Consistent with their practice then and now, one of Respondent’s employees then delivered the remainder of each bid package to the data processing center upstairs. Consistent with their practice then, but not now, Respondent’s employees did not document that the bid bond was missing for several days after the bid opening. Petitioner contends that Respondent’s employees did not discover that the bid bond was missing until days after the bid opening. Petitioner reasons, in part, that Respondent’s employees were not as attentive to Petitioner’s bid because they thought that it was only the second lowest bid. Petitioner contends that the discovery of the missing bid bond several days after its submittal provides Respondent’s employees with considerable opportunity to mishandle the bid package and inadvertently misplace the bid bond. In support of its contention that Respondent’s employees did not immediately discover the missing bid bond, Petitioner offered the testimony to this effect of its president and proffered similar testimony of another witness. The bases of this testimony were separate statements from the employee who supervised the three employees who opened, announced, and recorded the bids. However, this testimony, even from both witnesses, could not overcome the clear and unequivocal testimony of all three of Respondent’s employees that they discovered that Petitioner’s bid package was missing the bid bond on the day of the bid opening. Any statement to the contrary by Respondent's supervisory employee may have been based on her misrecollection or ignorance of the facts or misunderstanding of the questions posed to her, although it is also possible that both listeners separately misunderstood what she was saying. A bid bond is a crucial component of a bid. Its omission confers a competitive advantage upon a bidder, which, after bid opening, could elect not to cure the omission and thus be relieved of the obligation that it otherwise appeared to have offered to undertake by submitting its bid. Intervenor's post-hearing memorandum adds a perceptive discussion of the dullness of memory when attesting to a matter of routine, as was the testimony of Petitioner's employee who "always" attached bid bonds to bids, compared to the vividness of memory when attesting to a rare deviation from routine, as was the testimony of Respondent's three employees who were startled to find that bid bonds were missing from two bid packages, looked for the missing documents, and could not find them. On the present record, it would be slightly less troubling to find that Petitioner's bid package lacked the bid bond, but, as noted below, the burden of proof is on Petitioner, so it suffices to find that Petitioner has failed to prove that its bid package contained the bid bond.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner and awarding the contract to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Barbara Gasper Hines Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Joseph W. Lawrence, II Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 360 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 F. Alan Cummings Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589
The Issue Whether Respondent's action to reject all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-206, relating to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Pinellas Park High School, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, as alleged in the Amended Petition.
Findings Of Fact On March 4, 2013, ITB was issued by Respondent for work related to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Pinellas Park High School in Largo, Florida. According to the Special Conditions portions of the ITB, the "scope" of the project is to "[p]rovide labor and materials to remove and replace the auditorium sound system as per plans and specifications by Keane Acoustics, Inc." The ITB was assigned bid number 13-803-206 by Respondent. Bids for the contract were to be submitted to Respondent by 3:00 p.m., April 11, 2013. Bids for the project were timely received from two companies. The first company, Becker Communications, Inc., d/b/a BCI Integrated Solutions (BCI), submitted a bid in the amount of $130,756.66. Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of $116,000.00. There is a section of the ITB titled "special conditions." The special conditions provide in part that "[t]his is an ALL or NONE bid [and] [t]he entire contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications." On April 22, 2013, Respondent posted a notice advising of its intent to award the contract to BCI. Although Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive because the bid failed to include "proof of 5 years [of] experience with this type of work" as required by the special conditions of the ITB. Petitioner interpreted this provision as requiring five years of experience as a certain type of general contractor, which Petitioner had, whereas Respondent intended for the ITB to convey that five years of experience related to the removal and installation of audio equipment was the desired type of experience. Petitioner's failure to respond to the ITB in the manner contemplated by Respondent was a technical, nonmaterial irregularity.1/ Numbered paragraph six of the General Terms & Conditions of the ITB provides in part that Respondent "expressly reserves the right to reject any bid proposal if it determines that the . . . experience of the bidder, compared to work proposed, justifies such rejection." On April 24, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent a notice advising of its intent to protest the award of the contract to BCI. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner filed its formal protest challenging Respondent's intended action of awarding the contract to BCI. Petitioner's formal protest enumerated several grounds. Of particular concern to Respondent were Petitioner's assertions that the ITB was "inconsistent with Florida law since bidders [were] not required to submit a List of Subcontractors by the time of opening bid"2/ and that provisions of the ITB were ambiguous with respect to the type of experience required to qualify for bidding.3/ Prior to receiving Petitioner's protest, Respondent was unaware of the fact that its bid specifications governing the disclosure of subcontractors did not comply with Florida law. Upon consideration of Petitioner's grounds for protest, Respondent determined that the ITB, as alleged by Petitioner, failed to comply with section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (2012),4/ and that there was ambiguity in the language regarding the experience requirements for bidders.5/ Respondent refers to the problems with the ITB as "procedural errors." These procedural errors will be referred to herein as "irregularities" as this term is more in keeping with the nomenclature of this area of jurisprudence. Given the ITB's irregularities, Respondent decided to reject all bids. In explaining Respondent's rationale for rejecting all bids, Michael Hewett, Respondent's Director of Maintenance,6/ testified that "the [irregularities] were such that [they] potentially could give an unfair advantage to one bidder over another." As for the issue related to the requirements of section 255.0515, Mr. Hewett explained that neither of the two bidders submitted a listing of subcontractors. It would have been competitively disadvantageous to BCI if Petitioner were able to successfully argue that BCI should be disqualified for failing to provide a listing of subcontractors when Petitioner also failed to provide such listing. During the same approximate time that the ITB in the present case was issued, Respondent issued an ITB for nearly identical work to be performed at one of its other facilities (Palm Harbor). In all material respects, the Palm Harbor ITB was identical to the one at issue herein. Unlike the present case, BCI was the sole bidder for the Palm Harbor project and this distinguishing fact reasonably explains why Respondent did not reject BCI's bid for the Palm Harbor Project even though the ITB therein was plagued with the same irregularities found in the present case.7/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that the rejection of all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-206 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing Tamco Electric, Inc.'s instant protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL 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 7th day of September, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an invitation to bid (ITB) and solicited bids for district-wide miscellaneous property management maintenance services pursuant to ITB-DOT-94-95-4004. Kemp Services, Inc. (Kemp), submitted the lowest bid for the subject ITB. Petitioner, Urban Group, Inc., submitted the second lowest bid for the subject ITB. Section 1.1 of the ITB provided: Invitation The State of Florida Department of Transport- ation requests written bids from qualified firms to MAINTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS BY PROVIDING CLEAN-UP SERVICES, LAWN SERVICES, LANDSCAPE SERVICES, SECURING OF BUILDINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS HANDYMAN AND SKILLED LABOR SERVICES. ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR SIGN REMOVAL FOR STRUCTURES ILLEGALLY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ILLEGALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE COUNTY AREA: BROWARD, MARTIN, PALM BEACH, ST. LUCIE AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES. For the purpose of this document, the term "bidder" means the prime Consultant acting for itself and those individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations comprising the bidder's team by joint venture or subcontract. The term "bid package" means the complete response of the bidder to the Invitation To Bid, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation. [Emphasis in text.] The services were to be provided on an as-needed basis for the term of the agreement, two years. Section 1.7.1 of the ITB provided: Qualifications 1.7.1 Bidders must meet the following minimum qualifications: BIDDERS MUST HAVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE PROVIDING AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE SIX SERVICES OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IN EXHIBIT "A". BIDDERS MUST HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS BUSINESS FOR THE PAST TWO (2) YEARS AND COMPLETE FORM "F" WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED REGARDING WORK EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES. ALL REFERENCES WILL BE CHECKED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE FORM "F" AND THE WORK EXPERIENCE REQUESTED WILL CONSTITUTE A NON- RESPONSIVE BID. [Emphasis in text.] Section 1.7.4 of the ITB provided: Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise accepted by the Department's Contract Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the bid package. Section 1.7.5 of the ITB provided: Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the bid due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Other than the provisions above, no other licensure or authorization to do business was required by the ITB. Section 1.8.2 of the ITB provided: Responsiveness of Bids All bids must be in writing. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. Bids may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A bid may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional bids, incomplete bids, indefinite or ambiguous bids, improper undated or unsealed signatures (where applicable). Section 1.8.4 of the ITB provided: Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of bids include evidence of collusion among bidders, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Bids will be rejected if not delivered or received on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. Section 1.8.5 of the ITB provided: Waivers The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other bidders. Minor irregular- ities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Bids by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Section 1.18.1 of the ITB provided: Award of the Contract The Department intends to award a contract to the responsible and responsive bidder who bids the lowest cost as identified in Form "C", Bid Blank, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The ITB did not specify a minimum number of employees, vehicles or hours of service for a bidder to be deemed responsible or responsive. At all times material to this case, Kemp has been in continuous business for the past two (2) years, and completed form "F" with the information requested regarding work experience and references. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. At all times material to this case, Kemp had at least two years experience providing at least two (2) of the six services outlined in the scope of services. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. While Mr. Gentile was authorized to check with all references listed by Kemp, the failure to do so does not discount the information obtained from the sources that were checked. Kemp had an appropriate occupational license to perform work in the tricounty area, but did not have occupational licenses with the City of Hollywood or Broward County. At all times material to this case, Kemp maintained a warehouse to secure the equipment to be used such as lawnmowers, trimmers, and cleaning supplies/equipment. After the bid protest was filed, the Department verified that Kemp had used the warehouse as it claimed. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The mailing address Kemp listed on the first page of its bid response was 8637 S. Sutton Drive, Miramar, Florida. Mr. Faluade resides at that address. He listed that address for mail purposes. The business address for Kemp listed on the bid response was 6200 Johnson Street, Miramar, Florida. This address is a store-front facility with limited office equipment and furniture. Kemp maintains an office at this location but stores its equipment elsewhere as noted above. Kemp was the lowest responsive, responsible bid for ITB-DOT-94-95- 4004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the award of ITB-DOT-94-95-4004 to Kemp Services, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5967 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 4, 6, and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 5, 7, and 16 noting that the additional emphasis is not in the text and that the citations are incomplete (and perhaps misleading), they are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. Corporate documents may have been filed on that date, however, the weight of the credible evidence established that Kemp had been in business the requisite amount of time. Paragraph 12 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The business conducted by the Kemp personnel continued regardless of the business entity structure that was used. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence was presented to establish that Kemp did not provide services as described in the ITB or that it was not in business the requisite time. Paragraph 17 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The mailing address listed by Kemp was a residential address. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Kemp probably does not have a Leon County occupational license either. It did have an appropriate occupational license at all times material to this case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Duffy Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mitchell B. Polay Mark H. Klein 750 S.E. Third Avenue Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. It was formed in October, 1973 and is in the business of building bridges throughout west/central Florida. It is an independent construction company which specializes solely in bridge and fender construction. Its business relies solely on contracts from public authorities, especially the Respondent herein. On March 19, 1984, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Petitioner and its president, Gerald H. Stanley were convicted of violating Title 15, United States Code, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, for participating in a conspiracy to rig bids by DOT on June 27, 1979. Petitioner was fined $50,000.00 and Mr. Stanley was fined $20,000.00, ordered to perform 200 hours of community service and placed on three years unsupervised probation. Petitioner did not renew its Certificate of Qualification to bid on Florida bridge projects when it expired on or about April 30, 1984. However, on June 12, 1984, both Petitioner and Mr. Stanley filed a Petition for a determination that they are eligible to apply for and hold a Certificate of Qualification under the provision of Section 337.165(2)(d), Florida Statutes, alleging such reapplication to be in the public interest. Marine Structures, Inc. adopted a formal, written antitrust compliance policy in July, 1984, and the record fails to show any instance of bid rigging or antitrust involvement since the one incident in June, 1979. Because of the limited number of companies involved in the road and bridge construction business, the existing companies, who were formerly involved in bidding misconduct, must, of necessity, deal with each other, but there is no indication or reason to assume that such necessary dealings will result in future misconduct. In addition to the written antitrust compliance policy referenced above, Marine has also taken remedial action to assure that all of its employees conduct their business activities in strict compliance with the law and the rules and regulations of both the state and federal governments. Due to Marine's inability to bid on DOT contracts, it has suffered and continues to suffer extreme financial hardship. In its past dealings with DOT, it has performed quality work and has cooperated fully with the Department. DOT indicates it has not been made aware of any particular circumstances involving Marine's or Mr. Stanley's participation in the instant bid rigging incident which would make that incident any more detrimental to DOT than any of the bid rigging conspiracies by the 26 other companies which have been reinstated by the Department. These 26 companies which have been reinstated, submitted themselves to DOT's independent investigations and agreed to comply with the safeguards required in their individual cases to help to assure that contract crimes would not occur on Department projects. Mr. Stanley, on behalf of Marine Structures, Inc., has offered the same assurances. In a letter dated May 1, 1985, to the Secretary, Department of Transportation, the Honorable Jim Smith, Attorney General of the State of Florida, indicated that though Respondent has, in a confidential sworn statement to attorneys for the State, denied any involvement in bid rigging activities other than in connection with that of which he was convicted in federal court, the State investigation, in the opinion of the Attorney General, raises substantial doubt as to the truth of Mr. Stanley's denials of misconduct. The Attorney General indicates that in an effort to resolve this apparent inconsistency, Mr. Stanley was asked, through his counsel, to take a polygraph examination which he refused. Mr. Stanley denies having refused to take the polygraph at any time. Further, the Attorney General relates that Marine Structures, Inc. has not offered to pay any amount of damages to the State, yet Mr. Stanley contends that he has never, to this day, been asked to make any reimbursement or restitution to the State. Mr. Stanley, on behalf of the Petitioner, does not deny that he committed error and that this error constituted an offense against the state and federal governments. He tells a story, however, regarding it which puts it in a somewhat less serious light than is described by the State. According to Mr. Stanley, he gave a bid figure to two other contractors, who he had previously asked to subcontract in his bid, over which they should bid in order to assure Petitioner of having the lowest bid of the three on this particular contract. Both other contractors, Mr. Carroll and Mr. Conner, submitted bids which were higher than that of Petitioner as did a four potential contractor, Square G, and notwithstanding this, Petitioner's bid was lower than the State estimate. In light of this factor he contends that his misconduct, while technically a violation for which he was tried and convicted, did not cost the State one extra cent. He regrets having done it and would not do it again. Both Carroll and Conner, the two other contractors involved with Petitioner in this incident, pleaded guilty and were convicted, but both have been reinstated as eligible bidders on State work. As to the letter of the Attorney General, Mr. Stanley contends that the comment regarding his veracity relates to a situation involving his testimony before the Attorney General's staff about the Citrus County project. Though he had been advised he would be asked about that specific project, in reality, the questions he was asked related to a different project in Alachua County on which he had bid but which involved no bid rigging on his part. Mr. Stanley contends he told his interrogators what he knew but they were not satisfied as to his knowledge regarding another bidder by the name of Hewitt. His denials of any knowledge of Hewitt's bid were not believed and Mr. Stanley feels he was somewhat threatened by members of the Attorney General's staff who reportedly indicated they would keep him off the bidder's list for some time and would "break" him. He contends that he has cooperated fully with state and federal prosecutors not only because of his desire to be reinstated, but also because the terms of his federal probation require him to cooperate fully. He has, in fact, met with state and federal attorneys on two occasions without being subpoenaed, has made his records available to investigative authorities, and has made copies of any documents desired by the investigators. Other than the one incident involved herein, Mr. Stanley contends that neither he nor his company have ever been involved in any other bid rigging situation. He has given statements to both the Florida Attorney General's office and the Antitrust Division on many occasions other than those referenced in the paragraph above. He has given testimony to a U.S. grand jury and the documents and files which he released to the investigative agencies were released prior to his being granted any immunity from State prosecution by the Attorney General. In short he has cooperated fully with state and federal authorities without holding back any information and will continue to do so even if he is reinstated. He feels, therefore, that it is unnecessary for his reinstatement to be withheld as a threat over his head to coerce testimony from him regarding Mr. Hewitt. Admittedly, neither his personal fine nor that assessed against the company have been paid. He has not, however, been dunned for payment and this is just as well because having been barred from bidding on State business, he is finding it difficult to meet his monthly bills much less pay $70,000.00 in fines. As to the purpose behind the State's manner of handling those companies identified as being involved in bid rigging, the Attorney General very clearly established the action philosophy in a statement made to Florida Trend Magazine on May 29, 1984. In the press release in question he stated: "If we forced these companies into bankruptcy we would not be cleaning up the industry, we'd be abolishing it, putting thousands of employees on the streets and destroying competition in a multi-million dollar industry in which the State is a major purchaser . . . . By obtaining the cooperation of settling defendants we greatly facilitated botch the investigation and the willingness of subsequent defendant to . . . (settle)." Respondent has not shown by any evidence that Petitioner was any worse in its misconduct than any other bidder which has already been reinstated, nor has it exhibited any justification for treating Petitioner more harshly than others.
Findings Of Fact State Project No. 46090-3511 (the project) is for construction of the West Bay Bridge on State Road 79 in Bay County, Florida. Competitive bids on the project were solicited in February, 1990. The bid letting on the project was held in March, 1990. The Petitioner, Fairchild, the Hardaway Company and ten other contractors bid on the project. The Hardaway Company submitted the lowest bid on the project in the amount of $9,487,258.17. Fairchild submitted the next lowest bid in the amount of $9,835,279.34. Divergent Unit Prices and Imbalances. The part of the Hardaway Company's bid relating to construction of the foundation for the approaches to the bridge (the "structural bid") is obviously below reasonable cost in several respects. The contract specifications require the use of sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid (biaxial type 2), and Class III (seal) concrete. The Hardaway Company's unit prices for these items were, respectively, one dollar per cubic yard for the sand fill, fifty cents per cubic yard for the shell fill, twenty-five cents per square yard for the reinforcement grid, and ten cents per cubic yard for the Class III seal concrete. As a result, the Hardaway Company's bid for these items is obviously significantly below reasonable cost and approximately $95,500 below what Fairchild bid for the same portion of the contract. In contrast to the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III concrete, the Hardaway Company's bid on some of the other parts of the structural bid were relatively high. The reinforcing steel for the substructure (Item 415-1-5) was bid at approximately twice reasonable cost (80 a pound versus, e.g., 42 in Fairchild's bid), resulting in $609,936.80 attributable to that part of the bid versus, e.g., $320,216.82 for Fairchild. The statistical average (the DOT's so-called "average 2") for the other serious bidders under this item also was 42 a pound. The Hardaway Company also bid obviously in excess of reasonable cost for the lump sum item of mobilization for pile installation--$600,000 versus $125,000 in Fairchild's bid and less in the bids of several of the others bidders. (The statistical average for the other serious bidders under this item was $225,000.) But the Hardaway Company bid only $60,000 for the lump sum item for removal of existing structures (versus $160,000 in Fairchild's bid) and only $30,000 for the lump sum item for removal and disposal of fender system (versus $110,000 in Fairchild's bid). The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to mobilization for the roadway work is significantly less than the Fairchild bid under this item ($200,000 versus $375,000) and partially counterbalances the excess in the part of the Hardaway bid for mobilization for the pile installation. The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to clearing and grubbing also was high, at $20,000 an acre versus a statistical average of $4,200 an acre for the other serious bidders, resulting in $216,000 for the Hardaway Company bid versus, e.g., $32,400 for the Fairchild bid and the $45,360 statistical average. DOT Review Procedures. Section 2-6 of the DOT's Standard Specifications applicable to the project provides: 2-6 Rejection of Irregular Proposals. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditioinal or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. The DOT is in the process of formulating a policy on the use of the Technical Review Committee in the bidding process. A proposed procedure has been developed, which has not yet been made final and has not yet been signed by the Secretary of the DOT, under which the Technical Review Committee would review the low bid on each contract, among other things not applicable to this case, for "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" and for "unbalanced bidding." The DOT has not yet defined "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" or "unbalanced bidding" for purposes of defining the event that triggers review by the Technical Review Committee. The DOT Director of the Office of Construction, Robert Buser, is of the opinion that the unit prices the Hardaway Company bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III seal concrete are "significant irregularities in unit bid prices." On the other hand, the DOT's Preliminary Estimates Engineer, Robert Griner, who, unlike Buser, is a member of both the Technical Review Committee and its Preliminary Technical Subcommittee, and is of the opinion that the Hardaway bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III (seal) concrete are "mathematical imbalances," not "significant irregularities in unit bid prices," which he would define as bids that omit a unit price, whose numerical values do not match words used to express the values, or that are not signed. Under Griner's approach, which was followed in this case, the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee looks at "mathematical imbalances" to see if they are "material imbalances." If the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee decides that it is not a "material imbalance," it simply reports this finding at the outset of the meeting of the Technical Review Committee, which accepts the finding and does not itself consider the matter any further. Only if the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee reports a "material imbalance" does the Technical Review Committee further consider the question. Front-end Bidding. Under the DOT contract for the project, like other items in the specifications, mobilization and land clearing and grubbing are paid in installments as the work proceeds. But, unlike the other items, all of the portion of the contract attributable to mobilization and land clearing and grubbing is paid by the time the entire project is half completed. Similarly, a contractor is paid for reinforcement steel (substructure) when it is delivered to the site. As a result, by shifting dollars in a bid to these "front-end," lump sum items, a contractor can manipulate the bid process and contract to reasonably insure himself of early payment of these inflated items regardless what may happen to the project later. In analyzing these front-end, lump sum items, Griner treated them (along with the unreasonably low bids on the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grids and C III seal concrete) as "mathematical imbalances." Following the guidance of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum, dated May 16, 1988, on the subject of "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids," Griner analyzed the Hardaway bid to be sure it would not be susceptible to cost overruns (it was not) and to be sure the quantities were correctly estimated (they were). He also analyzed the additional cost to the DOT of paying the Hardaway Company early (by the half way point of the project) for the inflated front-end items to determine whether the "mathematical" imbalance was "material," i.e., whether "the mathematically imbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." Based on a twelve percent interest rate, Griner calculated that the inflated front-end items would cost the DOT approximately an additional $98,000, 1/ still much less than the difference between the low Hardaway bid and any other bid. Based on this calculation, Griner concluded that the "mathematical imbalance" in the Hardaway bid was not a "material imbalance" and did not require the award of the bid to Fairchild or one of the other bidders. Griner overlooked and did not apply another portion of the method of analysis in the FHWA memorandum on "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids" that states: There are numerous reasons why a bidder may want to unbalance his/her bid on a contract. One reason is to get more money at the beginning of the project. The bidder does this by overpricing the work done early in the project. This is called "front loading" the contract. The leading case in the "front loading" area is Matter of: Riverport Industries, 64 Comp. Gen. 441 (1985). Here the Comptroller General held that if the bid is front loaded, regardless if it is the lowest bid, it "should be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the bid would result in the same evils as an advance payment. An advance payment is prohibited by law." The "front loading" may also be materially unbalanced due to the cost of money that must be paid out early versus over the normal construction fo the project. Under the Hardaway Company bid, the pile mobilization, the land clearing and grubbing, and the reinforcement steel (substructure) parts of the bid are "front-ended." 2/ Under the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, the Hardaway Company would be paid approximately $428,000 in "advance payments" under these two items if it is awarded the contract. Approximately $375,000 in pile mobilization, $183,600 in land clearing and grubbing, and $289,700 in the reinforcement steel were shifted to these front- end items from the unbalanced sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items. These dollars The shifted dollars are estimated by taking the difference between the statistical average for these items and the Hardaway bid on them. Since roiughly half of the shifted dollars would be paid earlier than they would be paid if they were bid under the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III (seal) concrete items, the amount of "advance payment," under the FHWA analysis would be approximately $428,000. Griner did not explain why he only followed part, but not all, of the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, other than to say he overlooked it. But he also testified that it is common practice for contractors to submit mathematically unbalanced bids, and the DOT always analyzes them the way he did in this case. Indeed, in the March, 1990, bid letting, Griner found "mathematical imbalances" in 21 of the 29 low bids but no "material imbalances." The Fairchild bid also contains "mathematical imbalances." It also "front-ends" several items. The total dollar value of the "front-ending" in the Fairchild bid (including roadway mobilization) closely approximates that found in the Hardaway bid and, under the FHWA analysis, would result in approximately the same amount of advance payment. Under Section 101-2.2 of the DOT's Standard Specifications for this project, contractors are limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total contract for mobilization. The Hardaway Company's total mobilization bid is within the maximum under the specifications. Notwithstanding the imbalances in the Hardaway bid, and the so-called "advance payments" that would result from the "front-ending" in the Hardaway bid, the Hardaway bid remains the lowest and best bid on the project, and it is the best interest of the DOT and the public to award the contract to the Hardaway Company. Even if the Hardaway Company had bid the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items exactly as Fairchild did, Hardaway still would be low bidder. "Value Engineering" and Alleged Alternative or Contingent Bidding. Inferences reasonably could be drawn from the evidence that the Hardaway Company may intend to propose to the DOT that the approach to the bridge be re-engineered so as to eliminate the need for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the C III (seal) concrete. If the DOT accepts such a proposal, the contract between the DOT and the Hardaway Company would have to be modified. If the re-engineered project were to allow the Hardaway Company to do the job for less than its bid price, half (or, if the proposal is innovative or unique, up to 80%) of the savings would be paid to the Hardaway Company under what the DOT calls "value engineering." Under DOT procedures, "value engineering" proposals are not made or evaluated until after the original contract is signed with the successful bidder. It is not an alternative bid or a contingent bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, enter a final order dismissing the bid protest filed by W. R. Fairchild Construction Company, Ltd., and awarding State Project No. 46090-3511 to the Hardaway Company. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "District") advertised for bids on Contract No. M-0137, Bid No. B-85-91, for the construction of a structure maintenance facility. The Specifications and Contract Documents for the project required that bidders submit a "Base Bid," which related to the essential components of the project, and three "add alternates," which related to additional items that the District might contract for over and above the Base Bid. The Notice To Contractors regarding this project included the following language: The right is reserved, as the interest of the District may require, to reject any or all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposal, or to readvertise for other or future proposals. Paragraph 2 of the Instructions To Bidders includes the following language: "The intent of the Proposal Form is to secure a price, based on unit prices, for the work described in the Contract. . . ." (emphasis added) Paragraph 4 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: The District reserves the right to reject any and all proposals (i) when such rejection is in the interest of the District; (ii) if such proposal is void per se; or (iii) if the proposal contains any irregularities, PROVIDED, however, that the District reserves the right to waive any irregularities and to accept the lowest responsible bidder's proposal determined by the Engineer on the basis of the gross sum for which the work will be performed, arrived at by a correct computation of the base bid plus the alternate bid item or items selected by the District. Bid items will be considered by the District on the has is of budgetary capability. (First emphasis in original; second emphasis added.) Paragraph 5 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: Proposals will be considered irregular if they show omissions, unauthorized alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or other irre- gularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are unbalanced either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values, or incomplete in any manner, including failure to bid on all items on the bid form. Paragraph 8 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No proposal can be withdrawn after it is filed unless the Bidder makes his request in writing to the District prior to the time set for the opening of bids, or unless the District fails to accept it within sixty (60) days after the date fixed for opening bids. Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No interpretation of the meaning of the Plans, Specifications or other Contract Documents will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation should be in writing addressed to the Engineering & Construction Division, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, Post Office Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33402, and to be given consideration must be received at least Ten (10) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the Specifications which, if issued, will be mailed by registered mail to all prospective bidders (at the respective addresses furnished for such purposes) not later than Five (5) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Failure of any bidder to receive any such Addendum of interpretation shall not relieve any bidder from any obligation under his bid as submitted. All addenda so issued shall become part of the Contract Documents. The bid items are described in Section 01021 of the Specifications and Contract Documents. Subsection 1.01 of that Section describes what is included in the Base Bid as follows: The Base Bid includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for: Structure Maintenance Facility, complete. Building utilities including all rough-in required for alternate bid items whether or not alternate bids are accepted. Site work including utilities. All other costs of the project not attributable to Items 1 thru 3 above or Alternate Bid Nos. 1 thru 3 below. Subsection 1.02 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 1 as follows: In the Base Bid all structural supports to receive the monorail trolley beams and hoists are included. Alternate No. 1 includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for two 15 ton capacity monorail hoists and trolley beams complete and operational. Work includes all final utility connections to points indicated on drawings, shipping, unloading at site, installation and final check-out and instruction to owner on operation of equipment as well as all other costs not attributable to items previously mentioned. Subsection 1.03 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 2 as follows: In the Base Bid all mechanical and electrical rough-in is to be provided for the two offices and the toilet and locker rooms above. Alternate No. 2 includes all costs over the Base Bid for completing the offices, toilets and locker rooms including all plumbing and lighting fixtures, partitions, lockers finishes, structure and metal stair as indicated and specified in the applicable sections of these specifications. Subsection 1.04 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 3 as follows: The Base Bid includes all site grading to finish elevations indicated. Alternate No. 3 includes all costs over the Base bid for providing subsurface preparation and asphaltic concrete paving to finish elevations indicated as described in Section 02513 for all areas where asphaltic concrete paving is shown. In September of 1984 the District had received bids for a similar project. Similar contract documents and bid forms were used for the project. Cox & Palmer Construction Company, Overland Construction Company, Inc., and Booth Construction, Inc., all submitted bids on the September 1984 project. All of the bids submitted on the September 1984 project, including the Booth bid, were submitted on an add alternates" basis. All of the September 1984 bids were rejected. A total of seven bidders submitted bids on the instant project. With the exception of Booth Construction, Inc., all of the bidders on the instant project calculated their bids on an "add alternates" basis. It was the clear intent of the architecture firm that prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents that the bids should be submitted on an add alternates" basis. There were no irregularities in the bidding process regarding the instant project prior to the opening of the first bid. At the duly appointed time a representative of the District began the process of opening and announcing the amounts of the bids. The first bid to be opened was the bid submitted by Overland Construction Company, Inc. The amounts bid by Overland were as follows: Base Bid $ 378,800 Alternate No. 1 64,000 Alternate No. 2 18,000 Alternate No. 3 11,200 Immediately after the announcement of the amounts bid by Overland, Mr. York, the Director of the District's Engineering and Construction Division, asked, "Is that an add-on or deduct?" Someone in the audience answered that it was an "add-on" bid. Mr. Gerachi, on behalf of Booth, promptly stated that the alternates should have been bid as "deducts". A general discussion ensued among members of the audience regarding whether the alternates should have been bid as "add-on" or "deducts." In order to continue with the bid opening process and to restore order in the room, a representative of the District announced that the matter would be resolved when the bids were tabulated and another representative of the District began the process of opening the rest of the bids. The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was the fourth bid to be opened. The amounts written on the Booth bid were as follows: Base Bid $ 396,586 Alternate No. 1 54,072 Alternate No. 2 14,597 Alternate No. 3 9,185 Immediately after the amounts of the Booth bid were announced, Mr. Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. stood up and stated that the Booth bid had been calculated on the basis of "deduct" alternates. The essence of his statement was that in calculating the amount of his company's Base Bid he had added to the base bid the sum of the three alternate bids with the understanding that the amounts shown for any of the three alternates would be deducted from his Base Bid if the District decided not to award a contract for one or more of the alternates. This statement following the opening of the Booth bid was the first time that anyone on behalf of Booth had made a specific unambiguous statement to representatives of the District responsible for this bidding process regarding the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated. 1/ The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company was opened after the Booth bid. The amounts bid by Cox & Palmer were as follows: Base Bid $ 392,225 Alternate No. 1 38,770 Alternate No. 2 19,200 Alternate No. 3 11,456 The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was prepared by both Vincent Gerachi, an estimator and project manager employed by Booth Construction, Inc., and by Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. Mr. Gerachi has been an estimator on construction projects for approximately 12 years. Mr. Booth has been in the construction business for approximately 30 years and has had his own construction company for about 18 years. Both Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth were uncertain whether the alternate bids were supposed to be bid as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Neither of them attempted to do anything to resolve their uncertainty until the morning of the very day on which bids were to be submitted. On that morning Mr. Gerachi called a representative of the District to ask whether the bid should be prepared with the alternate bids calculated as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Mr. Gerachi spoke to Mr. Brown at the District, who suggested that Mr. Gerachi call the architecture firm that had prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders (see paragraph 6 of these findings of fact, above), it is a customary practice of the trade for bidders to communicate directly with project architects to resolve any uncertainties in the Specifications and Contract Documents. Indeed, it is generally understood in the trade that it is the duty of the bidder to communicate with the project architect to seek resolution of any ambiguities. Mr. Gerachi tried to reach the project architect by telephone, but was unable to reach him because the architect had already left his office to drive to the bid opening. Mr. Gerachi did not have an opportunity to talk to the architect prior to filing the Booth Construction bid because the architect did not come into the bid opening room until about one minute after 2:00 p.m. Mr. Gerachi talked to Mr. and Mrs. Booth before turning in the Booth bid. Mr. Gerachi prepared the Booth bid with the alternate bids calculated as "deducts" from the Base Bid. In other words, the amount of the Base Bid on the Booth bid included the sum of the three alternate bids, which alternate bids were also separately stated on the Booth bid. Alvin Booth participated in the preparation of the bid and was aware of the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated before the bid was submitted to the District. Even though the Base Bid on the Booth bid is in the amount of $396,586, it was the intention of Booth Construction, Inc., to bid $318,732 for the work described as being within the scope of the Base Bid. The reason for the higher amount being entered for the booth Base Bid is that Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth misinterpreted the Specifications and Contract Documents and added to the Booth Base Bid the sum of the Booth bids on each of the three Alternate Bids. 2/ This misinterpretation of the Specifications and Contract Documents was caused by the culpable negligence or willful inattention of Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth. After all of the bids were opened a representative of the District announced that the District would consider the matter and notify all bidders of its decision at a later date. Thereafter the District, having concluded that Booth Construction, Inc., had acted in good faith and that the irregularities in the form of its bid were "minor irregularities," decided to treat the oral statements by Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth as amendments to the Booth bid, to treat the Booth Base Bid as being $318,732, and to award a contract to Booth Construction, Inc., for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $372,804, calculated as follows: $318,732 (Amended Booth Base Bid) 54,072 (Booth Alternate No. 1 Bid) $372,804 (Total Contract) Booth Construction, Inc., has the ability to perform the contract and can perform the contract for the proposed contract amount of $372,804. Booth Construction, Inc., is a responsible bidder. The District estimate of the cost of the work covered by the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 was $329,000. There are no irregularities in the bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company. Cox and Palmer Construction Company is a responsible and responsive bidder. The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer is the lowest responsive bid for the combination of the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1. 3/ The foregoing findings of fact include the substance of the majority of the findings proposed by the parties, although I have rejected a number of unnecessary details and editorial comments in the parties' proposals. Any proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are rejected on the grounds of not being supported by competent substantial evidence or as being contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the irregularities in the Booth Construction, Inc., bid may not be waived and that the bid will be considered, as submitted, to be a Base Bid in the amount of $396,586; Concluding that in view of the foregoing treatment of the Booth bid, the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company is found to be the lowest responsive bid for the Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1; Concluding that the District will accept the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company and enter into a contract with Palmer & Cox Construction Company consistent with the amounts bid by Palmer & Cox Construction Com- pany for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1; and Concluding that the petition of Overland Construction Company, Inc., is dismissed for lack of standing. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
