Findings Of Fact Both DOT and Weekley submitted proposed Recommended Orders. Their proposed findings of fact have generally been adopted here but are addressed in detail in Appendix A, attached and incorporated in this Recommended Order. On or before July 31, 1985, DOT received sealed bids from three bidders for State Project Nos. 86070-3492 and 93220-3403, involving landscaping of interchanges in Broward and Palm Beach counties. Marvin's Garden was the apparent low bidder, with a total of $389,112.19 shown on the face sheet of the bid blank form. Weekley was the next lowest bidder with a total of $419,899.56, and P. J. Constructors, Inc., was the highest bidder with a total of $458,805.90. After review of the bid documents for compliance with DOT bid procedures, a discrepancy was found in the Marvin's Garden bid and DOT notified the parties by letter dated August 20, 1985, that Weekley was the apparent low bidder on the project. The discrepancy was found on page 001 of the bid blank form submitted by Marvin's Garden. For item 570-11, "Water for Plant Establishment," under the column, unit price written in words, Marvin's Garden showed "fourteen thousand two hundred eighty two dollars and sixty six cents." The column, unit price in figures, showed "14,282.66," and the final column, headed "amounts" showed "14,282.16." The bid item was supposed to show the unit price for a thousand gallons of water (which price was to be written in both words and figures) and a total, or extension price for 3,743.125 thousand gallons of water. When the unit price on Marvin's Garden's bid was multiplied by 3,743.125 (number of units), the resulting total price for that bid item was $53,461,781.71. This figure was entered on the form in red ink and was initialled by Raymond Patrick Haverty, the DOT reviewer. Marvin's Garden's total bid for the project was then adjusted to $53,836,611.04, a figure far in excess of either Weekley's or P. J. Constructors' bids. Marvin Gross is the individual responsible for preparing and submitting bids for his corporation. He has been doing bid work for DOT for approximately 20 years and is thoroughly familiar with the bid procedures, forms and standard specifications. He attributes the irregularity on his submission to his "tunnel vision." Unit prices are significant because the quantity designated by DOT is merely an approximate, best guess by the Department engineers. For item 570-II, unpredictable weather conditions will ultimately dictate exactly how much water will be necessary to successfully complete the landscape project. That exact quantity times the unit price will be the basis of payment to the contractor. DOT found no violations of bid requirements in the bids of Weekley and P. J. Constructors, Inc., and none have been raised in this proceeding.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, a final order should be issued declaring Weekley the lowest responsible bidder on project Nos. 86070-3492 and 93220-3403, and the contract awarded accordingly. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 2nd day of December 1985. APPENDIX In accordance with Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, the following are recommended rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent and Intervenor in this case. Respondent's Paragraph: Corresponding R. O. Paragraph or basis for rejection: The corporate status and the addresses of the bidders are not material. See Paragraph 1, R.O. See Paragraph 2, R.O. and Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Paragraph 6, R.O. See Paragraph 2, R.O. Intervenor's Paragraph: Corresponding R.O. Paragraph or basis for rejection: See Paragraphs 1 and 2, R.O. Facts which relate to the composition of bid packages are not material. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.0. See Conclusion of law 5, R.O., relating to the specifications of the department. The remainder of the paragraph proposed is immaterial. See Paragraph 5, R.O. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Marvin Gross, President Marvin's Garden and Landscape Services, Inc. 37 North McIntosh Sarasota, Florida 33582 Mel L. Wilson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's bid on the grounds that the bid did not meet a fatal item requirement.
Findings Of Fact On April 24, 1992, Respondent published a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of housekeeping services to South Florida State Hospital. Attached to the RFP as Appendix I was a blank copy of Respondent's "Standard Contract" which is also referred to as its "core model contract". Paragraph 1.a. of Section D of the RFP contains the following instructions to bidders: BIDDER RESPONSE a. State of Florida Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, Pur 7033 The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, Appendix II must be signed and returned ... with the proposal or submitted by itself if you choose not to submit a proposal and wish to remain on the department's active vendor list. Paragraph 1.g. of Section D of the RFP, contains the following instructions to bidders: Required Bidders Certification Contract Terms and Conditions The proposal must include a signed statement in response to the RFP indicating acceptance of the terms and conditions of provisions of service as specified in the RFP and contained in the core model contract. Bidders were provided a copy of the RFP rating sheet which contained the following under the heading of Fatal Items: The following criteria must be met in order for the proposal to be considered for evaluation, failure to receive a "Yes" response for any time [item] will result in automatic rejection of the proposal. * * * Does the proposal include a statement agreeing to terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP? Petitioner was represented at a "Bidders' Conference" held May 15, 1992, at which the fatal items were discussed. Bidders were advised that it would be necessary for the responses to contain a statement agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract. The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, contains the following certification: I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same contractual services, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. In submitting a proposal to an agency for the State of Florida, the proposer offers and agrees that if the proposal is accepted, the proposer will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the State of Florida all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of Florida for price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the proposer. The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, was signed by Richard A. Cosby on behalf of Petitioner and submitted as part of Petitioner's response to the RFP. Upon receipt of all responses, Respondent convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the responses. The evaluation committee determined that the response submitted by Petitioner did not contain the required statement agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. Consequently, the evaluation committee rejected Petitioner's proposal from further consideration. Petitioner does not challenge the specifications of the RFP, but, instead, asserts that Mr. Cosby's execution of the State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, was sufficient to meet the requirement the evaluation committee found lacking. The language of the Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, that most closely approximates the certification that the bidder accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and of the RFP is as follows: I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. The proposal submitted by Petitioner did not contain any other statement which could be construed as accepting the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. The broad language of the Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, upon which Petitioner relies does not state that the bidder accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. The evaluation committee properly determined that Petitioner's response failed to meet this fatal item. In this proceeding, there was evidence that the Respondent routinely inserts in its Request for Proposals the fatal item requirement that the bidders agree in writing to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP, and that Respondent has never waived that fatal item requirement. There was no evidence that Respondent was using this fatal item requirement to discriminate against or in favor of any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent dismiss Petitioner's bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4311BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are accepted in material part by the Recommended Order. Petitioner's conclusions based on those facts are rejected for the reasons discussed in the Recommended Order. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Cosby, Vice President National Cleaning of Florida, Inc. 1101 Holland Drive, #32 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Colleen A. Donahue, Esquire District 10 Legal Office Room 513 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact In April 1995, DMS issued ITB #94/95-053 soliciting bids for providing an indefinite quantity of interior painting of buildings statewide. Bidders were to submit unit prices for ten categories of work in each of five districts. The unit prices were added together to arrive at a total for each of the five districts. The invitation to bid (ITB) contemplated the award of five contracts--one for each district. The contract was to be issued for one year with the anticipated renewals of one year each. The ITB provided that bids would be "evaluated and awarded to the responsible low bidder(s) per region." On May 1, 1995, DMS issued an addendum to the ITB. DMS issued the addendum to add the requirement for a bid bond or cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. The purchasing specialist in charge of the solicitation had inadvertently omitted the bid bond requirement from the ITB. The purpose of the bid bond is to compensate the agency for damages in the event the low bidder fails to enter the contract at issue. To underscore the importance of the bid bond requirement, DMS required that all bidders return a signed acknowledgment form with their bid. Ten bidders submitted bids on May 15, 1995. The lowest bidder for regions two through four was Brighton Painting Company (Brighton). Although the ITB provided that bids could only be withdrawn prior to bid opening, David Batts, who will be responsible for managing the contracts, contacted Brighton's president after the bid opening and questioned him because the contractor was based in Illinois. Based on that conversation, Mr. Batts determined that Brighton would not be able to adequately manage the contract while based out of state. Although the ITB provided that bids could only be withdrawn prior to bid opening, DMS allowed Brighton to withdraw its bid. Taul submitted the lowest bid for region one and the second low bid for regions two through five. J. F. Ward Painting and Decorating (Ward) submitted the third lowest bid for regions one, two, four and five. CEM Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sunshine Painting (CEM) submitted the third lowest bid for region three. The total of the unit prices submitted by Ward and CEM were higher than the total of the unit prices submitted by Taul. 1/ After the bid opening, all bids were reviewed by the agency purchasing office in order to determine responsiveness. Ms. Joyce Plummer is the purchasing officer for DMS, who was responsible for evaluating and awarding the contract. Ms. Plummer found no irregularities in her review of Taul's bid. After her review, Ms. Plummer provided Mr. Batts the three lowest bids for review by him. Mr. Batts reviewed the bids because he was the individual primarily responsible for preparing the ITB and because he would be the contract administrator once the contracts were awarded. On May 30, 1995, at 10:20 a.m., DMS posted a notice of intent to award the contract to Ward. The posting indicated that Taul's bid was disqualified for failure to submit a bid bond. Ms. Plummer posted the notice of intent to award the contracts to Ward based on the opinion of Mr. Batts that Taul had not submitted a valid bid bond. At the request of Mr. Taul, DMS Bureau Chief Wayne Smith reviewed Taul's bid bond and determined that it was responsive. At that time DMS had in its possession a letter from the surety agent affirming the surety's obligation in a minimum amount of $5,000 under the bid bond. 2/ Ms. Plummer therefore reconsidered the posting and spoke with another purchasing officer, Kathleen McKenzie. Ms. McKenzie had been employed by DMS longer than Ms. Plummer and she recalled a prior bid process in which a bid bond similar to Taul's had been accepted. McKenzie did not know at the time she gave her opinion that the contract in question was an indefinite quantity contract. As a result of the further inquiry into the sufficiency of Taul's bid bond, DMS posted an amended bid tabulation announcing its notice of intent to award the contracts to Taul. Sometime after the second posting, Mr. Ward called Mr. Batts to discuss the award to Taul. Mr. Batts advised Mr. Ward that, in his opinion, Taul's bid bond was no good. After this conversation with Mr. Batts, Ward filed a notice of intent to protest the award to Taul. When she received the notice of intent to protest filed by Ward, Ms. Plummer discussed the matter with DMS assistant general counsel. 3/ As a result of that discussion, Ms. Plummer posted a second amended tabulation indicating an award of all five regions to Ward. That tabulation subsequently also was amended to represent the award of the contract for region three to CEM. The first posting showing an intent to award to Ward was verified by Mr. Batts and Ms. Plummer. The second posting showing an intent to award to Taul was verified by Ms. Plummer. The third and fourth postings were verified by DMS general counsel. The bid security requirement in the ITB called for submission of a bid bond or a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. The ITB also required bidders to commit to furnishing a $100,000 performance and payment bond if they were successful. In order to obtain a bid bond, a bidder must secure a commitment from the bonding company to issue a performance and payment bond. If the surety agrees to provide the payment bond, it will issue a bid bond without charge. Taul has been in the commercial painting business since 1978. For the past 8 years 95 percent of its work has been awarded by governmental entities pursuant to competitive bids. Taul has consistently expressed the intent to execute and perform the contracts in accordance with its bid in this case. In obtaining the bid bond in this case, Taul followed his standard practice--contacting the bonding agent and providing information regarding the nature of the contract and extent of commitment that would be required for the performance and payment bond. The bid specification for the bonds was given to and reviewed by the surety agent. The surety agent, David Pichard, was of the opinion that, since the ITB called for a performance bond in the amount of $100,000 and because the amount of the contract was indefinite, the amount of the bid upon which to issue the bid bond was $100,000. The standard bid bond requirement on public contracts is five percent. The plain wording of the bid bond submitted is that the sum of the surety obligation is "FIVE PER CENT (5 percent) OF AMOUNT BID." Since the contract to be awarded in this case is for an indefinite quantity of work, the "amount bid" is indeterminate. Petitioner was unable to establish, either prior to or at the final hearing, what the "amount of the bid" is. Mr. Batts was of the opinion that the amount of the bid bond was not clear. Based on that opinion, Mr. Batts believed that the bond did not meet the specification in the ITB. The purpose of the bid bond requirement was to ensure that DMS received considered bids. Due to the vagaries of the contract DMS wanted a contractor it could depend on to enter into the contract in case there was an emergency painting need such as storm damage. With a valid bid bond or a cashier's check the contractor could not unilaterally decide to walk away from the bid without leaving money on the table. The ITB addendum is clear and definite with respect to the required bid bond. Taul's bid bond is indefinite and not specific with regard to the amount of the bid bond furnished. Taul's bid bond was therefore not responsive with regard to the bid bond requirement. Petitioner has failed to prove that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, fraudulently, or illegally, in determining that Petitioner's bid was materially not responsive to the requirements of the ITB at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's formal bid protest. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK 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 11th day of September, 1995.
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether the BOARD can reject all bids, with or without cause. The second issue is to determine if the BOARD is required to have cause, was there a sufficient basis for the rejection of all bids in Bid NO. 3996?
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1987, the BOARD sent invitations to bid to a list of approved vendors in Bid NO. 3996. The purpose of the invitation was to obtain the lowest responsible bid on a purchase of one hundred and fifty typewriters. The bids were to be submitted prior to January 11, 1988 at 2:00 P.M.. They were opened by the BOARD on the same day. OFFICE did not receive an invitation to bid despite its request to be placed on the approved vendor's list in November of 1987. When OFFICE learned of the outstanding invitation to bid, its representative, Mr. Richard Foss, went to the BOARD's Purchasing Department and requested a bid package. The bid documents given to OFFICE mistakenly gave January 14, 1988 at 2:00 P.M. as the deadline for the bid submission. Because of the later date given by the BOARD to OFFICE, the company's bid was received after the opening of the bids. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, NAPLES bid was the lowest received. On January 14, 1988, after 10:42 A.M., it was discovered by the BOARD that OFFICE's bid price was lower than the price submitted by NAPLES. At this time, NAPLES bid had not yet been accepted by the BOARD, and no formal announcement had been made awarding the contract to NAPLES. During the BOARD's Purchasing Department's bid analysis, a request was made to reject all bids in Bid NO. 3996. The reason given by Purchasing for the request for rejection was that the specifications were being revised. The bids were rejected on the same date. The written reason sent to the vendors on January 14, 1988 for the bid rejection was that one vendor had been given an incorrect opening date. Attached to the written notice to the vendors was a new bid invitation for Bid NO. 4013. The BOARD explained its mistake was unfair to the one vendor. A new bid opening date was given of February 1, 1988. On January 14, 1988, in addition to the required bid documents, OFFICE submitted a letter which listed additional offerings or incentives that OFFICE would give the BOARD if OFFICE was awarded the contract. These additional purchasing incentives were: wall charts and teacher/student manuals for each typing classroom in the county. OFFICE also informed the BOARD that one of the BOARD's own service personnel was already trained in the servicing of Swintec typewriters. The bid submitted by OFFICE did not meet either the weight or the print wheel specifications as set forth in Bid NO. 3996. The specifications as written in Bid NO. 3996 were not written to eliminate all other typewriters but the Brothers 511-11. Weight specifications required were below the Brother's minimum weight, and at least two other manufacturers provide protected drop-in cassette print wheels in electronic typewriters. The Invitation to Bid contained specific provisions which encouraged the bidding of typewriters other than the Brother 511-11, and set up procedures under which other typewriters, which substantially meet the specifications, could be reviewed on their merits. NAPLES was the lowest responsible bidder for the electronic typewriter contract in the prior school year. The BOARD had rejected all bids at that time because of the decision to consider a different brand of typewriter once bids were opened. A notice of protest was filed by NAPLES, and the BOARD agreed to honor NAPLES bid and award the company the contract. The BOARD revised its bid specifications from last year prior to its solicitations for bids in Bid NO. 3996. The protected drop-in cassette print wheel and the weight requirements were two new technical specifications. During the hearing, the BOARD was unable to determine whether the weight factor or the protected drop-in cassette print wheel requirement will continue to be included in future revisions of the specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the BOARD reject the bid submitted by OFFICE as it was nonconforming and sought an advantage not enjoyed by the other bidders. Reinstate the bids which were rejected in Bid NO. 3996, consider the bids, and make an award of the contract to NAPLES. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA D. DONNELLY 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 30th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Emens, President Naples Business Equipment and Systems, Inc. 859 4th Avenue South Naples, Florida 33940 Harry A. Blair, Esquire 2138-40 Hoople Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Foss, Typewriter Sales Manager 8A-Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Karl Engel, Superintendent Lee County Public Schools The School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed disqualification of Petitioner’s bid is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or contrary to the bid solicitation specifications within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation licensed in the state as a general contractor. Mr. Milton “Mitt” Fulmer is the owner, sole director, and only stockholder. Respondent is a state agency. Respondent regularly solicits bids for construction services to build and maintain its facilities. On August 3, 2007, Respondent issued an invitation to bid identified in the record as Bid No. 03-07/08 (the ITB). The ITB solicited bids to construct a new headquarters for the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, commonly referred to in the record as ANERR. Four companies responded to the ITB. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. Intervenor submitted the next lowest bid. Intervenor is a Florida corporation licensed in the state as a general contractor. The ITB required bidders to submit a bid bond in an amount equal to five percent of the amount of the bid, plus alternates. A bid bond is not a performance bond. A bid bond is customarily provided for gratis or a nominal charge, and variations in bid bonds do not result in a competitive advantage among bidders. A bid bond merely insures the successful bidder will enter into the contract and provide whatever payment and performance bonds (performance bond) the ITB requires. The Instructions to Bidders for the ITB required all bonds to be issued by a surety company that “shall have at least the following minimum rating in the latest issue of Best’s Key Rating Guide (Best's): 'A'” (the bond rating requirement). The bond rating requirement was a bid solicitation specification required for a bond to be acceptable to Respondent. Petitioner submitted a bid bond issued by a surety identified in the record as International Fidelity Insurance Company (IFIC). IFIC has Best's rating of "A-." Respondent proposes to reject Petitioner's bid for failure to satisfy the bond rating requirement and to award the bid to Intervenor as the second lowest bidder. The bond rating for the surety company that issued the bid bond for Intervenor is not in evidence. For reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner has the burden of proof. The parties provided the trier of fact with a wealth of evidence during the final hearing. However, judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law confine the purpose of this proceeding to a review of the proposed disqualification of Petitioner's bid at the time Respondent exercised that agency discretion. This proceeding is not conducted to formulate final agency action that determines which bidder should receive the contract or whether all of the bids should be rejected. The review of proposed agency action is limited to a determination of whether the proposed action violates a statute, rule, or specification. If a violation occurred, the review must then determine whether the violation occurred because Respondent exercised agency discretion that was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or an abuse of discretion. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the proposed agency action violates a statute, rule, or specification. That finding ends the statutorily authorized inquiry. In the interest of completeness and judicial economy, however, the trier of fact also finds that the exercise of agency discretion that led to the proposed agency action is not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or an abuse of discretion. It is undisputed that the proposed agency action does not violate a statute or rule. Petitioner implicitly argues that the proposed agency action violates the bond rating requirement in the bid specifications because an "A-" rating is equivalent to an "A" rating. The Best's ratings of surety companies are not equivalent. Before discussing the differences, however, it is important to note that Respondent did not base its proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid on an independent evaluation of the data used to distinguish the two ratings. The failure to conduct an independent evaluation of the differences in Best's ratings criteria was neither clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, nor an abuse of discretion. The differences in Best's ratings criteria are complex and proprietary. Respondent lacks sufficient staff and expertise to evaluate the data underlying the Best's ratings or the quality of surety companies. Respondent relied on its own experience, custom and practice in the surety industry, and advice of counsel. Respondent also took into account the unusual size and complexity of the ANERR project, time constraints, and the added risk aversion to any delay in starting the project. The proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid is consistent with Respondent's past practice. Respondent has consistently required compliance with bond rating requirements for bid bonds in previous projects. In the course of bidding 500 to 600 projects over approximately an eight-year period, only one of the apparent low bidders offered Respondent a bid bond from an "A-" rated surety when an "A" was required by the bid specifications. Respondent disqualified that bid, which was for a project of approximately four million dollars; the only previous project that approaches the $5-$6 million cost of the ANERR project. All other low bidders complied with the specification as written. Respondent reasonably inferred that the surety company for the bid bond would be the same for the performance bond. Respondent's experience with industry practice in the 500 to 600 previous projects suggests the surety company that writes the bid bond will also write the performance bond. It is also customary for a surety company to provide the bid bond for gratis or for a nominal charge because the surety company collects its premium upon writing the subsequent payment and performance bonds. Respondent's experience also shows that contractors must qualify for their surety bonds, and not all contractors succeed in qualifying for surety bonds. Moreover, not all contractors can succeed in procuring surety bonds from an A-rated company. The temporal exigencies between the award of the bid and the provision of a performance bond also supported Respondent's inference that the surety company for the bid bond would be the surety company for the performance bond. The General Conditions of the contract required Petitioner to submit evidence of its ability to provide the requisite performance bond within two working days of being notified of a successful bid. Petitioner had ten days to actually furnish the bond. Establishing a surety is not perfunctory but entails a prequalification process. Petitioner had to supply its bonding agent with information including project history, credit references, reviewed financial statements, personal financials, and details on its assets. Any delay in the ANERR project, in contrast to its previous projects, for reasons of contractor default or otherwise, would expose Respondent to greater risk and greater expense. Respondent reasonably experienced a heightened risk aversion for the ANERR project than the risk aversion Respondent experienced during previous projects. The $5 or $6 million price tag for the ANERR project is about 400 percent greater than all but one previous project in Respondent's experience. Unusual aspects of the project, including its design elements and its environmentally sensitive location, could be irreparably harmed in the event of default or delay. The nature of the project's funding, part of which is a federal construction grant that expires on a date certain and part of which involved taxes paid by Floridians, contributes to the unique qualities of the project that support Respondent's greater risk aversion in connection with the ANERR project. At the time Respondent had to make a decision to reject or accept Petitioner's bid, Respondent believed in good faith a distinction existed between Best's "A" and "A-" ratings. The Best's ratings publication is a summary based on data, much of which is proprietary. It would be pointless for Respondent to "cross examine" a summary before rejecting Petitioner's bid if significant portions of the data underlying the summary are proprietary and unavailable to the cross-examiner. If Respondent were to have sufficient staff and expertise to independently evaluate the data underlying the Best's ratings, if some of the data were not proprietary, and if such an evaluation were the basis for the proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid, the outcome would not alter the proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid. The Best's ratings are based, in relevant part, on Best's Capital Adequacy Ratio, commonly referred to in the record as BCAR. The BCAR score estimates the ability of a surety company to pay claims. The minimum BCAR score for an "A" rating is 145, meaning the value of a surety company's assets exceed its estimated claims by a minimum of 45 percent. The minimum BCAR score for a surety with an "A-" rating is 130, meaning the value of its assets exceed its estimated claims by 35 percent. Although a 15-percent differential may appear small, Best's states the differentials by reference to a range of scores. The actual differential between individual sureties with an "A" rating and an "A-" rating may be as little as one percent or as great as 29 percent. An independent evaluation by Respondent would have revealed a margin of error as large as 29 percent in the standard used to evaluate a surety company's ability to pay claims. If the proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid were based on an independent evaluation of the data underlying the Best's rating summaries, it would have been reasonable for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid. It would have been reasonable for Respondent to reject a 29-percent margin of error for a surety company in a project that is 400 percent larger than the typical project and for which Respondent reasonably has a greater risk aversion due to the temporal limit on the availability of funds, the complexity of the project, and its environmental sensitivity. Much of the data underlying Best’s published ratings is proprietary information. However, the available evidence shows that Best's adjusts BCAR values based on qualitative factors such as: business plan, management quality, liquidity of assets, liabilities, and other operational aspects of the surety company. A qualitative analysis shows that ratings of "A" and "A-" are not the “functional equivalent” of each other. Petitioner submitted evidence that Best's "bands" surety companies with ratings of "A" and "A-" together in the Best's rating guide. However, the relevant specification in the ITB did not express the bond rating requirement in terms of a band or category. Rather, Respondent requested an "A" or better rating according to Best’s Key Rating Guide. An independent evaluation by Respondent would have provided a reasonable basis for an inference that the surety company for the bid bond and performance bond would be the same company. Petitioner has used IFIC for more than one year. During that time, IFIC has issued all of Petitioner’s bid bonds. IFIC issued Petitioner two payment and performance bonds. Petitioner was unable to identify any other surety company that had issued its payment and performance bonds within the time period during which Petitioner has used IFIC. Petitioner did not ask its insurance broker to obtain a bid bond from a company other than IFIC. When Petitioner sent a bid bond order form to its broker, Petitioner provided information to the broker about the project and the amount of the bid and Respondent’s surety requirements. The Bid Bond Order Form does not indicate the minimum bond rating requirement specified in the ITB. Mr. Fulmer had a conversation with his broker about Respondent’s bid security requirements, but it is unclear whether the relevant specifications were faxed to the broker or whether Mr. Fulmer saw the Bid Bond Order Form before it was provided to the broker. In response to the Bid Bond Order Form, the broker generated a bid bond and sent the bond to Petitioner for signature. At the time Petitioner received the bid bond, Petitioner did not consult Best’s Key Rating Guide to confirm that its surety met the minimum bond rating requirement in the ITB. It is unnecessary to determine whether the bond rating requirement was a material or immaterial requirement. If it were material, Respondent had no discretion to waive it. If it were non-material, within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60D-5.002(9)(Rule), evidence discussed in previous Findings in this Order shows that the exercise of agency discretion underlying the refusal to waive the bond rating requirement was reasonable and was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner's bid protest is not, in substance, a challenge to the bid solicitation specification identified in this Order as the bond rating requirement. If the substance of the bid protest were deemed to be a challenge to a bid specification requirement, the challenge is untimely. On October 30, 2007, Respondent opened the bids, identified Petitioner as the apparent low bidder, consulted Best's for information on the "A-" rating, consulted with counsel, and disqualified Petitioner's bid. Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on November 8, 2007, and a Petition to Protest on November 13, 2007. A deemed challenge to the specification for the minimum bond rating requirement was untimely within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(3)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order dismissing the protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1994, the Respondent received and opened bids for its Project No. HSMV 92044000, Repairs, Art Sutton Drivers' License Office, Miami, Florida (the Project). The bid specification documents (the Specifications) for the Project included requirements for a Base Bid and for specific alternate proposals with respect to three defined items of alternate work. Section 01100 of the Specifications stated that "[a]ll Alternates described in this Section are required to be reflected on the Bid Form as submitted by the bidder." Part 2 of that section provided: ALTERNATE NO. 1 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the removal of existing window units and the installation of new units as indicated in plans and specification Section 08520. ALTERNATE NO. 2 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the provision of communications conductors see specification Section 16400. ALTERNATE No. 3 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the installation of all landscape materials as indicated on plans and as per specification Section 02960. Also included in the Specifications as Exhibit 4 was a Proposal Form. The Specifications required each bidder to submit this form in triplicate on the bidder's letterhead. With respect to alternates, the Proposal Form required: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ The Respondent's architect received four bids on August 31, 1994. As recorded on the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation, three bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates, as well as a Base Bid. The Bid Tabulation shows that two bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates and included the alternate prices in their Base Bids. The Petitioner provided specific prices for the three alternates, but excluded the alternate prices from its Base Bid. The fourth bidder provided a specific price for only one alternate and excluded that alternate price from its Base Bid. (The fourth bidder was disqualified as non-responsive for failing to submit prices on all three alternates.) In pertinent part, the Petitioner's proposal read: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications: Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct . . . $4,400.00 Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct . . . $1,158.00 Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct . . . $2,084.00 These Alternates were in addition to the Petitioner's Base bid of $204,322.00. The proposal form submitted by the Petitioner comports with Exhibit 4 to the Specifications, which was the mandatory Proposal Form. On August 31, 1994, William Phillip Austin, Peitioner's President, wrote the architect: Per our telephone conversation this date regard- ing the confusion relating to the Add/Deduct for Alternates 1, 2 and 3 for the above project, please be advised that our base bid did not include the work described in the Alternates. As stated if you want work described in Alternates 1, 2 and 3, you must add the cost to our base bid. The base bid including Alternates 1, 2 and 3 would, therefore, be $211,964.00. If we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Respondent's architect completed and submitted the bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation to the Respondent in early September. The document clearly discloses the amounts of each bidder's Base Bid and Alternate proposals. Using plus (+) and minus (-) signs, the Bid Tabulation further shows each bidder's method of calculation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent had any problem in evaluating the bids and identifying the lowest bidder. The Petitioner was the lowest bidder on any combination of base bid plus or minus any or all alternates. Subsequently the Petitioner received a NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION dated October 4, 1994. The Notice informed the Petitioner that the Respondent "has recommended that the contract be awarded to your firm in the total amount of $211,964.00, accepting the Base Bid and Alternates #1, #2 & #3. The Administrator of Contracts Design and Permitting, Division of Building Construction, Department of Management Services, State of Florida will consider this recommendation." Larry R. Coleman, Construction Projects Administrator, signed the letter. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt. A representative of the second lowest bidder, Kalex Construction, then contacted the Respondent, complaining of the Award Recommendation. The grounds for the Kalex complaint are not in the record. However, on October 14, 1994, H. R. Hough, the Respondent's Contracts Administrator, sent the Petitioner a letter "to notify you of the State's decision to reject all bids on the above referenced project due to ambiguities in the specifications." Mr. Hough's reasons for the rejection are "other than those stated by the protestor," Kalex. The Respondent's Rule 60D-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, states: Determination of Successful Bidder. All projects except where competitive bidding is waived under the provisions of Rule 60D-5.008 will be publicly bid in accordance with the provisions in the project specifications bidding documents. Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder, determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents, that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract, taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Under the above-quoted rule, the Respondent compares bids beginning with the lowest "base bid." The Respondent is of the view that for this comparison to be fair and equal, all bidders must include the same scope of work in the "base bid." The Respondent does not interpret the above-quoted rule to allow deductive alternates from some bidders and additive alternates from others. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, the Respondent's interpretation and application of the above-quoted rule is erroneous.) The Specifications contain some ambiguous and inconsistent language regarding whether alternates should be treated as additive or deductive. The ambiguous and inconsistent language did not provide any bidder with an advantage or a disadvantage, nor did it otherwise affect the fairness of the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order in this case awarding a contract for the subject project to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: This is primarily a statement of position and is addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 2 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. Third sentence is accepted as an accurate statement of how Respondent has been interpreting the subject rule, but is not accepted as constituting a correct interpretation of the rule. Paragraph 8: Rejected as misleading and confusing because the "scope of work" to be performed under the contract can only be determined after the Respondent decides which alternates to include and which to exclude. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esquire Armstrong & Mejer Suite 1111 Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact 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 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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent lawfully awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and, if not, whether Respondent is required by law to award the contract to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Background This case arises out of Respondent's award of contracts for main-line food and snack foods and beverages. Through these contracts, Respondent obtains the delivery of 334 different items--297 items of main-line food and 37 items of snack foods and beverages--to over 160 sites for preparation and service to Respondent's students, teachers, and noninstructional staff. During the school year, Respondent serves over 150,000 meals daily, and the Director of Respondent's Food Service Operations manages an annual budget of $55 million. The two relevant bidders in this case are Petitioner and Mutual Distributors, Inc. (Mutual). These are the only bidders that submitted nondisqualified bids for the main-line food contract. Petitioner and Mutual also submitted bids for the snack foods and beverages contract. A third bidder, Magic Vending, also submitted a bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. Mutual has held Respondent's main-line food contract in the past. However, for at least the past seven years, Petitioner has held the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Petitioner was the only bidder for the main-line food contract for the 1996-97 school year, and, pursuant to a provision of that contract, Respondent renewed this contract for the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner presently supplies school food for the school districts in Dade, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Indian River, Martin, St. Lucie, Hardee, Hendry, DeSoto, and Glades counties. The size of the Hillsborough school district limits the number of vendors capable of handling the main-line food contract, although nothing in the record suggests that either Petitioner or Mutual lacks the resources to provide the specified food in a timely fashion. Invitation to Bid By Invitation to Bid dated April 30, 1998, concerning Bid Number 3743-HM (ITB), Respondent solicited bids for two product groups: main-line food, which consists of frozen entrees, frozen foods, canned goods, and staples, and snack foods and beverages. The cover sheets to the ITB advise all interested parties that Respondent would accept sealed bids until 3:00 P.M. on May 26, 1998. The cover sheets state that, on or about June 16, 1998, Respondent would award the contract, which would be in effect August 6, 1998, to August 5, 1999. The cover sheets state that Respondent would make its decision "in the best interest of the District " The cover sheets require that all bids incorporate the following language: POSTING OF RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS Recommendations and Tabulations will be posted at the Hillsborough County School District, Purchasing Department, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602 at 10:30 A.M. on 06/11/98 for seventy-two (72) hours. Actions against the specifications or recommendations for award shall follow F.S. 120.53. Procedures are available and on file in the Purchasing Office at the address listed above. The cover sheets identify the schedule of bidding events. The month of April would be for testing new products and evaluating the nutritional information of approved brands. April 30 would be the date of mailing draft copies of the ITB to all interested persons. May 8 would be the date of the pre-bid conference, at which interested persons could bring product information forms for possible approval of other products than those tentatively specified in the ITB. The cover sheets reserved a couple of days immediately after the pre-bid conference for testing any additional new products. The schedule listed May 13 as the date on which Respondent would mail the final copy of the ITB to interested persons. The schedule states that Respondent would review bids and conduct a "pre-award audit," if necessary, from May 26 through June 3. Part I of the ITB contains "general terms and conditions." Part I states: When an item appearing in this bid document is listed by a registered trade name and the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" is indicated, only that trade-named item will be considered. The District reserves the right to reject products that are listed as approved and wa[i]ve formalities. Should a vendor wish to have products evaluated for future bid consideration, please contact, in writing, the buyer listed on the 2nd page of this bid. If the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" does not appear with the trade name, bidders may submit prices on their trade-named item, providing they attach a descriptive label of their product to this proposal. Sample merchandise bid hereunder as "offered equal" may be required to be submitted to purchase in advance of bid award. Substitutions of other brands for items bid, awarded and ordered is prohibited except as may be approved by the supervisor of purchasing. Part I of the ITB includes a number of "stipulations" that are deemed a part of all bids. The stipulations provide: Tabulations of this bid will be based only on items that meet or exceed the specifications given in Part III. All other lesser items will not be considered. Failure to submit, at time of bid opening, complete information as stated in Part III can and may be used as justification for rejection of a bid item. The bidders will not be allowed to offer more than one product/price/service on each item even though the vendor feels that they have two or more types or styles that will meet specifications. If said bidder should submit more than one product/price on any item, all prices for that item will be rejected. . . . The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and to request a re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid, which in all other respects complies with the invitation to bid and the bid document, provided that, in the sole judgement and discretion of the District, the item offered at the higher bid price has additional value or function, including, but not limited to: life cycle costing, product performance, quality of workmanship, or suitability for a particular purpose. . . . All bids shall be evaluated on all factors involved, including the foregoing, price, quality, delivery schedules and the like. Purchase orders or contracts shall be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be advantageous to the District, taking into consideration the factors set forth above and all other factors set forth in the request for bid as "lowest or lowest and best bid." The information called for on the item must be on the line with the item. When omitting a quotation on an item, please insert the words: no quotation, no bid or n/b. to eliminate any confusion about the item(s) being bid. . . . Any requirement by the bidder that certain quantities, weights, or other criteria must be met, in order to qualify for bid prices, will result in disqualification of the bid. Likewise, expiration dates or other constraints, which are in conflict with bid requirements, will result in disqualification. Bids may not be changed after the bid closing time. The exception would be if there was a misinterpretation of the unit for which the bid was requested. In which case, no dollar amount change would be allowed, and only a clarification as to the unit your bid represents will be considered. This must be done in writing 24 hours after notification to the bidder from the supervisor of purchasing. The submittal of a bid proposal shall constitute an irrevocable offer to contract with the District in accordance with the terms of said bid. The offer may not be withdrawn until or unless rejected or not accepted by the District. . . . 13. The District shall be the sole judge as to the acceptability of any and all bids and the terms and conditions thereof, without qualifications o[r] explanation to bidders. 27. This bid and the purchase orders issued hereunder constitute the entire agreement between the School District and the vendor awarded the bid. No modification of this bid shall be binding on the District or the bidders. 30. Variance in condition--Any and all special conditions and specifications attached hereto which vary from general conditions shall have precedence. Part II of the ITB contains "special terms and conditions." Section A of Part II explains that the purpose of the ITB is to establish a "'cost plus fixed fee per carton' annual contract for the delivery of main-line food and snack and beverages . . .." Section A projects that the annual value of Group A and Group B will be $8.5 million. Section A explains that the "product cost" is the vendor's actual cost, including delivery to its warehouse. The "fixed fee" is the difference between the vendor's cost and its selling price to Respondent. Section A notes that, while Respondent’s cost price may vary during the term of the contract, the fixed fee shall remain unchanged. However, Section K fixes the cost prices until December 31, 1998. As used in this order, "total cost" refers either to the total costs per item (i.e., the unit costs times the projected number of units to be purchased) or the total costs of all items, and the "bottom-line cost" is the total of the total costs of all items plus the fixed fee. The fixed fee includes the bidder's profit and is calculated by multiplying the fixed fee per carton, as stated in the bid, times the number of cartons actually delivered. Section B states: Bids will be awarded on the total bottom line cost and fixed fee for each group. To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for the bid award. A distributor may choose to bid on both groups, or on only one group. In the event of default or non- availability of product, the School District reserves the right to utilize the next rated low bidder and their stated bid prices as needed. Sections C and D explain that the term of the contract is one year, ending August 5, 1999, but the parties may extend the term, in one-year increments, through August 5, 2001. Section G provides that potential bidders "may attend a pre-bid conference," but attendance is not mandatory. Section G identifies the time, date, and place of the pre-bid conference. Section G adds: If you wish to submit additional brands within a current product description for approval, you must bring from the appropriate broker/rep, a District product information form with all requested attachments to the conference. Do not bring samples. We will evaluate the product information forms and determine if testing an additional brand is necessary at this time. Submitting a product information form does not guarantee that the product will be tested. Samples must be made immediately for any product information forms submitted. Section H states: To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for that group bid award. Section I provides: After the opening of the bids, school officials will review the line-by-line prices. Accuracy of additions and extensions, brands, and compliance with all instructions will be reviewed in order to ascertain that the offer is made in accordance with the terms of the request for bid proposal. School officials who find any error(s) in calculations will adjust the bottom line figure accordingly. However, if errors are found which either disqualify the bidder, or will raise the bottom line offer to the point where the vendor may no longer be the apparent low bidder, school officials will review the line-item prices of the next lowest bidder. This procedure will continue until a suitable offer is selected. During the review of the low bid, school officials may audit invoices or quotations on selected items for the accuracy of cost prices quoted. The extent of this audit will be at the discretion of school officials. In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system. Section O states that vendors must deliver "the brand that is quoted on the bid sheet." If vendors are "temporarily out-of-stock of a particular item, they must deliver an equal or superior product at an equal or lower price with prior approval of the District Food Service Department." Section O warns that "[e]xcessive occurrences of out-of-stock items is cause for contract cancellation." Part III of the ITB contains "instructions for completing bid sheets," followed by 65 pages of bid specifications for main-line food and nine pages of bid specifications for snack foods and beverages. Each page of specifications contains several rows, with each row devoted to a separate item, and seven columns, with the columns labeled as item number, product descriptions, approved brands, bid unit, unit cost, estimated annual usage, and total cost. Part III provides detailed instructions for describing the items bid and listing the costs for each item. Detailed specifications describe each of the items to be bid. Under "product descriptions," the two paragraphs of Section B address the issue of domestic versus imported products. The first paragraph describes products that the winning bidder may purchase, but the second paragraph limits items than can be bid. The two paragraphs state: Except for items normally not produced in the United States commercially, the contractor should make every effort to purchase domestic products. Products may be allowed from outside the United States provided specifications are met and there is a significant price differential between imported products and those produced within the States. Written documentation of these price differentials must be provided in writing to the School District by the distributor prior to the approval of such purchases. Please note: for purposes of awarding the bid, all distributors shall bid domestic products (pineapple exempt). Under "product descriptions," Section C provides: The contractor must bid on the approved brands (Column 3), packer label or house label for all items. If Column 3 is blank, the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. For example, if bidding on a distributor's choice of pasta, the contractor would enter the following: Brand: Prince Product Code: 5115 If bidding on a distributor group label for green beans, the distributor must stipulate the code designation which may be a color or label, that denotes a product as being a particular grade. For example, Brand: North American/Larson Product Code: Blue If bidding a packer label the bidder must stipulate the name of the packer and the grade label designation, for example: Brand: Larsen Product Code: Lake Region For all packer label products Hillsborough County School Food Service Form "Private Label Chart for Fruits and Vegetables" (see Attachment D) must be completed and returned with the bid. Under "product descriptions," Section D states: "Bidder shall enter the grade of the brand offered only for those line items where grade is specified. " Under "approved brands," Part III provides: The bidder must bid on the approved brand and product code that is listed. If the column states "house brand," the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. Some of the code numbers listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the contractor may enter the correct code and submit written documentation provided by the manufacturer, verifying the correct code number. If any inconsistency exists between the approved brands and/or code numbers and the product description, the approved brand/code number will prevail. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the description provided in column 2 is at the discretion of the School District. A bidder may be requested to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Whenever approved brands are listed with house brands, the distributor's choice brand should be of equal or better quality than the approved brands listed. Buying group brands and codes are acceptable on frozen and canned fruits, vegetables, and juices, however, on further processed and manufactured foods the contractor shall quote a packer's brand. For example, a contractor may quote "Ore-Ida #1234, packed under the 'Code Red Label.'" Pre-Bid Conference Hank Morbach, Principal Buyer of Respondent's Purchasing Department, conducted the pre-bid conference on May 8. Also representing Respondent at the conference were Mr. Morbach's immediate supervisor, William Borrer, who is the Supervisor of Purchasing; Sherry Ebner, who is a Supervisor of Food Service Operations and a registered dietitian; and Mary Kate Harrison, who is Director of Food Service Operations, a registered dietitian, and Ms. Ebner's immediate supervisor. Minutes of the pre-bid conference reveal that Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner told the persons in attendance that they did not have to bid both groups, but must bid all items within the group for which they were submitting a bid. In response to a question from Mutual's representative, Mr. Morbach said that the bottom-line cost, not the fixed fee, would be the "deciding factor." In response to a question from Petitioner's representative, Mr. Morbach stated that, where code numbers were omitted for any item, specifications would prevail. The minutes disclose a discussion regarding imported versus domestic products. Although Respondent's representatives were initially ambivalent, Mr. Morbach "clarified by stating all products must be domestic." Likely, everyone understood that pineapples could still be imported. Following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued a revised ITB on May 13. Presumably, the ITB identified as Joint Exhibit 1 is the revised ITB, so all references in this order to the ITB are to the ITB as it was finally revised. Adverse Publicity Toward the end of the pre-bid conference, a representative of the Weekly Planet appeared. The Weekly Planet is a free weekly Tampa newspaper, and the representative was a reporter, who, since October 1997, had written several articles asserting, at least by implication, that Respondent's food program suffered from excessive costs, favoritism, and possibly even wrongdoing. Part of the adverse publicity concerned Ms. Harrison's husband, who represented several manufacturers from which Petitioner had purchased food for resale to Respondent while Petitioner had the main-line food contract. The Weekly Planet published an article asserting that the husband of Ms. Harrison had lost a civil action brought by his employer for diverted commissions. By the time of the subject procurement, an internal audit had disclosed no conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Harrison, but had suggested that Respondent add personnel in Food Service Operations to monitor vendor compliance and seek more competition in awarding the food contracts. To Ms. Harrison's credit, since her employment with Respondent in 1990, she has converted a food service program that was losing $2.5 million annually into a profitable operation. The record suggests, though, Respondent's staff was extremely sensitive during this bidding process to the adverse publicity surrounding Respondent's business relationship with Petitioner. The Bids Four bidders timely submitted sealed bids for the main-line food contract. However, Respondent promptly disqualified two of the bidders because they did not submit complete bids. One disqualified bidder submitted a bid that was incomplete, unsigned, and omitted five items in the main- line food group. The other disqualified bidder submitted an incomplete bid with only six items in the main-line food group. After submitting their bids, Petitioner and Mutual each sent Respondent letters stating that each bidder did not want the snacks and beverages contract unless it also received the main-line food contract. Respondent did not object to these late-attached conditions to the two bids and did not consider either bidder for only the snack foods and beverages contract. As provided in the ITB, Respondent's staff contacted bidders, after bid opening, to confirm that certain bid items complied with the specifications. By letter dated June 3, Respondent asked Mutual for documentation that 41 listed items met the specifications, that the Fineline/Paris brand that Mutual had bid is Grade A quality, and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 5. By letter dated June 10, Respondent asked Petitioner for documentation that thirty-seven listed items met the specifications and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 12. Respondent wrote each bidder follow-up letters. In a letter dated June 12, Respondent asked Petitioner to document that five items met the specifications, and, in a letter dated June 15, Respondent asked Mutual to document that the same five items met the specifications. The deadlines in both letters were June 16. Mutual and Petitioner responded to these requests for additional information. By letter dated June 5, Mutual disclosed that Items 202 (broccoli), 300 (apple slices), and 366 (raisins) were imported. After receipt of the responses from the bidders, Respondent's employees further reviewed the bids. Early in this review, Respondent's employees realized that neither bid had complied entirely with the specifications. Among the deficiencies of Mutual's bid was the failure to quote a cost for Item 114, which is chicken wings. Mutual's bid identifies only a product, but no cost. Mutual's bid includes a cost for each of the other 296 items and a total cost, presumably for all 297 items. The ITB projects annual purchases for each of the 297 items. The ITB projects the purchase of 283,044 chicken wings. Petitioner bid 12.5 cents per chicken wing for a total cost of $35,309.50. Mr. Morbach justifiably tried to deduce Mutual's quote for chicken wings from the information contained in its bid. He logically assumed that the cost for Item 114 would be the difference between the total cost shown on Mutual's bid, which is shown on the bid, and the total cost for the other 296 items, which must be calculated separately. The details of Mr. Morbach's calculations did not emerge at the hearing, but it is possible to perform these calculations. Mutual's bid shows a total cost for all 297 items of $8,131,470.29. The total costs of each of the quoted 296 items comes to $6,785,080.14. The difference is $1,346,390.15. This figure clearly does not represent Mutual's bid for chicken wings, which would be thirty-eight times greater than Petitioner's bid and would representative the extraordinary cost of $4.75 per chicken wing. The calculations in the preceding paragraph are taken from Mutual's bid, including all changes shown on the bid, as it was submitted, that were made by Mutual. Mutual's representative initialed these changes. The calculations exclude all adjustments made by Respondent's staff because these calculations, which were made after bid opening, logically have no relevance in determining what, if anything, Mutual quoted for chicken wings. These adjustments can play no role in trying to determine, on the face of Mutual's bid, what it intended to bid for chicken wings. In addition to omitting the cost of one item, Mutual failed to bid numerous other items according to the specifications. Petitioner also failed to bid certain items according to the specifications, although Petitioner's bidding errors are fewer in number and less serious than Mutual's bidding errors. Incorporating the information charted by Food Service Operations staff, the following 25 paragraphs identify the errors in both bids. Item 121 is frozen Grade A turkey roasts with a 60/40 ratio of light to dark meat. Mutual's bid does not reveal the extent of white meat or whether the turkey roast is Grade A meat. Petitioner's bid does not reveal whether its turkey roast is Grade A meat. Item 128 is frozen corn dogs. Mutual bid an unapproved code number for an approved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $160,000 in each of the bids. Item 146 is natural swiss cheese. Mutual bid processed cheese. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 202 is Grade A cut broccoli in bulk. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 220 is shoestring French-fried potatoes. Mutual bid a shorter French-fried potato than specified. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 223 is shredded triangle potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same products, but Mutual's bid did not contain required information regarding grade, oil, and region grown. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $140,000 in each of the bids. Item 232 is soft eight-inch tortillas weighing 1.39 ounces per serving. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same product, which weighs only 1.29 ounces per serving. Item 300 is canned sliced apples. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 328 is light, 26-percent concentration tomato paste. Mutual bid a product that does not meet the minimum- concentration specification. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 335 is boneless chicken meat that is predominantly white meat. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same brand, but different product code numbers. Mutual's bid is not predominantly white meat. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 366 is seedless raisins. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 399 is 100 percent semolina, spiral macaroni. Mutual's bid complied with the specifications. Petitioner bid a twisted egg noodle, instead of eggless spiral pasta. Item 431 is sugar sprinkles from one of five approved brands. Mutual bid an unapproved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 448 is instant yeast. Mutual's bid includes information on a product that it did not bid. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 474 is Grade A Fancy apple jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids, and Item 475 is Grade A Fancy grape jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids. Neither bid provides sufficient information to determine if it met the specifications on either of these items. Item 480 is Dijon mustard. Mutual bid Dijon-style mustard. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 484 is whole pitted medium, ripe olives. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's complied with the specifications. Item 492 is whole, kosher pickles of approximately 95 in number per five gallon pail. Mutual and Petitioner bid larger pickles than specified. Item 505 is 50-grain white vinegar. Neither Mutual nor Petitioner provided the information necessary to determine if its bid complied with the specifications. Items 301, 308, 309, 323, and 331 are, respectively, unsweetened canned applesauce, crushed canned pineapple, sliced canned pineapple, canned pumpkin, and whole canned tomatoes. For each of these items, Mutual's bid did not provide the label to prove quality. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 325 is Grade A canned sweet potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner both bid Grade B. Item 212 is yellow frozen squash. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Respondent's staff also noted on the chart that the yellow frozen squash was the second item manufactured by Fineline that was imported (the other was Item 202), and staff noted that it was "unable to determine if other frozen vegetables bid by this manufacturer are domestic as grading certificates were not provided." Mutual bid Fineline products for Items 201 (lima beans), 205 (corn), 208 (okra), 209 (peas), 211 (spinach), 214 (Italian-style vegetable blend), and 215 (Oriental-style vegetable blend). Cumulatively, the Fineline frozen vegetables represent a moderately large part of the overall cost, in excess of $53,000 of Mutual's bid. Coupled with the fact that two Fineline products were imported, Mutual's failure to demonstrate affirmatively that these produce are domestic constitutes additional failures to comply with the specifications and supports the inference that the products are imported. In an earlier version of their chart showing bidding errors, Respondent's staff identified problems with Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224. These are potatoes that the ITB specifies must be from the Pacific Northwest and processed in 100 percent canola oil. Respondent's staff determined that it was impossible to identify the source of these potatoes. However, Petitioner was able to document that some, but not all, of the potatoes that it bid for these six items were from the Pacific Northwest. In addition to failing to bid a cost for Item 114 and misbidding the numerous items charted by Respondent's staff, Mutual's bid failed to comply with the specifications for four other items. Item 229 is a frozen Gyro Wrap. Mutual bid a pita- fold bread product, even though a more expensive Gyro Wrap is available from the same manufacturer. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications Item 378 is pure almond extract flavoring. Mutual bid an imitation flavoring. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 402 is thin spaghetti of .062-.066 thickness in diameter. Mutual bid a thin-spaghetti product of 1.6 thickness in diameter. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 456 is pancake syrup. Mutual bid an invalid code number. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. The parties devoted some attention during the hearing to Item 483, which is green olives. Mutual and Petitioner bid imported green olives, but domestic green olives are not available, at least in institutional quantities, so compliance with the specification of domestic green olives was impossible. Bid Evaluation and Award When Ms. Ebner informed Mr. Morbach of the errors that she had found in both bids, he suggested that they should eliminate the same item from both bidder's bids, if one bidder improperly bid the item. For example, if Mutual misbid fruit cocktail and Petitioner properly bid fruit cocktail, Respondent would delete the cost of fruit cocktail from both bids. The purpose of this adjustment, which reportedly is not atypical in school food procurements, is to avoid the unfair result of lowering the noncompliant bidder's bid, by reducing it for the cost of the misbid fruit cocktail, and leaving the compliant bidder's bid higher by the amount of the properly bid fruit cocktail. Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison agreed with this suggestion, and Respondent tabulated the bid costs accordingly. Mr. Morbach also suggested that they consider the bid of one of the disqualified bidders. Ms. Ebner disagreed with this suggestion. She rightly believed that they should not reconsider a bid that did not contain all of the specified items, and Mr. Morbach did not press the matter further. Although Ms. Ebner spoke daily with Ms. Harrison and Mr. Morbach, there were three larger meetings in late June and early July concerning the bids. The first meeting was during the week of June 22, the second meeting was early in the week of June 29, and the third meeting was on the Friday of that week, July 3. The only participants at the first of the three meetings were Ms. Ebner, Ms. Harrison, Mr. Morbach, and Mr. Borrer. For the second meeting, these four persons were joined by Dr. Michael Bookman, the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Research, which includes overall responsibility for the Purchasing Department; Michelle Crouse, of the Auditing Department; and Lee Chistiansen, another of Respondent's staff. The persons present at the third and final meeting were the same as at the second meeting, except that Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few, replaced Ms. Crouse. At the first meeting, Ms. Ebner expressed her belief that Petitioner's bid was better than Mutual's bid because Petitioner's bid complied with more of the specifications. She also expressed concern about the ability of Magic Vending to service the snack foods and beverages. Ms. Ebner's preference for Petitioner's bid was partly the result of her misplaced emphasis on awarding both contracts to the same bidder. It is likely that, at the first meeting, Mr. Morbach or Mr. Borrer informed Ms. Ebner that nothing in the ITB required that Respondent award both contracts to the same bidder. At the first meeting, everyone confirmed their agreement to adopt Mr. Morbach's suggestion to discard the cost of any misbid item in both bids, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Everyone agreed that this approach would facilitate a better comparison of bottom-line prices. Respondent's decision to eliminate the cost of any misbid item from both bids, even if one bid correctly bid the item, encourages bidding abuses. A bidder knowing that a competitor can quote lower prices for a wide range, for instance, of chicken items can neutralize this advantage by misbidding each of the chicken items, forcing Respondent to award the bid without regard to the lesser costs quoted by the competitor for the chicken items. The potential destructive impact on competitive bidding is incalculable where, as here, this kind of bid-tabulation method is unaccompanied by a provision in the ITB rejecting a bid in its entirety if it misbids more than a specified number or value of items. The ITB does not authorize Respondent's method of tabulating misbid items. As already noted, Stipulation 2 allows Respondent to tabulate bids based only on items that meet the specifications, but nothing in Stipulation 2 or anywhere else in the ITB authorizes the deletion of quotes for items bid in compliance with the specifications. Part I of the ITB allows Respondent to reject approved products, but this provision is part of a discussion of items approved for bidding and does not authorized the rejection of a cost quoted for an approved product. Nor do Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner rely on Stipulation 2 to justify tabulating bid costs by eliminating the costs of any misbid items, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner believe that the 1998 ITB permitted this approach, but the 1996 invitation to bid for school food did not. However, both invitations to bid contain Stipulation 2. Respondent has not cited the difference between the 1996 and 1998 invitations to bid to justify the tabulation method adopted by Respondent in this procurement. Respondent's staff have relied on ITB provisions allowing Respondent to waive formalities or reject all bids for support of their tabulation method. However, even if these provisions were not in the 1996 invitation to bid, they do not authorize Respondent's tabulation method. Mr. Borrer may have implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy of the claimed authority in the ITB for Respondent's tabulation method when he sensibly deleted the following language from a draft memorandum dated June 25 and bearing his name, but drafted for his revision by another employee: Products that were inconclusive or failed to meet specification were eliminated from all bids for the purpose of data analysis. Purchasing is given this authority to eliminate products by bid specifications, statutory guidelines and Board policy. Item 4, Page 3 of the bid specifications states, "The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and request re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid. . ." In addition, Item I, Page 11 of the bid specifications states, "In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system." Also Board Policy H-5.6 states, ". . ., in accepting bids the School Board shall accept the lowest and best bid". (Legal Reference Florida Statutes 230.23, 237.02) The most succinct description of Respondent's tabulation method lacks much of a justification for its use. This description occurs in a typewritten question and answer that appears at the end of Petitioner Exhibit 36, but probably does not belong with that exhibit, which is a fax from Mr. Borrer to Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few. The question is, "Why did you choose to award the contract rather than re-bid after you determined that each vendor had made errors?" The answer states: Bids may not be rejected arbitrarily, but may be rejected and re-bid when it is in the best interest of the public (School District) to do so. . . . To re-bid without changing the bid would be unfair because the vendors had exposed their competitive price structure in public. Through the efforts of our skilled Food Service staff "errors" were discovered in products bid by Mutual and [Petitioner]. Since all vendors bid products that did not meet specifications, we determined that it would be proper to build a mathematical model in which we removed all identified items that did not meet specifications from both vendors. Our analysis based the award criteria on the same set of specifications and conditions for each vendor. Achieving comparability of food products was a complex time- consuming task. The award was recommended to go to the low vendor who would agree and be held to meeting our bid specifications at the price bid. Probably not more than one or two days after the date of the first meeting, Ms. Ebner prepared a draft memorandum, dated June 25, to Mr. Borrer, through Ms. Harrison. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 14 items not meeting specifications, and Petitioner bid three such items. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 11 items for which compliance was inconclusive, and Petitioner bid five such items. The draft memorandum also states that Mutual bid five imported items, despite the "discussion at the pre-bid conference that only domestic products were allowed." In the draft memorandum, Ms. Ebner recalculated the bottom-line costs of the bids of Petitioner and Mutual after discarding all costs for items that either bidder had misbid. She determined that Petitioner had the lowest snack foods and beverages bid. She also determined that Petitioner had the lower total bid for the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Still preferring an award of both contracts to a single bidder, Ms. Ebner concluded in the draft memorandum that Respondent should award both contracts to Petitioner, and Ms. Harrison concurred with Ms. Ebner's recommendation. At the same time, Mr. Morbach and Mr. Borrer were headed in the opposite direction from Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison. At the direction of Mr. Borrer, Mr. Morbach elicited a letter dated June 24 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, in which Magic Vending stated: "As a follow up to our conversation and subsequent to our bid submission, we are prepared to offer you a reduction in our overall bid of $15,000." The letter concludes: "The purpose of this reduction is to make the overall award process run more smoothly and to remove any potential complications." Although Petitioner had already written Respondent expressing no interest in only the snack foods and beverages contract, Respondent obtained this cost concession, which made Magic Vending's bid lower than Petitioner's bid, in case Petitioner changed its mind. By letter dated June 26 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, Magic Vending assured that it would "abide by all the rules and specifications in addition to giving a $15,000.00 discount . . .." The letter concludes with a well- earned expression of gratitude by Magic Vending for Mr. Morbach's "consideration in this matter." As for the main-line food contract, Mr. Borrer obtained from Mutual a one-line letter dated June 26 from Mutual stating: "This letter is to assure you that all products quoted by [Mutual] on bid #3743-HM will meet the specifications as required." At the second meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, which evidently took place after the Purchasing Department had received the correspondence from Mutual and Magic Vending, Food Service Operations staff continued to recommend that the contracts be awarded to Petitioner. Everyone discussed the errors in Mutual's bid and the fact that the Magic Vending bid was $5000 more than Petitioner's bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. It is unclear if Ms. Ebner or Ms. Harrison yet knew of the price concession of Magic Vending, but everyone discussed that it would be controversial to award the contracts to a bidder that was not the lowest bidder. Apparently in anticipation of the award ultimately made, Petitioner served Respondent, on July 1, with a Notice of Intent to Protest the award of both contracts. By letter dated the same date, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would not stop the procurement process due to the "critical importance of this bid and the serious danger to the health of our children." In fact, Mutual and Magic Vending have been supplying main-line food and snack foods and beverages, respectively, since early August 1998. At the third meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, everyone agreed to recommend that the School Board award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending. The discussion at this last major staff meeting largely involved the matters that they had previously discussed. Unfortunately, no one ever discussed at these or other meetings involving Ms. Ebner how many errors a bid could contain before it should be disqualified. Likewise, no one ever discussed with her the distinction between awarding a contract on the basis of the lowest bid and on the basis of the lowest and best bid. However, Ms. Harrison discussed with Ms. Ebner the safety issues presented by imported, rather than domestic, foods. On the day prior to the July 7 School Board meeting now designated for the School Board to vote on the awards, Ms. Harrison advised Mutual by letter that Respondent's staff would recommend Mutual, "provided that any and all products found not to meet specifications will be replaced with products meeting specifications at the original bid cost." Petitioner Exhibit 13, which is a copy of this letter, lacks the attachment listing the noncompliant items. At the bottom of the July 6 letter is a signature space for Mutual's representative, indicating assent to the following sentence: "Indicate, by signing below, that you are in agreement to provide all products meeting specifications, including USDA Grade A products, at the original bid price." Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains the signature of Mutual's representative. On July 7, the School Board met and gave Petitioner's counsel and corporate representative brief opportunities to explain why Respondent should not award the main-line food contract to Mutual. However, the Board did not give Petitioner's representatives sufficient time to convey much meaningful or detailed information. Mr. Few, Dr. Bookman, and Ms. Harrison supplied the Board with more information, but unfortunately never disclosed that Mutual's bid contained more errors than did Petitioner's bid and that Mutual's bid contained more errors involving more substantive matters than did Petitioner's bid, as discussed below. Contradicting the advice given by Mr. Morbach at the pre-bid conference and ignoring the contrary provision in the ITB and ignoring the distinction in the ITB between items that the winning bidder may purchase additional items that may be bid, Mr. Few advised the Board that the ITB expressed only a preference toward domestic products and cited the unique example of olives as support for this interpretation. Dr. Bookman advised the Board that Mutual had assured them that all items bid were Grade A. He was evidently unaware that, as explained below, Mutual had still not obtained Grade A turkey roast, even though Grade A turkey roast is available. As late as the final hearing, Ms. Ebner admitted that Mutual had still not corrected one or two noncompliant items, although it is unclear if one of them is the turkey roast. Notwithstanding staff's assurances, several Board members expressed misgivings at having to absorb a lot of detailed information in a short period of time. Ms. Harrison informed the Board that they did not have time to defer action, implicitly and correctly informing them that they did not have time to rebid the main-line food contract. One Board member replied that she wanted all of the food to be USDA approved and that parents had enough to be concerned about without being concerned about what Respondent was feeding their children. A motion to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending failed by a 3-4 vote. A second motion to delay awarding these contracts passed 5-2, so that, individually, Board members could talk to staff to learn more about the bids and Petitioner's claim of bidding improprieties. The record does not reveal what staff told individual Board members. After a recess during which Board members, individually, met with staff, one of the Board members who had previously voted not to award the contracts moved to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending, saying that Mutual had agreed to replace noncomplying products with products meeting the specifications. Relying on Mutual's promise to deliver conforming food items, as opposed to the noncomplying items that it had bid, this Board member reasoned that it was one thing to make a mistake with a bid, but another thing to make a mistake with the schoolchildren. The School Board unanimously approved the motion, and the meeting ended. By letter dated July 9 from Mutual to Mr. Borrer, Mutual addressed each of the 25 items charted by Respondent's staff, acknowledging that Mutual's bid had not complied with the specifications for nearly every charted item, but promising that Mutual would supply a product meeting the specifications for all of these items. However, concerning the moderately large component of the bid represented by Item 121 (turkey roasts, which represented over $62,000 in Mutual's bid), the letter states only: "Currently trying to locate an item to meet specifications." Bid Protest On July 10, Petitioner served Respondent with a Protest. The Protest asserts that Mutual's bid did not contain prices on all items, did not propose all domestic products, contained unapproved brands, bid unapproved product codes, and bid products different from those specified in the ITB. The Protest asserts that Respondent allowed Mutual to provide a letter after the deadline for receiving bids assuring that it would provide all Grade A product, as specified in the ITB. The Protest did not mention the snack foods and beverages contract awarded to Magic Vending. The Protest does not allege that Petitioner's bid is responsive. Respondent has not filed any responsive pleading raising the question of the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid. Respondent's Bid Policies Following receipt of Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Protest, Mr. Borrer sent a letter dated July 1 to Petitioner that contained Respondent's rules governing bids. This document, which is part of Petitioner Exhibit 37, is the source of Respondent's bidding rules set forth in the following two paragraphs. Respondent's rules provide for the protest of specifications as follows: Specifications—Any bidder that feels that their firm is adversely affected by an specification contained in a Sealed Bid or Request for Proposal issued by the Purchasing Department may file a written notice of protest with the Supervisor of Purchasing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the bid documents. . . . A formal written protest shall be filed by the bidder within ten (10) days of the written notice of protest. . . . These rules also provide for the awarding of costs, but not attorneys' fees, as follows: If, after the completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings[,] the School District prevails, then the School District shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings, but excluding attorney's fees. . . . If the protestor prevails then the protestor shall recover from the School District, all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, excluding attorney's fees. Another source of Respondent's rules in the record is Chapter 7 of a compilation of Board policy that was applicable to the present procurement. This document requires that Respondent award bids "on the basis of the lowest and best bid which meets specifications with consideration being given to the specific quality of the product, conformity to the specifications, suitability to school needs, delivery terms and service and past performance of the vendor." Lastly, Mr. Borrer, by memorandum to the file dated July 9, noted that the two disqualified vendors were disqualified under Board Policy H-5.10, which states: "Bids received which do not meet specifications shall not be considered valid and shall not be tabulated." Ultimate Findings of Fact Bid Tabulation Method Is Clearly Erroneous, Contrary to Competition, and Arbitrary It is irrelevant whether the standard of proof governing a protest of specifications is a preponderance of the evidence or the more deferential standard, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner has proved that Respondent's tabulation method is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Respondent's tabulation method potentially penalizes compliant bidders by eliminating their compliant items from the tabulation when a noncompliant bidder misbids the same item. The anti-competitive, arbitrary effect of this tabulation method may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that the ITB is for a cost-plus contract. However, the ITB fails to impose any minimum requirement or threshold for compliant items, in terms of number or dollar volume--e.g., if a bid contains noncompliant items totaling more than one percent of the total cost bid, then the entire bid is rejected. This means that Respondent's tabulation method can destroy the competitiveness of the procurement by allowing a bidder purposefully or unintentionally to misbid a large number of items, resulting in the effective elimination of these items from the tabulation of bids submitted by bidders with superior access to these items. Under these circumstances, Respondent's selection of this tabulation method was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Is Nonresponsive The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid was responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As already noted, it is impossible to deduce Mutual's quote for Item 114 from the face of Mutual's bid. A failure to quote a cost for an item is little different from a failure to bid the item. In the case of a complete omission, Respondent knows nothing of the item bid; in the case of the omission of only a quote, Respondent knows what item the bidder has bid, but not the cost of the item. The omission of the cost of a single item adequately described in the bid may be a minor irregularity, if the cost can be deduced by subtracting from the total cost of all items the total cost of all but the omitted item. Here, though, the difference between these amounts is clearly wrong, so that, if Respondent overlooks the omission, it leaves open the possibility of a later dispute over the cost of Item 114. Under the present circumstances, including the disqualification of two other bidders for omitting items, Respondent's failure to disqualify Mutual's bid was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Contains Material Variances The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid did not contain material variances from the ITB is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Food Service Operations staff identified numerous deficiencies in Mutual's bid. For Mutual's bid, Ms. Ebner's June 25 memorandum counts 14 items not meeting specifications and 11 items for which compliance is inconclusive due to Mutual's failure to submit the required documentation. Treating the misbidding of green olives and the potatoes specified in Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224 as minor irregularities due to the impossibility of compliance with the specifications concerning the origin of these items, Mutual's bid still reveals consequential deviations from the specifications. Using only the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Mutual's consequential deviations from the specifications include five imported foods, two meat products that fail to contain the required ratio of light to dark meat (one of the meat products and another product also failing to demonstrate the proper Grade), a lower Grade of canned sweet potatoes, shorter French Fries, excessively diluted tomato concentrate and inadequate documentation of the dilution of two jelly products, processed instead of natural cheese, and a missing ingredient from Dijon mustard. Of all the witnesses, Ms. Ebner was most capable, by training, experience, and job assignment, of understanding the significance of the deviations in Mutual's bid. For instance, addressing the seemingly inconsequential matter of excessively diluted jelly, Ms. Ebner noted that Respondent had had problems with runny jelly not remaining on peanut-butter- and-jelly sandwiches. The nutritional consequences of this seemingly harmless deviation are students discarding peanut- butter-and-jelly sandwiches that have lost their jelly. In each of these consequential deviations from the specifications, Mutual bid a cheaper product than specified, which conferred upon it an unearned competitive advantage, and a product of lower quality than specified, which jeopardized the primary purpose of the specifications to ensure that Respondent obtained food of high nutrition, safety, and taste for students and staff. Any implicit or explicit determination by Respondent dismissing the charted findings of deviations by Food Service Operations staff or treating them as minor irregularities rather than material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Besides the findings contained in the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff, Mutual misbid several other items. The consequential deviations from the specifications included seven imported items, a cheaper pita- fold than the specified Gyro wrap, and a cheaper imitation almond flavoring for pure almond flavoring. Any express or implied finding by Respondent discrediting these deviations would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Although an express or implied determination by Respondent that these deviations, standing alone, are minor irregularities would not be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, such a finding concerning these deviations, together with the previously discussed deviations charted by Food Service Operations staff, would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. The standard of proof governing the determination that Mutual submitted written assurances, after bid opening, that it would supply product in compliance with the specifications, is the preponderance of the evidence. However, the standard of proof governing findings of the significance of the submittal of these assurances is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Any implied or express determination by Respondent that Mutual's written assurances were not an attempt to change its bid after bid opening would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Petitioner has already proved, by this deferential standard, that Mutual's bid contained material variances from the specifications. The purpose of Mutual's written assurances was to eliminate these material variances, which, in fact, were still not entirely eliminated by the time of the final hearing. Petitioner's Bid Contains Material Variances Consistent with its determination that Mutual's bid is responsive and suffers no material variances, Respondent claims in its proposed recommended order that Petitioner's bid is responsive and contains no material variances. Respondent awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual because it submitted the lower bid. However, Petitioner demands the award of the main- line food contract, so it is necessary to consider whether its bid, which is clearly responsive, contains any material variances. Because of the resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to consider whether Petitioner's bid contains any minor irregularities, for which Respondent's implied or express refusal to waive would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Using the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Petitioner misbid only seven items. In fact, the record reveals no other misbid items by Petitioner. Several of Petitioner's misbid items are relatively inconsequential. These are a tortilla slightly lighter than specified, larger pickles than specified, and omitted documentation showing the grain of vinegar. Mutual misbid these items also. However, three of Petitioner's misbid items are consequential. Although Petitioner's bid reflects the specified ratio of light and dark meat, unlike Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid of turkey roast fails, as does Mutual's bid, to provide sufficient documentation to show that it is Grade A. Like Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid is for Grade B canned sweet potato and fails to provide documentation that the two jelly products are not excessively diluted. The only consequential deviation in Petitioner's bid not found in Mutual's bid is Petitioner's failure to bid an eggless pasta. However, the standard of reference for determining whether Petitioner's bid contains material variances is not Mutual's bid, but the ITB. Although considerably more compliant than Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid, when measured against the ITB and the importance of obtaining nutritious, safe, and tasty food for Respondent's schoolchildren, also falls impermissibly short of the mark. Petitioner's consequential deviations from the specifications also mean cheaper items than specified, through which Petitioner would have obtained an unearned competitive advantage, and products of lower quality than specified, which would have jeopardized the primary purpose of the ITB to ensure that Respondent obtained high-quality food. Impossible specifications, like domestic green olives or six potato items from the Northwest, or the failure to comply in some minor respect, such as sugar sprinkles from an unapproved manufacturer or excessively large pickles, may constitute minor irregularities. But the failure to ensure that each of the 297 items bid complies substantially in quality is not. Thus, an implied or expressed determination by Respondent that Petitioner's bid contains no material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees. There is no direct proof of any factual basis to award fees. Perhaps Petitioner infers an improper purpose from the fact that, despite the benefit of highly deferential standards of proof, Respondent has not prevailed. Obviously, Respondent's failure to prevail is due to several express or implied determinations that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. If this fact alone warranted a fee award, all agencies would be liable for fees in every bid case that they lost. The absence of such a statutory provision reveals the Legislative intent not to make agencies strictly liable for attorneys' fees in bid cases. The better approach is to permit an inference of improper purpose, but only if the agency were aware or reasonably should have been aware that its handling of the award was not merely clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, but was so egregiously so as to support an inference of improper purpose. Such is not the case here. There is no evidence of Petitioner's costs, and Petitioner did not request the administrative law judge to reserve jurisdiction or leave the record open for a later determination of costs.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hillsborough County enter a final order setting aside the award of the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and rebidding the contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Earl Lennard Superintendent School Board of Hillsborough County Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, Florida 33601-3408 Robert W. Rasch 129 Live Oak Lane Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 W. Crosby Few Few & Ayala, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2010.
