Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT") advertised for bids on State Project No. 72190-3530 in Duval County, Florida, with the bids to be closed on June 19, 1985. The notice to contractors and the special provisions included with the bid package provided that the subcontractor participation goal for the project for firms owned and controlled by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (hereinafter "DBE") was eight percent and for firms owned and controlled by Women Business Enterprises (hereinafter "WBE") was two percent of the total contract bid for that traffic signal installation and resurfacing project. In response to that advertisement for bids, Regency Electric Contracting Company (hereinafter "Regency") submitted a bid of $571,561.86 for the project. Mike Hunter, Inc.; Traffic Control Devices, Inc.; and Wiley N. Jackson Company also submitted bids for that project. Regency was the apparent low bidder. The bid submitted by Regency proposed to utilize 6.21 percent DBE subcontractors and .39 percent WBE subcontractors. Mike Hunter, Inc., proposed to utilize 5.4 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.8 percent WBE subcontractors. Traffic Control Devices, Inc., proposed to utilize 9.8 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.6 percent WBE subcontractors. Wiley N. Jackson proposed to utilize 39.9 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.7 percent WBE subcontractors. DOT, after reviewing the bids, issued a notice of switch in apparent low bidder for the project based upon the failure of Regency to achieve the DBE/WBE project goals and failure to submit documentation of good faith efforts to achieve those goals. Since Mike Hunter, Inc., (the second lowest bidder), also failed to achieve the project's DBE/WBE goals, DOT declared Traffic Control Devices, Inc. (the third lowest bidder), to be the low responsible bidder with its bid of $660,240.47 which is $88,678.61 more than the bid submitted by Regency. The 9.8 percent DBE participation proposed by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., was achieved by allocating a portion of the electrical work being performed by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., to a single DBE subcontractor at a price which was approximately double that proposed to be charged by Regency utilizing its own forces. W & T Enterprises, Inc., is the sole DBE subcontractor proposed to be utilized by Traffic Control Devices, Inc. Although W & T is a North Carolina corporation, it is certified by DOT as a DBE subcontractor for participation in contracts awarded by DOT. W & T qualified to transact business in the State of Florida on August 4, 1980, but its permit to transact business in Florida was revoked on December 16, 1981 for failure to file the annual report as required by law. Since that time, W & T has not re-qualified itself to do business in Florida, and W & T cannot now qualify to do business in Florida since there is now a Florida corporation under the name of W & T Enterprises, Inc. which is not affiliated with the North Carolina corporation, so that that name is no longer available in the State of Florida. Further, the North Carolina W & T Enterprises, Inc. is not registered under a fictitious name in Seminole County where it is alleged to maintain an office. Since Regency's Utilization Form No. 1 reflected that Regency had failed to achieve either the DBE or the WBE goals required for the project, an evaluation was made by DOT's "good faith efforts" review committee of Regency's "good faith efforts" documentation required to be submitted with its bid. In an attempt to evidence "good faith efforts" Regency submitted with its bid a one-page note which lists the DBE and WBE firms contacted by Regency. Regency only contacted a total of ten potential subcontractors and did not contact all of the potential subcontractors in any of the possible areas of subcontracting. The note further fails to indicate when the solicitations were made or that the solicitations were made at least seven days prior to the bid letting. Further, the few solicitations that were made were done by telephone and not by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand-delivery with a receipt. There is no evidence to indicate what information was given in the solicitations or that Regency offered to assist the firms contacted with preparation of their quotes, with review of the bid package, or with the obtaining of any required bonding or insurance. Lastly, none of the quotes obtained from any of the DBE or WBE firms contacted were attached to Regency's bid. DBE goals and WBE goals are established by DOT on a project-by-project basis. The evidence in this cause indicates that there were a number of facets to the project including, for example, grassing, asphalt/concrete, barricades/signs, guard rails, signalization and striping. Although one of Regency's witnesses who was not qualified as an expert made the statement that there was an insufficient amount of work available for subcontracting in the project, no specifics were offered as to the basis for that opinion other than the fact that Regency did not choose to subcontract any of the signalization work. No evidence was offered to show what portions of the project involved other-than-signalization work what portion of the project involved materials, or why no portion of the signalization should be subcontracted other than that witness's testimony that loop assembly work proposed to be subcontracted to W & T Enterprises Inc., by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., doubled the price of that portion of the work over Regency's estimate of the costs to do the loop assembly using Regency's own forces. Further, two of the four bidders were able to allocate sufficient portions of the project to subcontractors to meet the DBE goals set by DOT for the project, and three of the four bidders met the WBE goals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered declaring the bid of Regency Electric Contracting Company on State Project No. 72190-3530 nonresponsive, rejecting that bid, and dismissing with prejudice Regency's formal protest of intent to award a contract. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 1st day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-2820 The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have either been adopted verbatim or have been adopted as modified to conform to the evidence: 3-6 and 16-19. The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but as constituting either argument of counsel or conclusions of law: 1, 2, 13-15, and 20. The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have been rejected as unnecessary: 7-12. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have either been adopted verbatim or have been adopted as modified to conform to the evidence: 1, 4, 7, and 8. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but as constituting either argument of counsel or conclusions of law: 2, 3, 6, and 11. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have been rejected as unnecessary: 5, 9, and 10. The following proposed finding of fact of the Department of Transportation has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence: 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should award a contract to Intervenor to provide physical and occupational therapy services to approximately 1,300 exceptional education students who qualify for such services in 77 public schools in Brevard County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Intervenor is the incumbent contractor for physical and occupational therapy services provided to Respondent. Intervenor has provided such services to Respondent for approximately six years. On February 24, 1999, Respondent issued its request for proposals ("RFP") for occupational and physical therapy services. The RFP consists of eight unnumbered pages. Ten companies responded to the RFP. However, only the proposals of Petitioner and Intervenor are at issue in this proceeding. A four-member evaluation committee ranked each proposal on the basis of six categories. The six categories were: experience; qualification; recruiting ability; location of office; and responsiveness. The evaluation committee also considered the hourly rate and mileage to be charged by each proposer. The evaluation committee met as a body. Each member of the committee then returned to his or her respective office to complete a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet listed each proposer's name in a column down the left side of the sheet and the six categories for evaluation from left to right across the top of the sheet. A column down the right side of each sheet listed the hourly rate to be charged by the proposer identified in the column down the left side of the sheet. The RFP does not prescribe a scoring formula to be used in completing the scoring sheets. In relevant part, the RFP merely states: . . . The Selection Committee shall rank the firms in order of preference and will submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. All four members of the evaluation committee ranked Intervenor's proposal first and Petitioner's proposal second. However, the hourly rate in Petitioner's proposal was the lowest of all proposers, at $34.75, and $4.25 less than the $39 hourly rate quoted in the proposal submitted by Intervenor. The proposal submitted by Intervenor charged mileage in addition to the hourly rate while the hourly rate quoted by Petitioner included mileage. Before May 11, 1999, when the Board selected Intervenor as the proposer, the evaluation committee met. The committee asked Respondent's buyer assigned to the contract if the committee was required to recommend the proposal with the lowest price. The buyer advised the committee that the contract was for professional services and did not require the committee to recommend the lowest-priced proposal. The committee determined that Ms. Eva Lewis, one of its members and the Director of Program Support for Exceptional Student Education in Brevard County, should telephone Intervenor and ask if Intervenor would match Petitioner's price. Ms. Lewis telephoned Mr. Rick McCrary, the manager for Intervenor, and asked if Intervenor would accept the contract price of $34.75. After consultation with his superiors, Mr. McCrary agreed to the straight-rate price of $34.75. On May 11, 1999, Ms. Lewis presented the recommendation of the evaluation committee to the Board. The Board asked Ms. Lewis if Intervenor's price was the lowest price. Ms. Lewis disclosed that the evaluation committee preferred the proposal submitted by Intervenor, asked Intervenor to lower its price to meet that of Petitioner, and that Intervenor agreed to do so. The Board voted unanimously to select Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. The parties directed most of their efforts in this proceeding to the issues of whether competitive bidding requirements apply to the proposed agency action and whether the scoring formula used to rank the proposers complied with those requirements. Petitioner asserts that the selection of Intervenor by the Board violates the competitive bidding provisions in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated). Intervenor and Respondent contend that Section 120.57(1), rather than Section 120.57(3), controls the Board's selection of Intervenor for the contract. Although the document used by Respondent to obtain proposals from vendors describes itself as an RFP and describes the responses as either proposals or bids, Respondent and Intervenor suggest that the document is not an RFP but merely a "solicitation." Respondent and Intervenor further argue: . . . that the . . . Board . . . did not attempt to comply with the requirements for competitive procurement under Section 120.57(3) or Chapter 287. . . . And . . . that the . . . Board was never required to comply with those statutes. . . . these are contracts for professional, educational and health services, contracts uniquely and specifically exempted from [the] competitive bid procurement process. Transcript ("TR") at 40. It is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Section 120.57(1) or the competitive procurement provisions in Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 control Respondent's selection of Intervenor as the proposer to be awarded the contract. In either event, the proposed agency action is contrary to the specifications in the RFP. Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) and Chapter 287 do not apply to the contract at issue in this proceeding, Respondent failed to comply with RFP specifications. As Intervenor and Respondent point out in their joint PRO, Section F.8. of the RFP states: The . . . Board . . . and the selected proposer will negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions for submission to the . . . Board for consideration and approval. In the event an agreement cannot be reached with the selected proposer in a timely manner, then the . . . Board reserves the right to select an alternative proposer. (emphasis supplied) Intervenor and Respondent are also correct that the phrase "negotiate a contract as to terms and conditions" includes terms and conditions such as the contract price. Contrary to the provisions of Section F.8., the Board did not first select a proposer at its meeting on May 11, 1999, and then negotiate a contract price with the selected proposer. Rather, the evaluation committee negotiated a contract price with Intervenor before May 11, 1999, and the Board then selected Intervenor as the successful proposer. The evaluation committee is not the Board and does not have authority to act on behalf of the Board. As the RFP states, the evaluation committee has authority only to: . . . rank the firms in order of preference and . . . submit its recommendation to the Superintendent for his consideration. The [Board] will bear responsibility for the selection of the Contractor and will decide which bid [sic] is most appropriate for Brevard schools and their students. The Superintendent will recommend a therapy service provider which will be presented to the . . . Board for approval at a regular or special Board meeting. RFP at unnumbered page 8. The last sentence in Section F.8. makes clear that the right to select a proposer is the sole province of the Board and not the evaluation committee. Even if one were to ignore the legal distinctions between the evaluation committee and the Board and the authority of each, the RFP specifications fail to provide adequate notice to potential proposers of the true purpose for the RFP. As Respondent and Intervenor state in their joint PRO: . . . the . . . Board used the proposals it received to test the market for physical and occupational therapy services in Brevard County. The . . . Board then used the information it developed from the proposals as negotiating leverage to obtain a price concession from its incumbent contractor. The . . . Board's negotiation tactics permitted it to secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor. PRO at 33. The RFP fails to disclose that Respondent intended to use potential proposers to obtain negotiating leverage with the incumbent contractor. The failure of the RFP to disclose its purpose violates fundamental principles of due process, adequate notice, and fairness to potential proposers. It creates a gap between what agency staff knew of the Respondent's intent for the RFP and what potential proposers could know from reading the specifications in the RFP. The failure of the RFP to disclose its true purpose suggests that its authors recognized the chilling effect such a disclosure would have had on the response of potential proposers. The lack of responses from potential proposers, in turn, would have frustrated Respondent's intent to "secure the superior vendor at the price of an inferior vendor." Assuming arguendo that Section 120.57(3) controls the contract award at issue in this proceeding, Respondent's proposed agency action violates relevant provisions in Section 120.57(3)(f). In relevant part, Section 120.57(3)(f) provides: In a competitive procurement contest, other than a rejection of all bids, the Administrative Law Judge shall conduct a de novo proceeding to determine whether the agency’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules, or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. The standard of proof for such proceedings shall be whether the proposed agency action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary, or capricious. . . . (emphasis supplied) As previously found, the proposed award of the contract to Intervenor is contrary to the RFP specifications, including specifications for the evaluation and selection process described in paragraphs 7 and 17, supra. The proposed agency action is clearly erroneous within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). It violates fundamental notions of due process, adequate notice, and a level playing field for all proposers. All of the proposers who were induced by the terms of the RFP to expend the time, energy, and expense required to prepare and submit proposals were entitled to rely in good faith on the specifications in the RFP and to require Respondent to adhere to its own specifications. The proposed agency action is also contrary to competition within the meaning of Section 120.57(3)(f). The economic incentive to respond to an RFP would likely diminish over time if the proposed agency action were to persist. Potential proposers would eventually recognize the RFP process as a device intended to reduce the contract price of the incumbent provider rather than as a bona fide business opportunity for potential proposers to gain new market share. Such an economic environment would not likely induce potential proposers to incur the time and expense necessary to prepare and submit proposals. The pool of potential proposers would shrink, and Respondent would lose negotiating leverage with the incumbent vendor. The likely result would be an erosion of negotiating leverage and an accretion in costs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order finding that the selection of Intervenor for the contract award is contrary to the RFP specifications and contrary to competition. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. David Sawyer, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, Florida 32940-6699 Harold Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier, Miniclier and Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Cocoa, Florida 32922 Jonathan Sjostram, Esquire Steel Hector and Davis, LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward J. Kinberg, Esquire Edward J. Kinberg, P.A. 2101 South Waverly Place Suite 200E Melbourne, Florida 32901
Findings Of Fact Department of Transportation (DOT) Project #02000-3608 is a federal aid highway project requiring the replacement of a bridge on Kings Bay Drive over a canal near the Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida. The bridge is currently closed due to hurricane damage. The bid specifications were published, and a bid submittal deadline of March 28, 1990, was established. The bid specifications included a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) goal of 10%, and hiring goals of 6.9% female and 17.1% minority. The bid specifications also included the following special provisions related to DBE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS * * * 2-5.3.2 Submittals for Contracts with Goals: For all contracts for which DBE contract goals have been established, each contractor shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE participation information shall be submitted with the Contractor's bid proposal. Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. The Contractor's bid submission shall include the following information (Submitted on Forms Nos. 275-020-002-DBE Utilization Affirmative Action Certification, 275-020-003-DBE Utilization Summary and 275-020-004-DBE Utilization Form): The names and addresses of certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs certified by the Department at the time the bid is submitted may be counted toward DBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm. If the DBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. * * * DISQUALIFICATION OF BIDDERS ARTICLE 2-11 (Page 11) is expanded as follows: (h) Failure to satisfy the requirements of 2-5.3. * * * (Petitioner's exhibit #2, emphasis added) DBE goals for projects to be bid are established at DOT by a committee which includes a representative from the agency's Bureau of Minority Programs. From a list of individual bid items, the committee determines which items are normally subcontracted. Those items are totalled to achieve a percentage of the job. The Bureau of Minority Programs then reviews the list to determine the number of DBEs, from the agency directory, which would be available to perform the subcontracted work in the relevant geographical area. The Bureau of Minority Programs then makes its recommendation to the goals-setting committee. For example, if 40% of the job would normally be subcontracted and DBEs were available to perform 50% of that work, the goal could be set at 20%. In practice, the goals are not set so high, and the most common goal is 10%, as that is the overall goal of the DOT. Goals vary, depending on the type of work, the location and the availability of DBEs. Hiring goals are also established for each project, but in contrast to the DBE goals, they are not considered in the award of a bid. Four firms responded to the bid advertisement for Project Number 02000- 3608. The Cone Corporation was the low bidder at $588,793.45. Cone Constructors, Inc. bid $629,736.85. Piling and Structures, Inc. bid $700,436.53; and Leware Construction Company bid $733,333.33. The Cone Corporation bid included DBE utilization forms indicating that $56,000.00 would be subcontracted to H.S. Thompson Construction Company for concrete and rebar work. This amounts to approximately 9.5% of its bid. The Cone Corporation did not submit any statement with its bid package as to how good faith efforts were made to comply with the DBE goal. A good faith effort committee of the department met to review the bids, and determined that it could not evaluate the Cone Corporation's good faith efforts because no information was provided. Cone Constructor, Inc., the next lowest bidder, provided a $70,000.00 subcontract with a DBE firm, D.A.B. Constructors, Inc., for various work items related to the project. This amounts to approximately 11% of its bid, and meets the specified 10% goal. Piling and Structures, Inc., provided for six DBE subcontractors for a total of $56,000.00, or approximately 8% of its bid; and Leware Construction Company, the highest bidder, provided for four DBE subcontractors, for a total of $76,887.45, or approximately 10.5% of its bid. Thus, two bidders met the specified DBE goal, and two did not. The good faith efforts committee recommended that Cone Corporation's bid be declared nonresponsive because the DBE goal was not achieved and documentation of good faith effort was not submitted. The committee noted that DBE utilization forms submitted by other bidders indicated that there were other DBE subcontractors available for work on the project. Bob Graham is vice-president of the Cone Corporation and has worked for the firm for ten years. He is responsible for the day to day management of the firm, and he prepared the project bid. Bob Graham concedes that the DBE subcontract in his bid does not meet the 10% goal. He solicited and received other DBE subcontract quotations, but rejected them as being higher than non-DBE quotations. Only one DBE subcontractor responded lowest in an area of work and Graham submitted that firm, H.S. Thompson, as part of his bid. Bob Graham also admits that he did not submit any good faith documentation with his bid to demonstrate that an effort was made to meet the DBE goal. Bids are commonly compiled at the last minute, with the bidders assembling various quotations and putting together final numbers to meet the bid deadline. Graham simply did not have time to add the good faith effort documentation. He made a considered business decision to reject all but one DBE subcontractor, in favor of being able to submit a lower bid. He knew at the time that his bid was submitted that the DBE goal was not met. His bid was approximately $41,000.00 lower than the next lowest bid. For an additional $2,800.00 he could have met the 10% goal. This, of course, was apparent only after the bids were opened.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered, dismissing the protest of Petitioner, the Cone Corporation. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 9th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Crit Smith, Esquire SMITH AND THOMPSON, P.A. 1530 Metropolitan Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32308 John H. Beck, Esquire 1020 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul J. Martin, Esquire and Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. #58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. #58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 =================================================================
The Issue Was Petitioner responsive to the bid solicitation for Project E-2B59, Duval County (the project) by Respondent? Did Respondent act appropriately in rejecting all bids for the project?
Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited numerous firms to bid for a contract to conduct roadside mowing and litter removal under terms of the project. This included the edging of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The estimated cost of this project for budgetary purposes was $300,000. The project was to be completed within 365-calendar days with a renewal option. Only four firms responded to the bid solicitation notice. Petitioner and Intervenor were among those firms. In particular, the bid solicitation notice informed the bidders about the DBE goals for the project wherein it stated: This contract has minimum DBE goals of 10% Black and/or Hispanic. The DBE Utilization Summary Form 275-020-003, Rev. 10/95 must be included with the bid submission or the bid will be declared non-responsive. In addition, all DBE Utilization Form(s) S275- 020-004, Rev. 10/95 must be completed and received by 5:00 P.M. on the third business day following the letting or the bid will be declared non-responsive. In addition to other comments concerning 275-020-003, DBE Utilization Summary Form and 275-020-004, DBE Utilization Form, the bidders were provided the following instructions for completing those forms in relation to the project: Revised 5/96 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING UTILIZATION FORMS 275-020-003 and 275-020-004 (REVISED 10/95) NOTE: THESE FORMS MUST BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE CHAPTER 14-78, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FORM 275-020-003, DBE UTILIZATION SUMMARY This form must have all information requested including total goal in dollars and total goal in percentage. No signatures are required. If the project has one DBE goal use one form. If the project has a split goal (i.e. 4% Black 4% Non-minority Women) use two forms, one for each goal. The completed form if not submitted with the bid, must be received by the Minority Programs Office no later than 5:00 p.m. on the third business day after the letting. Electronic transmittals (e.g. facsimiles) sent directly to the Department will not be accepted. FORM 275-020-004, DBE UTILIZATION FORM Complete the form indicating prime contractors, state project number and DBE name, address and phone number. Submit one form for each DBE utilized on the project. Make additional copies if necessary. The form submitted to the Department must be completed, signed by an authorized representative of the DBE and received by the Minority Programs Office by 5:00 p.m. on the third business day following the letting. Electronic transmittals (e.g. facsimiles) sent directly to the Department will not be accepted. The columns for "Item No." and "Description" shall include the same information as per the "Request to Sublet" form. The amount paid to a certified DBE supplier must be factored by 60% to attain the amount to be applied toward the DBE goal. Complete line showing "Total to DBE." It can be seen that the explanation provided by Respondent in its bid solicitation notice and the instructions for completing utilization forms are in conflict in relation to the time for submitting 275-020-003, DBE Utilization Summary Form. The bid solicitation notice mandated the provision of that form with the bid submission or the bid would be declared non- responsive. Whereas, the instructions for completing that form would allow a bidder until 5:00 P.M. on the third business day after the letting for receipt of that information by the Minority Programs Office in the event that the information had not been submitted with the bid. The bidders for the project were also provided with excerpts of Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, in relation to participation by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in Department of Transportation contracts. Rule 14-78.003, Florida Administrative Code, was part of the excerpt. At 14-78.003 Subpart 2(b)3., provided to the project bidders, it states: For all contracts for which DBE contract goals have been established, each bidder shall meet or exceed or demonstrated it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goal set by the department. The DBE participation information shall be submitted as outlined in 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a. and b. below. . . . Failure to satisfy information requirements shall result in contractor's bid being deemed non-responsive and the bid being rejected. The contractor's bid submission shall include the following information. . . and shall be submitted on a completed Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Form, Form 275-020-004, Rev. 10/95 and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form, Form 275-020- 003, Rev. 10/95: The names, addresses, and current telephone numbers of the certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract; and A description of the work each named DBE certified firm will perform; and The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE certified firm; and Any documentation required by the contract or applicable rules as evidence of certified DBE participation; and Signature of an authorized representative of the certified DBE firm confirming the DBE utilization information; and Evidence that the DBE goal for the project has been met. If the DBE goal is not met, sufficient information must be provided to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the DBE goals. In lieu of a completed Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form, Department of Transportation Form 275- 020-003, Rev. 10/95, and a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Form, Department of Transportation Form 275-020- 004, Rev. 10/95, the contractor will submit a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form which indicates that either the contractor will achieve the DBE goal established for the project for which the bid has been submitted, or that the contractor has submitted sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal as part of the bid submission. If the contractor has submitted a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form on which the contractor has indicated that the DBE goal will be achieved, the contractor will provide to the Minority Programs Office by 5:00 P.M. on the third business day following the bid letting day (Electronic transmissions, such as a FAX, sent directly to the Department will not be accepted): An updated Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form listing the DBE subcontractors that will be utilized on the project to meet the DBE goal, the dollar amount of the DBE goal subcontracted to each DBE, and the total dollar amount for the DBE goal; and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Forms shall be completed and signed by an authorized representative of the DBE, for each DBE subcontract utilized on the project to achieve the DBE goal. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Forms that are not signed by an authorized representative of the DBE firm, will be rejected and will result in the bid being non-responsive. The bid solicitation notice tended to coincide with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.b, Florida Administrative Code, with the exception that the bid solicitation notice did not call for the submission of an updated Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form by 5:00 P.M. on the third business day following the bid letting. The Disadvantaged Business (DBE) Utilization Summary Form 275-020-003 provided to the bidders, in relation to paragraph 6.a. states: This form must be included in the bid submission and must be completed in accordance with one of the following options: Goal achieved with the following information completed (Note: All signed DBE Utilization forms 275-020-004 must be received by the District Contracts Office, 1901 S. Marion St., Lake City, Florida 32025, no later than 5:00 p.m. on the third business day after the letting). Later the form states: NOTE: Bids shall be declared non-responsive if the DBE Utilization Summary form providing all information listed in 6.a. above, and all completed DBE Utilization forms are not received by the District Contracts Office, 1901 S. Marion St., Lake City, Florida 32025, by 5:00 P.M. on the third business day following the letting. Electronic transmittals (e.g. Faxes) sent directly to the Department will not be accepted. This form is internally inconsistent in that it initially states that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form must be included with the bid submission and later states that the DBE Utilization Summary Form providing the information will not be declared non-responsive if received by the District Office on the third business day following the letting. By contrast, consistent with the bid solicitation notice, the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Form 275-020-004, provided to the bidders for the project stated: NOTE: All DBE Utilization Forms submitted to the Department must be completed, signed by an authorized representative of the DBE and received by the District Contracts Office, 1901 S. Marion St., Lake City, Florida 32025, by 5:00 P.M. on the third business day following the letting. . . . Bids will be declared non-responsive if all DBE Utilization forms are not received by the District Contracts Office by 5:00 P.M., on the third business day following the letting. . . . Petitioner and Intervenor were represented at the pre- bid conference conducted by Respondent. From the discussion held in the pre-bid conference, Intervenor in the person of its President Bilal Saleem, understood that the Utilization Summary Form 275-020-003, was to be provided with the bid submission or the bid would be declared non-responsive. Consistent with that understanding Intervenor provided the DBE Utilization Summary Form with its bid submission. Petitioner did otherwise. When Intervenor submitted its bid response, it included the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Summary Form 275-020-003 reflecting its full quote of $241,971.40, in that Intervenor is a DBE firm. Petitioner provided a DBE Utilization Form 275-020-004 with its bid submission which was not signed on the signature line by the DBE representative submitting the quote found within Petitioner's submission. The submission of the Utilization Form noted that the amount to be paid to the DBE subcontractor was $59,200, out of a total price quote of $229,279. The unsigned Utilization Form described the activity as "mowing large machines" to be done by R & L Cleaning Services (Black), 2090 South Nova Road, Daytona Beach, Florida 32115, telephone no. (904) 761-1001. Petitioner's provision of the unsigned DBE Utilization Summary Form 275-020-004 with its bid submission was not in keeping with any instructions or explanations provided by Respondent concerning the manner in which DBE utilization would be described by bidders. Upon the third day following the bid opening, Petitioner submitted a DBE Utilization Summary Form 275-020-004 signed by the Vice President of R & L Cleaning Services, reflecting the same information as had been provided on the Utilization Form provided with Petitioner's bid submission. In addition, upon the third day following the bid opening, Petitioner provided the DBE Utilization Summary Form 275-020-003, reflecting R & L Cleaning Services as being the DBE subcontractor for a DBE goal of $59,200, representing 26 percent of the total project "price quotation," which was also reflected on that form. Given the inconsistencies in the information provided to Petitioner and other businesses solicited to bid on the project, the question arises whether Petitioner has sufficiently conformed to the expectations of Respondent for reporting information on DBE compliance. The issue of compliance by the reporting of DBE goals by Petitioner was promoted by action of the Respondent at the bid opening for the project on August 20, 1998, in which Intervenor whose price quotation was $241,971.40, second low quote, was declared the responsive low bidder for the project and a recommendation made to award the contract to Intervenor. This was followed by correspondence of August 31, 1998, from Respondent to Petitioner in which Jane E. Jones, District Contract Administrator for Respondent, District 2 informed Petitioner that its bid had been found non-responsive for the following reason: DBE Utilization Summary form was not completed and submitted with your bid. As per our advertisement and Florida Administrative Code 14-78, the DBE Utilization Summary form #275-020-003 must be submitted with your bid. Your bid did not include this form. In turn, Patrick Daugherty, Secretary and Treasurer for Petitioner, wrote Ms. Patsy Elkins of the Florida Department of Transportation on September 1, 1998, concerning Petitioner's response to the requirement for providing information on DBE compliance. This correspondence pointed out the instructions for completing Utilization Forms 275-020-003 and 275-020-004 as constituting the reason why Petitioner had taken advantage of the three-day period in which to submit DBE forms. This was followed by the Notice of Protest for the project dated September 2, 1998 and ultimately the Formal Protest dated September 9, 1998, by Petitioner. Although, submission of the unsigned Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Utilization Form 275-020-004 with the bid documents did not comport with any instructions or information provided from Respondent to Petitioner, it does not matter. Beyond the submission of incomplete information on the wrong form at the time of the bid submission, Petitioner complied with the Respondent's instructions for completing the Utilization Forms 275-020-003 and 275-020-004 within the third business day after the letting. These facts are found in a setting in which Ms. Jones as District Contract Administrator, and policymaker, acknowledged the confusion in the instructions that had been given to the bidders concerning the submission of DBE compliance information and the lack of an explanation for declaring Petitioner non-responsive for failure to submit needed information, other than to state that some part of the instructions called for Petitioner to submit the DBE Utilization Summary Form 275-020-003 at the time the bid was submitted. On balance, the facts established Petitioner's compliance with the requirements to state DBE goals. Therefore, Petitioner is the apparent responsive low bidder. Rejection of All Bids Respondent through its bid tabulation had begun its posting on August 31, 1998, following its decision finding Intervenor the responsive low bidder. Respondent then determined as of September 3, 1998, to reject all bids "due to conflicting information in the bid package." This notice rejecting all bids was posted on September 3, 1998, with an ending date for posting of September 8, 1998. Addendum 4 also informed bidders that all bids had been rejected for the project "due to conflicting information in the bid package." While Intervenor had supported Respondent's decision to reject Petitioner's bid, Intervenor was in agreement with Petitioner's September 9, 1998 Formal Protest of the Respondent's decision to reject all bids. In the context of the decision to reject all bids, Ms. Jones discovered that only one of the four bidders on the project had received Addendum 3. Addendum 3 was dated August 7, 1998, and was only received by Intervenor among the four bidders. Addendum 3 stated: Addendum No. 3, Financial Project No. 21477217232, E-2B59 Attached are the Approximate Quantities with a brief explanation that these quantities are for one cycle and that the begin date for this contract will be January 1, 1999. Also, attached is a revised Bid Blank and Calendar of Events for this project. These forms must be utilized when bidding on this project August 20, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. Please sign, date and fax a copy of this addendum back to me by close of business today to indicate receipt. Also, include a copy of this addendum with your bid. As Ms. Jones explains, Addendum 3 was important in that it attempted to establish "posting rules" that had been left out before. Ms. Jones also expressed concern in that in the absence of receiving Addendum 3, Petitioner had not included a copy of Addendum 3 with Petitioner's bid submission. All participating bidders had received a copy of Addendum 1 for the project. Addendum 1 stated approximate quantities in relation to places and hectares to be addressed by the contractor. Addendum 1 in describing the attachment of that information stated: Attached are location sheets for the roadside mowing and litter removal, edging of sidewalk and curb and gutter sections for the above referenced project. Addendum 3 by its attachment pertaining to approximate quantities mirrored the attachments to Addendum 1, but its attachment had the following information in addition to that found within the attachment to Addendum 1: THE QUANTITIES LISTED ARE APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES FOR ONE CYCLE THE BID QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE GIVEN AS AN AID TO THE CONTRACTOR. THE ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED MAY BE INCREASED, DECREASED, OR OMITTED. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE PAID FOR WORK COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED. THIS CONTRACT WILL BEGIN JANUARY 1, 1999. The calendar of events that was referred to in Addendum 3 as an attachment stated the following: FIN Project Number 21477217232 Contract Number E-2B59 Roadside mowing and litter removal, edging of sidewalk and curb and gutter sections. Duval County 06-29-98 Mailed Bid Solicitation Notice. 06-29-98 Published Advertisements in Florida Times Union, 07-06-98 Gainesville Sun, Tallahassee Democrat & Tampa Tribune 07-15-98 a MANDATORY PREBID CONFERENCE @ 2:00 p.m. Jacksonville Urban Office 2250 Irene Street Jacksonville, Florida Kelly Stroupe 904-381-8777 08-20-98 Bid opening - 2:00 P.M. - Large Conference Room 1901 South Marion St., Lake City, FL 32025 08-27-98 Evaluation committee meeting, Encumber funds. 08-31-98 Presentation of bid results to Executive Committee 08-31-98 4:15 p.m. - Begin Posting of Bid - 72 hours 09-07-98 5:00 p.m. - End Posting of Bid - 72 hours 09-30-98 Contract to Contractor for Signature 10-09-98 Execution of Contract and mail to Contractor(2), District Office Fiscal(2), Maintenance/Construction(3) District Office File(1) The Calendar of Events referring to the bid opening on August 20, 1998, was information found in Addendum 2. Obviously some of the events that were described in the calendar attached to Addendum 3 had already transpired before the August 7, 1998 preparation date of Addendum 3.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner submitted a responsive bid for the project but upholding Respondent's decision to reject all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 1st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Lane, Esquire Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed, P.A. Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Bilal Saleem, Personal Representative Saleem Lawn Service, Inc. Post Office Box 26736 Jacksonville, Florida 32226 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary C/O James C. Meyers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Department of Transportation (D0T) advertised for bids on State Project Number 97879-3336 in July of 1986. The project involves new roadway construction with specified materials, drainage installation, curbs, gutters and sidewalks adjacent to the Orange Bowl in Dade County. The D0T set a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) participation goal for this project of fifteen percent. In order to comply with this goal, a bidder must state its intention to subcontract with a D0T certified DBE an amount of work equal to or greater than fifteen percent of the total dollar value of its bid. The D0T opened the nine bids received for this project on July 30, 1986. The intervenor Capeletti Brothers, Inc. (Capeletti), submitted the apparent low bid in the amount of $2,044,000.18, and the petitioner Russell, Inc. (Russell), submitted the apparent second low bid of $2,047,503.00 The remaining bids ranged between $2,124,527.32 and $2,851,657.26. Bidders indicate compliance with the minority participation goals established for a project through the submittal of "DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1," which is submitted with the bid. In this case, Capeletti provided information on Form No. 1 that it would subcontract with Ivory Modernized Services to do "trucking" and "aggregates" at a dollar amount of $307,622.00, or 15.05 percent of the total contract amount. Russell indicated on Form No. 1 that it would subcontract with Community Asphalt Corporation to do "asphalt paving" at a dollar amount of $352,151.00, or 17 percent of the total contract amount. During the bid letting process, it is the practice of the DOT to conduct a facial review of the "DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1" submitted with the bid to determine whether the named subcontractor is a certified DBE or WBE and whether the participation goal set for that project has been met. Prior to awarding the contract, the DOT does not make a separate investigation to determine whether a listed DBE subcontractor is actually capable of performing the work for which the bidder has indicated. Any such investigation is made at or after the time a contractor actually submits to the DOT a request for authorization to sublet, which occurs after the DOT has awarded the contract to the bidder. The DOT considers the successful bidder to be bound to pay a DBE at least the amount listed on Form No. 1 submitted with its bid. If, for some reason, the DBE listed cannot perform the work for which it has subcontracted to perform, the DOT will require the prime contractor to either pay that amount to the listed DBE or subcontract with another DBE for that work. Ivory Modernized Services, Inc. (Ivory), is a DOT certified DBE. In its application to the DOT for certification, it listed "trucking (hauling of aggregates)" as the nature of its business. The DOT requests such information on the application because it publishes a directory of certified DBEs for the use of bidders on state contracts. Prior to submitting its bid, Capeletti and Ivory agreed that if Capeletti were the successful low bidder on this project, Ivory would furnish and deliver aggregates to the job site. It was agreed that the responsibility for obtaining and delivering the aggregates to the project site would rest with Ivory. The sum of $307,622.00 was derived by estimating the quantities of the various types of aggregates needed for the project, the material cost per ton, the hauling cost per ton and the amount and charge for on-site hauling. In the past, Capeletti has directly purchased rock from mining pits in the area. While Capeletti has never before purchased fill from Ivory, Ivory has performed one D0T job where it was responsible for both the buying and hauling of aggregates. Ivory does not own any fill land, pits or fill material, does not do any active pit excavation and does not plan to stockpile aggregate materials for this project. Ivory intends to negotiate with the rock pit owner for the required amounts, types and purchase prices of the aggregates needed, pick up those aggregates from the pits and transport them to the job site. The precise methods of payment for the aggregates has not yet been determined. In order to avoid any potential markups in the price of limerock and aggregates, Russell deals directly with the rock pits in purchasing its materials. Truckers are hired separately to deliver the materials to the job site, and they do not purchase the fill. In its bid, Russell did not list a DBE trucker or hauler because the fifteen percent participation goal could not be reached with amounts expended for trucking alone. It has been the past practice and policy of the DOT to allow all material costs to be included in meeting the DBE participation goal where the DBE subcontractor assumed the actual and contractual responsibility for the provision of the materials and supplies. For example, where a DBE grasser or concrete finisher also assumes responsibility for purchasing and obtaining the sod or concrete and responsibility for supplying those materials to the project site, the costs of the sod or concrete are included in meeting the DBE participation goal. The prime purpose of limiting payments which can be included in the case of "suppliers" who perform some commercially useful function is to prevent mere brokerage or pass-through services as qualifying for full participation in meeting DBE goals. "Commercially useful functions" performed by a "supplier" can include the stockpiling and transporting of materials.
Findings Of Fact The underlying case for which attorneys fees in the undisputed amount of $2,775.00 are sought involved a 1992 application by Union Trucking, Inc. for recertification by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) as a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE). Union Trucking, Inc. had originally been certified by FDOT in 1988, and upon successive applications for certification, had been recertified by FDOT in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Recertification was applied for on July 20, 1992 and denied on December 14, 1992. A request for formal hearing followed on January 15, 1993 and the case proceeded before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) until FDOT recertified Union Trucking, Inc. on October 15, 1993. On November 17, 1993, DOAH hearing officer P. Michael Ruff entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction, which resulted in FDOT's December 17, 1993 final order. FDOT's final order was entered on the grounds that certification had been granted, did not alter the recertification terms, and dismissed the request for formal hearing. On February 14, 1994, less than sixty days after entry of the FDOT final order, Petitioner filed its original "Application for Award of Attorneys Fees Pursuant to F.S. 57.111," hereafter "petition." On March 2, 1994, FDOT filed a response, which, although no motion to dismiss was filed, addressed assorted insufficiencies of the petition. FDOT's response did not raise any timeliness bar. An order of dismissal with leave to amend within fifteen days was entered by the undersigned hearing officer on April 21, 1994. The amended petition was filed May 11, 1994, and FDOT filed its response on May 26, 1994, still not asserting any timeliness bar. At formal hearing, the parties stipulated that the only issue for consideration was whether or not FDOT had been substantially justified in denying the 1992 recertification. Otherwise, it was undisputed that Petitioner is a small business party; that FDOT was not merely a nominal party; that the employment, amount of fee, and hours worked by Petitioner's counsel were as stated in the pleadings, and that there were no "unusual circumstances" as contemplated within the applicable statute and rule. The undersigned hearing officer suggested that the parties include in their post-hearing proposals arguments directed to timeliness, vel non, of the attorney's fee and costs petition, and thus, whether or not DOAH has jurisdiction of this case. With regard to the "substantial justification" issue, it is necessary to review the DBE process since 1991. Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1991 application for recertification was received by FDOT on April 30, 1991. Documents submitted to FDOT by Union Trucking, Inc. in conjunction with the 1991 application revealed that Petitioner corporation had undergone an ownership change on April 1, 1991, approximately 29 days prior to submittal of the 1991 application, which ownership change had transferred 49 percent of Union Trucking, Inc.'s corporate stock from Denise Willis to Robin P. Wilson; that the new owner, Robin P. Wilson, did not list any employment on her resume other than at Pritchett Trucking, Inc.; that Union Trucking, Inc. had a business relationship with Pritchett Trucking, Inc.; and that the new 49 percent owner of Union Trucking, Inc., Robin P. Wilson, is the daughter of Marvin Pritchett, owner of Pritchett Trucking, Inc. Marvin Pritchett is a white American male. Robin Pritchett Wilson is a white American female. Denise Willis, who previously owned the 49 percent of Union Trucking, Inc. stock which was transferred to Robin Wilson is also a white American female, and the stepdaughter of Marvin Pritchett. From Union Trucking, Inc.'s inception and at all times material, 51 percent of Union Trucking, Inc.'s stock has been owned by Warren Lee, a black American male. At all times material, Union Trucking, Inc. has been 100 percent owned by disadvantaged classes (female and black). At all times material, FDOT did not break down its disadvantaged certifications as to "black" versus "female" for purposes of categorizing DBE status, but only looked to whether or not at least 51 percent of the stock was owned by a member(s) of a disadvantaged class. FDOT has no rule specifically requiring that all owners work in the business, only that day to day control be in the hands of the disadvantaged class. FDOT conducted an on-site visit to Union Trucking, Inc. on July 22, 1991, at which time FDOT requested additional information as to Robin Wilson's employment with Union Trucking, Inc. and was notified that Robin Wilson spent approximately one to two hours per day working for Union Trucking, Inc. FDOT also inquired about Union Trucking Inc.'s business relationship with Pritchett Trucking, Inc. and received the explanation that the relationship was "like any lease owner with the company they lease with." DBE personnel at FDOT did not understand what this response meant, but they did not inquire further in 1991. Instead, the FDOT DBE certification committee voted to recertify Union Trucking, Inc. with a special monitor, because there were undefined "concerns" and unidentified "feelings" about the eligibility of Union Trucking, Inc. At formal hearing, FDOT personnel were very clear that recertification in 1991 with a "special monitor" meant that when Union Trucking, Inc. came up for recertification in 1992, an on-site review must be conducted. Prior to receiving Union Trucking, Inc.'s July 20, 1992 application for recertification, FDOT was notified by the Department of General Services (DGS) that DGS also had "concerns" about Union Trucking, Inc. On September 10, 1992, DGS notified FDOT that DGS had denied Union Trucking, Inc.'s application to DGS for Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) certification, that the DGS denial had been upheld at a DOAH hearing, and that FDOT would be provided a copy of the DOAH hearing officer's recommended order. FDOT subsequently received a copy of that recommended order which had been entered September 9, 1992. FDOT's Minority Programs Office Manager testified that, in his opinion, the recommended order in the DGS case (Exhibit DOT 9) "verified" the FDOT "concerns" expressed during the 1991 FDOT recertification process, but he defined those concerns as independent financing. The FDOT DBE certification committee chairperson testified that the recommended order addressed concerns expressed during the 1991 FDOT recertification process, but he defined the concerns differently, as lack of independency from familial relationships, i.e. control, and financial relationships of family corporations. Both men considered FDOT's and DGS' rules to be substantially similar. In fact, the September 9, 1992 recommended order to DGS involved a different agency (DGS) than FDOT, a different statute (Section 287.0943 F.S.) than the one authorizing FDOT's DBE program and different rules (Rules 13A- 2.005(4)(a) and (b) and 13A-4 F.A.C.) than the ones administered by FDOT. FDOT is required to operate under Section 337.135 F.S. and administer Rules 14-78.002 and 14-78.005 F.A.C. Also, the recommended order focused on a legal conclusion that Union Trucking, Inc. was financially dependent, or at least at the time of its corporate "start-up" in 1986 was financially dependent, upon Pritchett Trucking, Inc. The recommended order stated, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . co-owner of the applicant is Pritchett's daughter and a natural subject of his goodwill and generosity, such a relationship is prohibited by the statute, [referring to Section 287.0943 F.S.] Similarly, her service as a director of Pritchett corporation, carrying on Union's business from her desk at Pritchett Trucking is natural, but estab- lishes a prohibited relationship. [Bracketed material added her for clarification]. Upon receipt of the DGS recommended order, FDOT did not seek further explanatory information from the applicant, as was FDOT's standard procedure under its normal operation. Further, FDOT did not follow its own specially prescribed procedure for certified DBEs with "special monitor" status, in that FDOT did not conduct a new 1992 on-site review. Instead, two months later, FDOT sent its December 14, 1992 denial letter. The FDOT employee who prepared the letter testified that the letter denial was based on her review of all the information already in FDOT's DBE file on Union Trucking, Inc., upon the audio tape of the old 1991 on-site review interview, and upon corporate records of the Secretary of State. The FDOT letter, however, closely tracked the DGS recommended order but denied recertification by FDOT on the basis of FDOT Rules 14-78.005(7)(c)1. and 2.c. and 14-78.005(7)(a) F.A.C. It also stated that Union Trucking, Inc. was not an independent business entity or a small business concern and that there was an "affiliate" relationship under FDOT rules due to "Susan [sic] Wilson." It renamed Robin Wilson and also extrapolated a great deal of financial information that appears to come directly from the DGS recommended order. As a result of FDOT's denial of its 1992 recertification application, Union Trucking, Inc. requested a formal hearing. During the progress of that case before DOAH, FDOT received a copy of an affidavit by Robin Wilson in which she stated that Union Trucking, Inc. only purchased parts and fuel from Pritchett Trucking because Pritchett's Lake Butler terminal was the least expensive and most convenient source. Ms. Wilson also stated that Union Trucking, Inc. had not received any loans from her father's companies in four to five years, and that there were no current outstanding loans. In an effort to negotiate the issues and resolve matters without formal hearing before DOAH, FDOT finally conducted an on-site review in July 1993. Documentation was provided by Union Trucking, Inc. to show that all recent transactions with any of Marvin Pritchett's companies were properly invoiced "arm's length" transactions and that Union Trucking, Inc. dealt with many other companies as well; that Union Trucking, Inc.'s old debts to Marvin Pritchett's companies had been retired with zero balances prior to Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1992 recertification application to FDOT; and that Union Trucking, Inc. had three trucks and trailers normally being used full-time in its business. Random samplings by FDOT's consultant during this on-site review confirmed the information in the possession of FDOT prior to the 1992 application for recertification, most of which had been provided and was already in FDOT's possession as early as April 30, 1991. If FDOT had inquired concerning any loans at the time it received the recommended order in September 1992, it would have determined that all loans to Union Trucking, Inc. from any of Marvin Pritchett's various enterprises had been paid off prior to Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1992 recertification application to FDOT. FDOT's consultant's report after the 1993 on-site review determined that there currently were no "affiliated" firms under FDOT rules. It also appears from the report that FDOT then accepted that Robin Wilson split her time between office management for Union Trucking, Inc., running her own company named "Robin Pritchett Trucking Inc.," and working for her father's "[Marvin] Pritchett Trucking Inc." Having clarified these matters, FDOT no longer had problems or concerns with such an arrangement. Union Trucking, Inc.'s records on file for contract work with FDOT through other contractors also reflected use of owned trucks and drivers employed by Union Trucking, Inc. FDOT then recertified Petitioner effective October 15, 1993. At the attorney's fee and costs hearing herein, FDOT presented evidence that it did not have the correct location address for Union Trucking, Inc. when its personnel went to the July 1993 on-site review. This evidence does not justify FDOT's 1992 denial. Union Trucking, Inc.'s corporate office had moved a few weeks previous to the 1993 on-site review. Since Union Trucking, Inc. and its lawyer had been in constant communication with FDOT during the litigation phase of the recertification denial case, consistently urging an on-site inspection, any failure by Union Trucking, Inc. to clarify the geographical relocation of its office in 1993 was either an oversight or an innocent miscommunication. This change of address was not noted in Union Trucking, Inc.'s 1992 reapplication because the move had not yet occurred when that reapplication was submitted in July of 1992. Obviously, FDOT did not use the 1993 failure to notify the agency of a change of address as a reason to deny recertification in 1992, and FDOT also did not consider it a sufficiently serious flaw to withhold recertification after the July 1993 on-site review. FDOT also presented evidence that Robin Wilson did not tell the agency that she owned 100 percent of another corporate entity, "Robin Pritchett (her maiden name) Trucking, Inc." until the July 1993 on-site review. FDOT's two on- site reviewers concurred that "Robin Pritchett Trucking," consisting of one truck, which was sporadically used to haul wood chips, was never any cause for FDOT's concern. Apparently, FDOT considers hauling wood products to be an entirely different industry than the hauling of highway aggregates, which is the type of work done on FDOT contracts and the type of work done by Union Trucking, Inc. While Robin Pritchett Wilson's "affiliation" with her own independent corporation, "Robin Pritchett Trucking, Inc.," possibly was the type of "affiliation" which she should have disclosed, pursuant to FDOT's DBE rule, on Union Trucking Inc.'s 1992 application for recertification by FDOT as a DBE, it is clear that FDOT did not know of this nondisclosure when the agency denied recertification in December 1992. FDOT did not deny recertification at that time for that reason. FDOT also did not consider such nondisclosure to be a sufficiently serious flaw so as to withhold recertification after the disclosure at the July 1993 on-site review. Also, FDOT never asserted that its personnel had been confused in 1992 between "Robin Pritchett Trucking, Inc." and "[Marvin] Pritchett Trucking, Inc." Therefore, this late disclosure does not justify FDOT's 1992 denial of certification. In its July 1993 on-site review, FDOT investigated but found no barrier to recertifying Union Trucking, Inc. under the statutes and rules FDOT administers. There were no barriers related to familial relationships, related to Robin Wilson's being an owner of her own corporation, related to her being a director of any corporation, related to her owning a nominal number of stock shares in Marvin Pritchett's several businesses, related to her use of Pritchett's desk or office equipment, related to Pritchett loans to Union Trucking, Inc., related to Mr. Lee's use of a special account, or related to any other factual reason cited in either FDOT's December 14, 1992 denial letter or the September 9, 1992 recommended order affecting DGS. Nonetheless, FDOT's consultant's closing comments in the 1993 on-site report sum up FDOT's continuing overall approach to Union Trucking, Inc., both before the 1993 on-site review and thereafter. This approach is to "continue to question" successful DBEs whose principals have successful families and successful corporate investments. He wrote: Because of the close family relationships and multiple companies owned or operated, this firm will continue to be questioned as to eligibility for the DBE program. Any concerns I have remaining can only be resolved through the actual job perform- ance and compliance on future projects. I strongly recommend a continued compliance report be addressed with detailed concerns to support the next certif- ication provided the firm is recertified.
Findings Of Fact After the Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed to reject its bid on State Project, Job No. 97860- 3319 as unresponsive, for failure to meet a women's business enterprise (WBE) goal, and failure to document good faith efforts to reach the goal, Capeletti initiated substantial interest proceedings, Capeletti Brothers, Inc. and State Paving Corporation vs. Department of Transportation and John Mahoney Construction Company, Inc., No. 85-3003, contending that it had made good faith efforts to meet the goal and that it had adequately documented the efforts; that the second low bidder had not met the goals; that DOT treated the goals as quotas; and that the DOT committees who evaluated the bids met in violation of the Sunshine Law. At the hearing in the present case, the parties stipulated that Capeletti's "bid was rejected because of noncompliance with Rule 14-78.03 as it relates to women's business enterprises and for noncompliance with the bid specifications which incorporated those provisions. The rule provisions under challenge read, in pertinent part: 14-78.03 General Responsibilities. In furtherance of the purpose of this rule chapter, the Department shall establish overall DBE and WBE goals for its entire DBE one WBE program. In setting the overall goals the Department shall consider the following factors: the number and types of contracts to be awarded by the Department; the number, capacity, and capabilities of certified DBEs and VBEs likely to be available to compete for contracts let by the Department; and the past experience of the Department in meeting its goals and the results and reasons therefore. To implement its DBE and WBE goal program the Department may: . . . (b) establish contract goals on each contract with subcontracting opportunities for certified DBEs and WBEs The Department shall establish separate contract goals for firms owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and for firms owned and controlled by women. In setting contract goals, the Department shall consider the following factors: the type of work required by the contract to be let; the subcontracting opportunities in the contract to be let; the estimated total dollar amount of the contract to be let; and the number, capacity and capabilities of certified DBEs and WBEs. For contracts with an estimated total dollar amount of $1,000,000 or less, the contract goals shall not exceed 50 percent of the identified potential for DBE and WBE participation. For contracts with an estimated total dollar amount of $1,000,000, the contract goals shall not exceed 75 percent of the identified potential for DBE and WBE participation. For all contracts for which DBE and WBE contract goals have been established, each bidder shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE and WBE participation information shall be submitted with the contractor's bid proposal. Award of the contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. Failure to satisfy these requirements shall result in a contractor's bid being deemed nonresponsive and the bid being rejected. DOT proposes to deem Capeletti's bid nonresponsive forits conceded failure to meet a WBE goal and for the alleged failure to document good faith efforts to meet the goal. Citation Deleted In the course of the adoption of amended Rule 14- 78.03, Florida Administrative Code, Bjarne B. Andersen, Jr., an attorney on the staff of the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, wrote Ms. Margaret-Ray Kemper, DOT's Deputy General Counsel, on January 22, 1985, with reference to amended Rule 14-78.03, stating: Sections 339.05 and 339.081, F.S., contain no specific rulemaking authority . . . while we do agree that the rule appears in part to implement s.339.05, F.S., as amended by Ch. 84-309, L.O.F.; we do not believe this "assent to Federal aid" is specific rule authority. It is at best implied authority. The day before a DOT employee (who, counsel represented at hearing, is not a lawyer) had written Ms. Elizabeth Cloud, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, as follows: Based upon a telephone conversation with Mr. Bjarne B. Andersen, Jr. of the Legislative Joint Administrative Procedures Committee and further legal review by our office, we request that the . . . "law implemented" be amended to . . . [delete reference to Section 339.05, Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.)] In an internal memorandum dated March 8, 1985, DOT's Deputy General Counsel set out DOT's legal position in these words: Subpart A of 49 CFR, Part 23, defines minority persons . . . The definition of minority does not include women. However, women are encompassed within the definition of minority business enterprise which is defined as a small business concern owned and controlled by one or more minorities or women. 49 CFR, 23.5. 49 CFR, Part 23, Subpart C, sets forth general requirements for all recipients of federal funds. Among those requirements is a policy statement to be included in every financial assistance agreement affirming a commitment to MBE/DBE participation in contracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds. Also required is a MBE/DBE affirmative action program which must be incorporated by reference into financial assistance agreements. The program is made "a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this financial assistance agreement." 49 CFR, S23.43(b). The goal program is one of the required WBE/DBE program components. 49 CFR, S23.45(g). . . . However, although women are included within the definition of MBEs, 49 CFR, Part 23, Subpart C, requires recipients to establish separate overall and contract goals for firms owned and controlled by minorities and firms owned and controlled by women. 49 CFR, 23.45(g)(4). The memorandum relies exclusively on 49 CFR, Part 23, Subpart C, 23.45(g)(4) as authority for Florida's WBE program, citing no federal or state statutes as authority.
The Issue As set forth by the parties in the Prehearing Stipulation and in their proposed recommended orders, the issue in this case is whether the bid submitted by Pass International, Inc., on the Booker T. Washington Middle School Project No. A-0557 is responsive with respect to compliance with the Minority/Women Business Enterprise Assistance Levels subcontracting requirement contained in the Invitation to Bid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, on the contents of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the School Board was a duly-constituted School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the School District of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX of the Florida Constitution and to Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Acestarz, Inc., was organized as a Florida for-profit corporation on September 2, 1997. Joseph Akoni, an African American male, owns 100 percent of the stock of Acestarz and acts as its president. In an agreement executed April 19, 1998, Joseph Robert Mijares, a Hispanic, agreed to act as Acestarz' qualifying agent and to apply for Acestarz's certification of authority as a general contractor. At the time, Mr. Mijares was an employee of Pass, and he acted as project manager on a number of Pass construction projects, both large and small. Mr. Mijares notified Pass of his agreement with Acestarz a few days after it was executed. Mr. Mijares held a state general contractor's certification. As qualifying agent, Mr. Mijares submitted the application for certification for Acestarz to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, on April 23, 1998. A Temporary Authorization License was issued to Mr. Mijares on August 5, 1998, which authorized Acestarz to practice contracting through Mr. Mijares as its qualifying agent pending the processing and receipt of the permanent certification. By its terms, the temporary license was to expire on October 5, 1998. On or about June 1, 1998, Acestarz submitted a Certification Application to the School Board requesting certification as an African American M/WBE. In a letter dated June 1, 1998, Patricia Freeman, Director of the Division of Business Development and Assistance, notified Mr. Akoni that the application had been received. In the letter, Ms. Freeman stated: In the interim [while the application is pending], you may bid as a prime, or subcontractor, on future Dade County Public Schools contracting opportunities, set aside for, or requiring M/WBE participation. Should you be deemed the apparent low bidder or a subcontractor thereto, your application will be processed before contract award. Prime contractors who utilize subcontractors that are pending, but subsequently are deemed ineligible for certification, will be allowed to make a substitution, within the same racial or gender category as the firm being substituted. The School Board's BTW project is a competitive design- build project involving the conversion of Booker T. Washington Middle School into a high school. In order to submit a bid on the BTW project, prospective bidders were required to submit pre-qualification proposals for evaluation in August 1997. Pass and Danville-Findorff, among others, submitted pre-qualification proposals. After the School Board administrative staff evaluated the proposals, three firms, including Pass and Danville-Findorff, were pre-qualified to bid on the BTW project. On or about June 9, 1998, the School Board issued an Invitation to Bid on the BTW project. The bid specifications instructed the bidders to submit a lump-sum bid for all design and construction services required to complete the BTW project. The bid specifications further provided that the bids were to be submitted on or before July 28, 1998, and that, thereafter, the bids would be opened, read, and tabulated. According to the bid specifications, the "[a]ward of the contract will be made to the lowest responsible bidder for the actual amount bid." The time for submitting bids was extended to August 4, 1998. Included as part of the Invitation to Bid on the BTW project is a Special Provision for Compliance with M/WBE Subcontracting Assistance Levels Participation ("Special Provision"). The purpose of the Special Provision is to "ensure that Minority/Women Business Enterprises are afforded maximum opportunity to participate in School Board work." Section II.A., Special Provision. An M/WBE is defined in Section I.A.12. of the Special Provision as follows: Any legal entity which is organized to engage in commercial transactions and which is at least fifty-one (51) percent owned and controlled by minority persons. Minority person means a person who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and who is: An African American, a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa; An Hispanic, a person of Spanish or Portuguese culture, including, but not limited to persons with origins in Mexico, South America [sic] Central America, or the Caribbean Islands, regardless of race; A Woman. Pursuant to the Special Provision, M/WBE assistance levels for one or more minorities are to be specified for all School Board projects. The assistance level for African American M/WBEs was established at eight percent of the total price bid on the BTW project. Section III.A. of the Special Provision provides in pertinent part: SUBMITTALS As a condition of responsiveness, all bid submittals shall contain the documents and information required below. . . . Sealed bids must contain a completed FORM FM 4828, BREAKDOWN OF PROJECT COST AND SUBCONTRACTORS/ CONSULTANT LIST, stipulating the name, and price for each Subcontractor, including the M/WBE category for those listed to meet the M/WBE subcontracting Assistance Level requirements. Letters of Intent (Attachment C-FM 4829) for listed M/WBEs used to meet the M/WBE subcontracting Assistance Levels must be presented by the apparent low bidder, to the Department of Contract Management, . . . within two (2) days (by no later than 2:00 p.m.) after the date, and time and location specified in the LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT AND THE INSTRUCTIONS COVERING OPENING OF BIDS. Letters of Intent prices must not be less than the amount listed on Form FM 4828, Breakdown of Project Cost and M/WBE Subcontractor/Consultant List. Letters of Intent for M/WBEs not listed on FM-4828, will not be considered in determining Compliance, unless the listed M/WBE becomes Unavailable. M/WBE Certification Applications (FM-3920) must accompany the Letters of Intent for all M/WBEs utilized to meet the Assistance Levels who are not certified nor pending certification as M/WBE's [sic] Dade County Public Schools at the time of bid submission. All bids, will be publicly opened, read, and tabulated in the School Board Auditorium, or other designated area, Dade County School Board Administration Building, by an authorized representative of the School Board. The submittal of the apparent low bidder being considered for award will be presented to the Division of Business Development and Assistance for an M/WBE subcontracting Compliance Review, in accordance with Section IV. of the SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH M/WBE SUBCONTRACTING ASSISTANCE LEVELS PARTICIPATION. If the apparent low Bidder is found to be nonresponsive or in Noncompliance, the Department of Contract Management shall notify the second low bidder . . . . Failure to submit the completed Form FM 4828 submittals at the bid opening may result in the bid being found nonresponsive. Both Pass and Danville-Findorff submitted sealed bids for the BTW project on August 4, 1998. The bid packages were opened on August 5, 1998. Pass had submitted the lowest lump-sum bid at $13,900,000, and Danville-Findorff had submitted the second lowest bid at $13,979,000. Pass submitted a Form FM 4828 with its bid in which it identified Acestarz and Manny & Lou as the M/WBEs that Pass intended to use to meet the eight-percent African American subcontracting assistance level. The listings on the Form FM 4828 submitted by Pass indicated that Acestarz would perform work in categories 9.01 through 9.06 for a price of $500,000 and that Manny & Lou would perform work in category 15.04 for a price of $700,000. Without Acestarz' $500,000 proposal, Pass's bid would not meet the eight-percent African American M/WBE assistance level. Section III.B.4. of the Special Provision provides as follows: The listing of a M/WBE Subcontractor [on Form FM 4828] by the Bidder shall constitute a representation by the Bidder that the listed Subcontractor is available and qualified, and a commitment by the Bidder that if it is awarded the contract, it will enter into a subcontract with the Subcontractor for the type of work, at a minimum of the price set forth in its submission. "Qualified" is defined in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision as follows: A subcontractor is potentially Qualified to do specific work if at a minimum it meets all of the following criteria: It has or is able to obtain any and all bonds, insurance and licenses required to do such work and was duly informed by the Bidder that a bond, insurance or license was required and said Subcontractor included the cost associated with same in the bid quotation; It has the necessary experience, financial ability, organization, technical qualifications, skill and facilities to do such work; It is able to reasonably comply with the performance schedule needed for such work; It does not have an unsatisfactory record of integrity, judgment or performance; It is able to meet the applicable equal employment opportunity requirement if stipulated, and It is not otherwise ineligible to perform such work under applicable law and regulations. It is the general contractor's responsibility to determine whether a subcontractor is qualified to do the work or portion thereof. Nothing delineated herein shall be interpreted to waive the requirement that the subcontractor be legally licensed and certified at the time it is scheduled to perform such work. Prior to listing Acestarz on Form FM 4828, Henry Louden, who prepared Pass's bid package on the BTW project, did not ask Mr. Akoni about Acestarz' licensure status, the number of employees on its payroll, its financial capacity, or the type of equipment it had. Prior to submitting Pass's bid package, Mr. Louden mentioned to Mr. Akoni that he needed to look at bonding requirements because, when doing public work, subcontractors sometimes were required to provide bonds. Mr. Louden did not, however, inform Mr. Akoni of any licenses Acestarz might need to do the work proposed or of the insurance that Pass required its subcontractors to carry. The extent of Mr. Louden's knowledge about Acestarz prior to submitting Pass's bid package was described in the following two exchanges: Q. [By Mr. Flaxman] What did you know as it related to his [Joseph Akoni's] construction, his portion of construction, things of that nature prior to your [sic] submitting his name to the School Board? A. [By Mr. Louden] His experience? Q. Everything. Whatever you knew about him. A. About his whole firm, then? Q. Yes. A. Joe Akoni came to our office, inquired about bidding work with us, identified areas that he was familiar with, in construction areas that he is familiar with, and subsequent to that, I guess, he got together with Mr. Mijares in my office, and after that discussion, Mr. Mijares -- * * * THE WITNESS: Okay. Mr. Mijares got involved with Ace Starz [sic]. Ace Starz looked at a couple jobs in our office. Ace Starz submitted some bids to us on other jobs. Ace Starz was interested in submitting prices for the Booker T. Washington job. We provided plans to him. We reviewed the plans together, identifying the scope that we needed them to furnish to us, . . . . Q. . . . . Is there anything else you knew about Ace Starz, Inc. as it related to the construction of the project [prior to submitting Pass's bid package]? A. No.2 And, again, Q. (By Mr. Swimmer) Did you meet or did someone else on behalf of Pass meet with Mr. Akoni prior to Mr. Akoni giving a price on behalf of Ace Starz [sic] to go over the scope of work? A. [By Mr. Louden] Yes. Q. And did you discuss with him scope of work at that time? A. Yes. Q. And did you come away from that meeting with a sense of qualifications and ability of Ace Starz and Mr. Akoni [Objection by Mr. Flaxman.] MR. SWIMMER: Then, let me ask you -- I'll rephrase the question. BY MR. SWIMMER: Q. Did you reach a belief as a result of your interaction with Mr. Akoni regarding his capacity, his ability with regard to construction of the items for which he was pricing? A. Yes. Q. And what was that conclusion? A. His pricing and understanding of what we were requesting, from what I felt was necessary, in order to achieve -- to submit a price to me when we went through the plans, after he submitted the pricing, we reviewed it and it was consistent with what I was looking for, with other sub prices that we received. Q. Did you go through the plans with him, with Mr. -- A. Yes. Q: Did Mr. Akoni mark up the plans to describe the work which would be the scope of his price? A. I'm sure he did. I don't recall what he marked, whether he marked it. I identified specifically which areas he needed to price 3 On August 4, 1998, the date that bid packages on the BTW project were submitted to the School Board, Acestarz was not licensed by the state Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, or by Miami-Dade County pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. Once Pass was notified by the School Board that it had submitted the low bid, Pass timely submitted Letters of Intent from each of the three subcontractors it intended to use to meet the M/WBE assistance levels for the BTW project, as required by Section III.A.2. of the Special Provision. An application for certification for Acestarz was not submitted with Pass's bid package because Acestarz's certification application had been filed with the Division of Business Development and Assistance on June 1, 1998, and was still pending. Pass was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder and its bid package was forwarded to the Division of Business Development and Assistance for a compliance review to be conducted pursuant to the Special Provision.4 In Section I.A.4. of the Special Provision, "compliance" is defined as "[t]he condition existing when a successful bidder has met and implemented the requirements of this Provision." In Section I.A.6. of the Special Provision, "compliance review" is defined as "[a] review to determine whether the successful Bidder is in Compliance with these Provisions." "Successful Bidder" is defined in Section I.A.24. as "[t]he Bidder to which the contract is awarded." Even though the above-quoted sections of the Special Provision specify that a compliance review is done for the "successful" bidder after the contract for the project is awarded, the M/WBE compliance review is actually done before the contract is awarded in accordance with the procedures set out in Section IV. of the Special Provision. Section IV.A. provides in pertinent part: DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE Subsequent to bid opening and prior to award, the M/WBE Compliance Administrator will conduct a review of the bid submittals in order to determine Compliance with the Provision as follows: 1. Fulfillment of Established Assistance Levels If the total price for work to be performed by M/WBE Subcontractors as indicated in either the Breakdown of Project Cost and Subcontractors/Consultant List or Letters of Intent is sufficient to fulfill the established Assistance Levels, in each race/ethnic/gender category, the Compliance Administrator will issue a written Notice of Compliance to the Bidder. Pursuant to these provisions, the compliance review involves consideration of the cost breakdown for each M/WBE subcontractor listed by the lowest responsive bidder on the Form FM 4828; whether each subcontractor listed is a certified M/WBE, has an application for certification pending, or has filed a certification application with its Letter of Intent; and whether the price of the work to be done by each M/WBE subcontractor meets or exceeds the assistance levels specified in the bid documents. Ms. Freeman, in her capacity as Compliance Administrator, was responsible for conducting the compliance review of Pass's bid package. On August 14, 1998, before the compliance review had been completed but after Pass had been identified as the lowest responsive bidder, Danville-Findorff sent a notice of bid protest to Julio Alvarez in the School Board's contract administration section protesting the award of the contract for the BTW project to Pass. The August 14 notice of protest includes virtually the same factual allegations as those set out in the Petition which initiated these proceedings. Danville-Findorff supplemented the allegations contained in its August 14 notice of protest in letters dated August 19, 1998, and September 1, 1998, which included additional information regarding Joseph Mijares, the qualifying agent for Acestarz. On August 18, 1998, Pass sent to the School Board via facsimile an M/WBE Subcontractor/Consultant Letter of Intent executed by G. Family Ent., Inc., a certified M/WBE, in which that company agreed to perform the same scope of work that Acestarz had agreed to perform in its Letter of Intent submitted to the School Board on August 6, 1998.5 G. Family Ent., Inc., agreed to do the work for $500,000, the same price specified by Acestarz. Although the School Board never issued a formal response to Danville-Findorff's August 14 notice of protest, the issues raised were resolved when Ms. Freeman issued a Notice of Noncompliance dated August 26, 1998, in which she stated that, based on her analysis of Acestarz' status, Pass's bid did not meet the eight-percent assistance levels for African American M/WBEs established for the BTW project. Ms. Freeman's conclusion was based on a finding that Acestarz' $500,000 proposal could not be credited toward the African American assistance levels required for the BTW project because "ACESTARZ was neither qualified as a construction company on bid day, nor can it be certified as an M/WBE." Ms. Freeman refused to authorize Pass to substitute another M/WBE subcontractor for Acestarz because "it can only be assumed that Pass was fully aware of ACESTARZ' status." When it received the Notice of Noncompliance, Pass timely requested a meeting with Ms. Freeman, as permitted in Section IV.B.2. of the Special Provision. The meeting was held on August 28, and, on September 4, 1998, Ms. Freeman issued a Final Notice of Noncompliance in which she reiterated her conclusion that Pass's bid was not in compliance with the African American M/WBE assistance levels required for the BTW project. In the final notice, Ms. Freeman stated: ACESTARZ was not qualified to perform construction services of any nature at the time of bid. Not only did it not hold a State license but it was denied a County license without first obtaining the requisite local or state licenses. Therefore, it was not eligible or qualified to bid as a prime or a subcontractor. * * * In conclusion, Pass not only listed an unqualified firm, but one that was not legally organized to conduct business as a construction company. Therefore, Pass cannot be credited for including ACESTARZ to meet the M/WBE requirements, on this project. * * * To your request for immediate authorization to allow Pass to substitute [another M/WBE subcontractor for] ACESTARZ,"[6] please be advised that Pass . . . made" the same request on August 12, 1998, Please be advised that, other than certified M/WBEs, prime contractors are only credited for listing subcontractors, that meet all legal requirements, but fail to be certified for reasons determined by the Division, in accordance with M/WBE Certification requirements. ACESTARZ was not legally qualified to engage in the construction business at the time of bid opening, and withdrew its M/WBE Certification Application."[7] Therefore, a substitution for the firm cannot be allowed. Section IV.C.5. of the Special Provision provides that the Final Notice of Noncompliance "shall be final and conclusive. The Compliance Administrator shall recommend that the Compliance Review procedure be initiated with respect to the next lowest responsive Bidder, or all remaining bids may be rejected and the project readvertised." A compliance review was not initiated for Danville-Findorff because, on September 4, 1998, Pass delivered its Formal Written Protest to the School Board. Pass stated in the protest that "the stated basis for declaring Pass International, Inc. to be not in compliance with the M/WBE subcontracting requirements set forth in the notice of August 26, 1998, is clearly in error." Specifically, Pass challenged Ms. Freeman's conclusion that Acestarz was not qualified to do the work specified in the Form FM 4828 because it was not licensed at the time Pass submitted its bid. The issues raised in Pass's protest were resolved when Ms. Freeman sent Pass a letter dated September 29, 1998, entitled "RESCISSION OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE" for the BTW project.8 Ms. Freeman rescinded the Final Notice of Noncompliance because, at the recommendation of the School Board's legal counsel, she reconsidered the definition of the term "qualified" contained in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision and determined that, under this definition, Acestarz "is considered a qualified subcontractor for purposes of M/WBE Compliance." Specifically, Ms. Freeman concluded that, pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision, it was not the responsibility of the Division of Business Development and Assistance to determine whether Acestarz was qualified to do the work included in Pass's bid submittal. Rather, according to Ms. Freeman, it was Pass's responsibility. In addition, Ms. Freeman concluded that, pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision, an M/WBE does not need to be licensed or certified at the time the bid is submitted. Rather, it need be licensed to do the work and certified as an M/WBE Subcontractor in the appropriate category at the time it performs the work under the contract. During her re-evaluation of the notices of noncompliance, Ms. Freeman also decided that it was improper to conclude during the compliance review that Acestarz was not certifiable as an African American M/WBE. A compliance review to determine whether M/WBE assistance levels are met by a bidder is done pursuant to the criteria set out in the Special Provision; the decision to grant or deny an application for M/WBE certification is based on an evaluation of the application pursuant to the standards established in School Board Rule 6Gx13- 3G-1.05. As a result, Ms. Freeman advised Pass in the September 29 letter that, as "the next step in the process," the Division of Business Development and Assistance would complete its review of Acestarz' certification application.9 Some of the criteria for certification specified in School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.05 are the same as or similar to the minimum criteria for an M/WBE subcontractor to be qualified pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision. In a letter dated October 23, 1998, entitled "DENIAL OF MINORITY/WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (M/WBE) CERTIFICATION," Ms. Freeman advised Joseph Akoni that the documents he submitted failed to show that he "has the capability, knowledge, training, education, and experience needed, to independently guide the future and destiny of Acestarz' construction activities." (Emphasis in original.) Ms. Freeman also observed that, as a matter of statutory law, Acestarz' Hispanic qualifying agent, Robert Joseph Mijares, "has the responsibility to supervise, direct, manage and control the contracting and construction activities of Acestarz." Ms. Freeman concluded: "In summary, Acestarz's construction activities appear, at best, to be managed and controlled jointly by an African American and a non-African American. Therefore, the firm failed to establish eligibility for certification as African American-owned and controlled business, as prescribed by School Board rules." A copy of this denial notice was sent to Pass. Acestarz appealed the decision to deny its application for certification as an African American M/WBE. Ms. Freeman's decision was affirmed by the Certification Appeals Committee, and, in a letter dated November 20, 1998, Ms. Freeman sent to Acestarz' attorney the "FINAL MINORITY/WOMEN BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (M/WBE) CERTIFICATION DENIAL NOTICE." Section III.D. of the Special Provision specifies that, if an M/WBE listed on Form FM 4828 is "determined not to be certifiable, [the M/WBE] must be substituted with another certified or certifiable M/WBE before award." Accordingly, on December 11, 1998, Pass proposed to use TCOE Corporation, a certified African American M/WBE, as a substitute for Acestarz, to do the same scope of work for $550,000. The request to substitute TCOE had not been granted or denied at the time of the final hearing. Summary With respect to the first and second factual issues raised in Danville-Findorff's formal bid protest, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that Acestarz was neither licensed nor certified as an African American M/WBE at the time Pass submitted its bid on the BTW project. This is irrelevant, however, to a determination of whether Pass's bid is in compliance with the bid specifications because, pursuant to Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision, an M/WBE subcontractor need be licensed and certified only "at the time it is scheduled to perform" work under the contract. With respect to the third issue raised in its formal bid protest, Danville-Findorff presented evidence during the hearing regarding the licensing requirements for construction contractors found in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Chapter 10, Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Its apparent aim in presenting this evidence was to establish that, because Acestarz was not licensed by the state or the county, Acestarz could not submit a proposal to Pass for inclusion in its bid on the BTW project under the definition of "contracting" in the statute and in the code provision. In essence, Danville-Findorff is attempting to challenge the provision in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision which requires that an M/WBE subcontractor be licensed at the time it is scheduled to perform work on the project. Danville-Findorff may not do so in this proceeding: The notice of protest challenging the specifications contained in an invitation to bid must be filed within seventy-two hours "after the receipt of . . . intended project plans and specifications in an invitation to bid or request for proposals, and the formal written protest shall be filed within 10 days after the date the notice of protest is filed." Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). Danville-Findorff protested only the School Board's intention to award the contract to Pass, and the protest was filed after the bids were opened. With respect to the fourth issue raised in Danville- Findorff's formal bid protest, the evidence is uncontroverted that Joseph Mijares, an employee of Pass until October 1998, acted as the qualifying agent for Acestarz, as that term is defined in Section 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Danville- Findorff's purpose in presenting this evidence is apparently to establish that Mr. Mijares exerts complete control over Acestarz by operation of this statute. According to Danville-Findorff, this level of control by a Hispanic violates School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.05.I. which requires that an African American M/WBE be fifty-one percent "owned and controlled, in form and in substance" by African Americans. The issue of control is, however, not relevant to a determination of whether a bidder is in compliance with the terms of the Special Provision. Rather, the issue of control is relevant only to a determination of whether an application for certification as an African American M/WBE should be granted or denied pursuant to School Board Rule 6Gx13-3G-1.05. With respect to the sixth issue raised in its formal bid protest, Danville-Findorff presented no credible evidence to establish that it was placed at a competitive disadvantage with regard to its bid on the BTW project because an employee of Pass acted as qualifying agent for Acestarz for purposes of Acestarz' application for licensure as a general contractor. With respect to the seventh issue raised in Danville- Findorff's formal bid protest, the evidence is uncontroverted that Acestarz did not submit an application for certification as an African American M/WBE with its Letter of Intent. This was unnecessary pursuant to Section III.A.3. of the Special Provision because Acestarz' application for certification was submitted on or about June 1, 1998, and was pending at the time Pass's bid was submitted. With respect to the fifth and eighth issues raised in its formal bid protest, Danville-Findorff presented sufficient evidence to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that, at the time the bid package was submitted, Pass did not satisfy the eight-percent assistance level for African American M/WBE participation on the BTW project: Pass did not satisfy the responsibility imposed on it in Section I.A.21. of the Special Provision to determine whether Acestarz was "qualified" or "potentially qualified” to do the work it had proposed to do on the BTW project. Mr. Louden, the Pass employee who prepared the Pass's bid package for the BTW project, did not possess adequate information regarding Acestarz or its president, Mr. Akoni, to determine whether Acestarz satisfied the criteria set out in Section I.A.21., which are the minimum criteria that must be met by a subcontractor to be "potentially Qualified to do specific work." In addition, Mr. Louden failed to make any meaningful inquiry into the qualifications of Acestarz. Because Pass lacked adequate information regarding Acestarz' qualifications and failed to make meaningful inquiry to ascertain Acestarz' qualifications at the time Pass submitted its bid package, Pass could not, in good faith, represent to the School Board that Acestarz was "qualified" or “potentially qualified” at the time the bid was submitted, which it did pursuant to Section III.B.A. of the Special Provisions when it listed Acestarz on the Form FM 4828.9 Because Pass did not conform to the requirements of Section I.A.21. and Section III.B.4. of the Special Provision when it listed Acestarz as a "qualified" or “potentially qualified” African American M/WBE subcontractor, it was not entitled to use Acestarz to meet the African American M/WBE assistance levels for the BTW project at the time it submitted its bid. Furthermore, under these circumstances, Pass cannot substitute another subcontractor for Acestarz because that option is available pursuant to Section III.D. of the Special Provision only upon the denial of the application for certification of an M/WBE which was not certified at time the bid was submitted. Because Pass's bid does not meet the assistance levels established for African American M/WBEs set out in the Special Provision for Compliance with M/WBE Subcontracting Assistance Levels Participation, Pass's bid was not in compliance with the Special Provision at the time it was submitted. Therefore, Pass's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications for the BTW project. The award the contract for the BTW project to Pass would be contrary to the bid specifications and would be arbitrary in light of the facts found herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board reject the bid of Pass International, Inc., as non-responsive to the bid specifications and that a compliance review be initiated with respect to the next lowest responsive and responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 14th day of April, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and proofs admitted in these proceedings, and upon the matters stipulated by the parties, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds the following facts to exist: Respondent solicited bids for the reroofing of its Winter Park 9th Grade Center Reroofing Project No. 9209 ("the Project"). Respondent also caused to be compiled a Project Manual for the Project, which among other things contains Instructions To Bidders which governed the bidding process. In its Advertisement For Bid, as well as its Instructions To Bidders, Respondent reserves the right to reject any or all Bids. The Instructions to Bidders also reserves the right to reject any and all bids when Respondent, in its sole discretion, deems it to be in its best interest to reject same. The Project Manual contains a bid form to be used by bidders. In it the bidder understands and agrees that the Owner (Respondent) reserves the right to reject the bid or any and all bids for the Project. Such language was contained in the bid submitted by Petitioner. Included in the Project Manual was a document entitled "Affirmative Action Minority and Women Business Enterprises Program for Construction Work and Construction Materials" (hereinafter "the MBE/WBE rule") which had been adopted by the School Board as an administrative rule. The MBE/WBE Rule established MBE/WBE subcontractor and supplier participation goals for Respondent construction projects, and in pertinent part: it requires bidders on Respondent construction projects to solicit (by newspaper advertisements and by letters) MBE/WBE subcontractor and supplier participation in the work on Respondent construction projects, it permits and requires a bidder who fails to meet the goals to demonstrate and prove to Respondent's MBE/WBE Manager that the bidder made a good faith effort to attain the goals, as a condition precedent to acceptance of his bid, and it establishes criteria which a bidder may use or meet in an effort to show a good faith effort. It also permits a bidder to show any other factor to prove the existence of a good faith effort. By Addendum No. 2 to the Project Manual for the Project, Respondent apprised bidders of its amendment to the MBE/WBE Rule which served to alter and increase the participation percentages of the Rule to 27.5 percent. Petitioner's bid was the apparent low bidder of five bids received by Respondent. Petitioner's bid was in the amount of $795,000.00 and was the only bid under budget. The next lowest bid was in the amount of $823,000.00. Cheesbro's bid showed that Cheesbro had no MBE/WBE subcontractor or supplier participation. All other aspects of Petitioner's bid were proper and responsive. None of the other bidders on the Project achieved the 27.5 percent M/WBE participation goal. Section II of the M/WBE Program acknowledges that the 27.5 percent M/WBE participation requirements "are goals only." This section of the M/WBE Program further states that "[n]o bid of any bidder will be rejected by the School Board solely because the bidder fails to attain the goals..., however, the bidder... must demonstrate to the MBE/WBE Manager, within 72 hours after the time of bid opening (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays), that such bidder made a good faith effort to contract with qualified subcontractors and/or suppliers for the construction work sufficient to meet the requirements of the goals." Petitioner met with the Respondent's M/WBE Manager within 72 hours after the time of bid opening and demonstrated its good faith effort to contract with qualified subcontractors and/or suppliers for the construction work pursuant to the contract documents. The M/WBE Program requires that each bidder must solicit sub-bids and price quotations from MBE and from qualified MBE and WBE contractors. All potential bidders, including Petitioner, received a list of the qualified M/WBE contractors from the School Board at the pre-bid meeting. The M/WBE Program specifically sets forth the manner in which the bidders must solicit "from M/WBE subcontractors and suppliers" and "the failure of a Bidder to solicit same shall render the bid of such bidder unresponsive and the School Board will reject such bid." The School Board's M/WBE Program establishes the format by which each bidder must solicit bids from qualified M/WBE subcontractors and suppliers. Pursuant to the M/WBE Program, each potential bidder must publish advertisements in two daily newspapers which are published and widely circulated in Orange County. The Orlando Sentinel and Orlando Times are identified by the contract documents as two acceptable newspapers for these advertisements. Each bidder must also prepare and deliver, by certified or registered mail with return receipt requested, three solicitation letters to not less than three approved M/WBE subcontractors and/or suppliers. The contract documents identify an approved form for the referenced advertisements and solicitation letters. Further, the bidders must attach to their bids proof of publication and mailing for the advertisements and solicitation letters, respectively. Petitioner complied with each requirement set forth by the M/WBE with regard to soliciting sub-bids and price quotations from M/WBE subcontractors and suppliers. Petitioner timely published the requisite advertisement in the Orlando Sentinel and the Orlando Times as required by the contract documents. Petitioner also went beyond the three solicitation letters required by the contract documents and sent eight solicitation letters to approved M/WBE subcontractors on the Project. Petitioner also attempted to solicit an oral bid from Mavis Painters but none was received by them. Petitioner received only two telephone calls in response to its advertisements and solicitation letters. One M/WBE subcontractor advised Petitioner that it was going to bid on the Project as a prime contractor (which did not occur), and the other M/WBE subcontractors who called advised Petitioner that they would not bid the Project because they were too busy with other work. Petitioner received no other response to either its advertisements or solicitation letters. Petitioner attempted to make telephone contact with some of the M/WBE subcontractors to whom the letters were sent but was unable to contact them. Despite its efforts, petitioner received no price quotations from any approved M/WBE subcontractors or suppliers. And, none was included in Petitioner's bid. Petitioner is a licensed Florida roofing contractor. Petitioner bid the Project as a prime, rather than as a general, contractor. In this regard Petitioner was to retain a substantial portion of the work to be done by its own forces, rather than to subcontract out most of the work. There are certain portions of any project which lend themselves to work by subcontractors who are specialized in a particular trade. On this Project, Petitioner sought price quotations from electrical, mechanical, plumbing, lightweight concrete, and metal roofing subcontractors. These are the areas which Petitioner looked to subcontract to others on the Project. As a roofing contractor it was logical for Petitioner to do the actual roof work itself and to subcontract out the remainder of the work. Petitioner sought price quotations from approved M/WBE subcontractors on the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing portions of the work. None of the lightweight concrete installation or metal roofing M/WBE subcontractors listed by the School Board were approved applicators for the lightweight concrete installation and metal roof as specified for this Project by the School Board's architect. Therefore, Petitioner was unable to obtain any price quotations, and did not request quotations, from any approved M/WBE subcontractors in these two trade areas. Installation by a manufacturer's approved applicator is essential in order to obtain the warranty documents as required by the contract documents. Also, these two subcontract areas make up a substantially larger percentage of the overall contract amount than do the electrical, mechanical, and plumbing sections. While there may be some other areas which Petitioner could have subcontracted to other forces, these other areas were within the general "roofing" scope of work and better able to be performed by Petitioner. The pool of approved M/WBE subcontractors which Petitioner had available to choose from in order to meet the minority participation requirements was therefore severely restricted. Shortly after the bid opening, a representative of Petitioner met with the School Board's M/WBE Manager to demonstrate Cheesbro's good faith effort to achieve the M/WBE percentage participation goals. Petitioner explained the efforts which it had taken. These efforts were beyond the minimum required by the contract documents in order to obtain minority participation on the Project. However, the Assistant to the School Board's M/WBE Manager felt that Petitioner had not made a good faith effort and the Manager agreed and recommended to the School Board that it reject all bids and rebid the Project. This recommendation was based on the Manager's determination that petitioner should have actively solicited bids from M/WBE sub-contractors well beyond sending letters and the newspaper ads. On December 13, 1993, School Board furnished to Cheesbro a written notice of its intended decision to reject all bids. The basis of such intended decision was that no bidder had attained the MBE/WBE goals and that no bidder, including Cheesbro, had shown that it had made the good faith effort required by the MBE/WBE Rule. On December 14, 1993, School Board sustained the determination of the MBE/WBE Manager that a good faith effort was not shown by Cheesbro and rejected all bids as recommended by School Board's Superintendent of Schools. On December 27, 1993 Cheesbro filed a written Formal Protest, which is the subject of these proceedings. There is no evidence or claim that the MBE/WBE Manager, in determining that Cheesbro had failed to prove it made a good faith effort to obtain the goals, acted illegally, fraudulently or oppressively, in reaching her decision. However, the evidence shows that the determination was arbitrary and was not justified based on the proofs offered by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order granting the relief requested by the Petitioner, Cheesbro Roofing Inc., and certifying that Petitioner is the lowest responsive bidder and enter into a contract with Cheesbro for the Project pursuant to the bid. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 (in part), 23. Rejected as argument or conclusion of law: paragraph 22 (in part). Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in part), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17 (in part). Rejected as argument or conlusion of law: paragraphs 6, 11 (in part), 19. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 16 (in part), 17 (in part), 18. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Wittek, Esquire Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Wittek, P.A. 145 N. Magnolia Avenue P. O. Box 2828 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esquire Broad and Cassel 390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 4961 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dr. Donald Shaw Superintendent Orange County School Board P. O. Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802-0271 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On June 23, 1984 Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids on the following project: BROWARD COUNTY; FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. I-595-1(313)9 (JOB NO. 86095-3449) and STATE PROJECT JOB NO. 86095-6449, SR-862 (I-595) (Griffin Road Detour), From Southwest 48th Ave. to Seaboard Coast Line Railroad North of Hollywood. Work consists of Extra-Heavy Grading; Construct New Pav't. and a Section of Widening and Resurfacing Existing Pav't. with Alt. 12Z" Limerock Base or 11", 9" or 7Z" Asph. Base Cse. (Type 1, 2 or 3) and Type III Asph. Conc. Leveling and Overbuilding Cse. both with Type S Asph. Conc. Structural Cse. and Asph. Conc. Friction Cse. (FC-1, 2 or 4); Storm Sewer and Small Drainage Structures; Conc. Curb and Gutter, Curb, Traffic Separator and Sidewalk; Conc. Handrail (Barrier); Guardrail (Rdwy. and Shop Bent); Fencing; Plugging Water Wells; Floating Silt Barrier; Muck Blanket; Sheeting; Water and Sanitary Sewer Lines; Aluminum and Steel Pipe Handrail; Traffic Signals; Highway Lighting; Roadway Signs; Pav't. Markings (Ref. Pav't. Markers, Painted and Thermoplastic Striping); and Incidental Items. Length 2.712 Miles. (B.I. 4140875) (APPROX. 550 CALENDAR DAYS) ON-THE-JOB TRAINING WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT D.B.E. GOAL 12.0 PERCENT. The project is commonly known as the "Griffin Road Project" and is the forerunner to the construction of 1-595 in Broward County, Florida. The project generally consists of widening Griffin Road from two to six lanes for 2.71 miles so that the Road can be used as a detour while I-595 is under construction. Such bids were to be filed no later than 10:30 a.m. on July 25, 1984. Pursuant to state law, DOT set a 12 percent goal on the project for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE). 2/ This means that at least 12 percent of the total work performed by the successful bidder must be subcontracted out to firms owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and who are certified by DOT as qualified DBE's. The DBE specifications were set forth on pages 90 and 91 of the Special Provisions in the bid specifications and provided as follows: 2-5.3.2 Submittals for Contracts with Goals: For all contracts for which DBE and/or WBE contract goals have been established, each contractor shall meet or exceed or demonstrate that it could not meet, despite its good faith efforts, the contract goals set by the Department. The DBE and WBE participation information shall be submitted with the Contractor's bid proposal. Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participation information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals. The Contractor's bid submission shall include the following information (Submitted on Form No. 141-12 - DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1): The names and addresses of certified DBE and WBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs and WBEs certified by the Department at the time the bid is submitted may be counted toward DBE and WBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE and WBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE and WBE firm. 2-5.3.3 Submittals for Evaluating Good Faith Efforts; If the DBE or WBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the Contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals shall be submitted. In accordance with the specifications, if a bidder cannot meet the DBE goal, it must submit with its bid proposal adequate documentation to prove that it made a "good faith effort" to fulfill the goal but was nonetheless unable to do so. A failure to meet the goal or to submit such documentation subjects the bidder to automatic disqualification and rejection. The bid specifications also defined the terms "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals," "disadvantaged business enterprise," and "woman business enterprise" on pages 93 and 94. All bidders were given copies of the bid specifications before they prepared their respective bids. In response to the notice, and as is pertinent here, Petitioners, Vito's Trucking and Excavating Company and Frank V. Louis Equipment Company (Vito), and Respondent-Intervenor, Triple R Paving, Inc. (Triple R), prepared and submitted bids on the project. 3/ Vito, which has its principal offices in Fort Myers, Florida, submitted a total bid of $6,458,918. Triple R, a firm located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, submitted a bid in the amount of $6,557,913, or some $99,000 higher than the bid submitted by Vito. The DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1 submitted by Vito with its bid indicated the following firms would be used as DBE subcontractors on the project: Tate Transport & Equipment, Inc. $300,000 4.64 percent Battle Construction Company 370,000 5.70 Merl's Original Nursery 214,500 0.38 Advance Barricades & Signing, Inc. 91,500 1.42 These subcontract prices totaled 12.14 percent of Vito's total contract bid. On the DBE/WBE Utilization Form No. 1 submitted by Triple R, Community Asphalt Corporation (Community) was listed as being a subcontractor who would perform $800,000 of work, or 12.2 percent of its bid amount. Triple R also listed Advance Barricades & Signing, Inc. (Advance) as a subcontractor on the project, but the use of Advance was not necessary to achieve the 12 percent goal. On July 25, 1984 DOT opened the sealed bids and immediately began a review to determine if each bidder had complied with the 12 percent DBE goal. A review of Vito's bid revealed that Vito failed to meet the DBE requirements and that its bid was accordingly nonresponsive. The disqualification was required since Vito had allotted 1.42 percent of its work to Advance and Advance was not a certified DBE when the contract was let. This in turn reduced Vito's DBE percentage to 10.75, or below the 12 percent goal. Because of this, the bid of the next lowest bidder, Triple R, was accepted by the Department. A DOT bids award committee later voted 6-1 to reject Triple R's bid and relet the contract on the ground Triple R's bid exceeded Vito's by more than 1 percent. This decision was overruled by the Secretary of Transportation and Triple R was designated as the lowest and most responsive bidder on September 4, 1984. That prompted the instant proceeding. On the evening before the bids were to be filed with DOT (July 24, 1984), the estimator for Vito (Angelo Speno) went to Tallahassee where he received additional subcontractor quotes necessary to complete the firm's bid proposal form. Speno obtained a number of quotes from minority subcontractors desiring to work on the project. After receiving these quotes, and discussing the matter with Vito's president in Fort Lauderdale by telephone, Speno completed Vito's Utilization Form No. 1. Among those listed as a DBE was Advance Barricades and Signing, Inc. Advance is owned by four Caucasian women and is certified by DOT as a woman business enterprise (WBE). However, it is not certified as a DBE. Advance's estimator, Martin Yount, approached Speno on the evening of July 24 and gave a $91,500 quotation for providing "roadside signing" on the project. Yount also advised Speno that Advance was a "female- owned" organization, a certified BE, and that if the project had "female goals," this form would aid Vito in achieving that goal. Despite the bid specifications clearly distinguishing between a DBE and WOE, for some reason Speno did not distinguish between the two, and thinking that Advance was a male Hispanic organization, he used Advance to meet its DOE goal. Accordingly, Vito did not submit documentation to show it had made a good faith effort to utilize DOE firms on the project since it believed the 12 percent goal had been net. Because of this, DOT properly rejected its bid. Vito now contends that another certified subcontractor listed on its Utilization Form 1 (Tate Transport & Equipment, Inc.) will actually perform more work than is listed on the Form thereby increasing its total DOE percentage on the job to over 12 percent. However, since June, 1984 DOT rules have required that all DBE's be correctly listed at the time the bid is submitted. To permit amendments after the bid has been filed would encourage "bid shopping" and permit an apparent low bidder to evade the award of a contract if he saw fit to do so. Vito also contends Community is not a legitimate DOE even though certified by DOT. Accordingly, it asserts that Triple R likewise failed to meet the 12 percent DOE goal. In this regard, Vito has not initiated a proceeding challenging the certification, but relies instead solely upon a letter sent to DOT by Community on May 10, 1984 reflecting a change of ownership and control in the firm. But the letter in question merely reflects a change in officers and directors of the corporation, and no evidence was submitted to support the allegation that Community is no longer a DOE within the meaning of DOT rules. DOT has consistently treated compliance with the DOE rules as a material part of the competitive bidding process. It is DOT's policy and practice to reject a bid where the bidder fails to meet the DOE goals and fails to turn in a good faith package. Therefore, DOT's reserved right to waive technical errors in bid documents does not apply in the case at bar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioners' formal protest and petition for formal proceedings be DENIED, and that the contract for the Griffin Road project be awarded to Triple R Paving, Inc., which submitted the lowest responsible bid on said project. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1984.
