Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Mary A. Barber doing business as Data Phone, a sole proprietorship. Respondent is the School Board of Volusia County, a collegial public body which governs the School District of Volusia County, a constitutional district existing under Article IX, Section 4, of the Constitution of Florida. Prior to 1994, Respondent did not obtain telephone cabling services through the competitive bidding process. Instead, Respondent secured these services through a letter agreement with J. P. McCarthy doing business as American Phone Wire and Repair (American Phone), a sole proprietorship. Pursuant to that agreement, American Phone charged a minimum service charge of 45 dollars for the first hour of each service call. In 1993, Respondent's purchasing department noticed that the volume of telephone cabling services warranted competitive bidding. Respondent's telecommunications division and purchasing department initially developed specifications for the award of a contract based on a set of specifications from Pinellas County, Florida. They also consulted with the existing vendor, J. P. McCarthy. The early drafts of the specifications provided for a minimum charge per service call. However, the final specifications did not reference a minimum charge. On September 30, 1994, Respondent issued its Bid Request E-540 for telephone cabling equipment and services. In due course, Respondent awarded a contract to American Phone, with an initial expiration date of June 30, 1996. Section 3.11 of the bid specifications provided that the contract was subject to extension for two additional one-year periods, by mutual agreement of the parties. American Phone fulfilled its contractual obligations to Respondent through the services of J. P. McCarthy and the subcontractors that he engaged including Petitioner. Mr. McCarthy died in December 1995. In January 1996, Petitioner inquired as to Respondent's intentions regarding the extension of the contract, or the invitation of new bids, at the initial expiration of American Phone's contract on June 30, 1996. Respondent informed Petitioner that it would rebid the contract at the end of the initial term of the existing contract. J. P. McCarthy's widow gave Petitioner the first opportunity to purchase American Phone after Mr. McCarthy's death. Petitioner believed that American Phone was not transferable because it was a sole proprietorship. Therefore, she elected not to purchase it. In March 1996, Troy Masters, a former employee of Respondent, purchased the business of American Phone. The question whether American Phone was a sole proprietorship which died with its proprietor and therefore was not subject to purchase is collateral to these proceedings. There is no evidence indicating that American Phone is not currently a viable business entity. On May 10, 1996, Chester Rodriguez terminated his employment with Respondent as a computer technician. That same day he became a partner in American Phone, consummating prior negotiations with Troy Masters. Also on May 10, 1996, Respondent issued its Bid Request 2E-625 for telephone cabling equipment and services. Respondent sent Invitations to Bid to approximately 47 potential vendors including Petitioner. The general conditions of the bid specifications provided that "the Board may accept or reject any or all bids or parts of bids and may waive formalities, technicalities or irregularities. The judgment of the Board on such matters shall be final." Inter alia, the specifications provided: CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS Contractor shall have a minimum of four (4) qualified technicians available to handle the Board's needs. Contractor must have someone on staff who is an active member of Building Industry Consulting Service International, Inc. (BICSI). This staff member must be available for implementation in the design and installation of cabling as required by the Board. Membership and registration certificate must accompany the bid. Contractor must have a minimum of five (5) years Bell System or equivalent experience. On June 4, 1996, at the appointed hour of 2 p.m., Olga Buckley publicly opened the sealed bids. Ms. Buckley is a buyer in Respondent's purchasing department. She opened the bids in alphabetical order according to the identity of the bidder as disclosed on the outside of the sealed bid envelope. Sealed bids with no identification were placed at the end of the stack. Twenty-two of the sealed bids contained statements of "no bid." Ms. Buckley checked the other five bids for conformity to a bid checklist which Respondent had included in the specifications. Three of the five submitted bids did not contain all of the required items on the bid checklist. The two remaining complete bids belonged to Petitioner and American Phone. Each of these bids contained the names and resumes of at least four technicians which the bidder would employ or subcontract in order to perform the Respondent's assigned work. American Phone's bid quoted twenty-five dollars ($25) per hour of technician time and a twenty (20) percent discount off the supply list. Data Phone's bid quoted twenty-eight dollars ($28) per hour of technician time. After opening the bids, Ms. Buckley conferred with Robert McDonald, manager of Respondent's telecommunications division. They determined that American Phone had submitted the lowest acceptable bid. Support staff prepared the bid tabulation and recommended action in accordance with Ms. Buckley's and Mr. MacDonald's evaluation. Next Linda Romine, Respondent's senior buyer, reviewed the bid responses and the bid tabulation for correctness. After Ms. Romine completed her review, the tabulation was posted on June 5, 1996 at approximately 3:56 p.m. On June 7, 1996, Petitioner submitted a Notice of Protest. That same day Petitioner discussed the substance of her protest with Tom Sims, Respondent's Purchasing Director. First, Petitioner claimed that the apparent low bidder, American Phone, had previously engaged in the practice of charging an initial forty-five dollar ($45) service charge for each service call, in addition to the hourly rate for technician time. As a result of this service charge, Petitioner claimed that the computation of the apparent low bid, based solely on the hourly rate, was inaccurate because American Phone intended to continue invoicing the service charge. Second, Petitioner indicated her belief that the bid specification language in Section 2.0, pertaining to contractor qualifications, required the contractor personally to have a minimum of five (5) years Bell System or equivalent experience. She voiced her opinion that neither American Phone, as the contractor, nor its principals had the requisite experience. Third, Petitioner expressed her view that the requirement for a contractor to belong to the BICSI was meaningless. She thought Respondent included this requirement to exclude all venders except J. P. McCarthy. Mr. Sims was unaware that American Phone had ever charged a forty-five dollar ($45) service charge. Between June 7, 1996 and June 10, 1996, Mr. Sims and his staff examined approximately 1000 invoices that American Phone submitted to Respondent under its previous 1994 contract. The purpose of this examination was to ascertain whether American Phone had charged a minimum service charge of forty-five dollars ($45) for each service call under the contract. The examination confirmed that American Phone had charged a minimum service charge under its 1994 contract, consistent with its practice under the previous letter agreement, even though the 1994 contract did not authorize a minimum service charge. Mr. Sims then contacted Chester Rodriguez of American to inquire whether American Phone intended to charge forty-five dollars ($45) for each service call in addition to the hourly rate shown in its 1996 bid. As a result of his investigation, Mr. Sims determined that American Phone never intended its 1996 bid to include any minimum charge for service calls. Mr. Sims determined further that, if the average number and length of service calls under the proposed 1996 contract was distributed similarly to the average number and length of calls under the existing contract, American Phone's bid, with a forty-five dollar ($45) service charge for the first hour of technician time, would still be approximately 8,000 dollars lower than the bid of Petitioner. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the forty-five dollar ($45) service charge formerly billed by American Phone was not in addition to the hourly rate for the first hour of technician time. Examination of American Phone's invoices from the preceding years reveals that approximately 12 percent of the invoices showed a minimum service charge but no hourly charges for the first hour. Eighty-eight percent of the service calls were more than one hour. If vendors base their bid on a minimum service charge for the first hour of technician time, they will in all likelihood charge a lower rate for each subsequent hour of the service call. Revision of the bid specifications in this case to allow such bids would be to Respondent's advantage. It also would lead to a greater number of bidders. Mr. McDonald had never seen the 1994 contract. He did not know that the 1994 contract did not authorize the minimum service charge. After his investigation, Mr. Sims advised Mr. McDonald that American Phone's 1994 contract did not authorize any minimum charge for service calls. Mr. Sims also informed Mr. Rodriguez that Respondent would not approve further invoices for such minimum charges under the existing contract. Any action that Respondent may take to correct the overpayment of invoices that American Phone submitted under the existing contract is not at issue here. When Respondent developed the bid specifications concerning contractor qualifications, it construed the requirement of five years' Bell System or equivalent experience as applicable to the subcontractors or employees of the named contractor. During his investigation of issues raised in Petitioner's protest, Mr. Sims contacted several vendors by telephone seeking their interpretation of the language. Every vendor other than Petitioner construed the language similarly to Respondent. During these conversations, Mr. Sims inquired whether the vendors thought the requirement for a contractor to be a member of BICSI was meaningful. The answers to this question were mixed. Mr. Sims got mixed answers when he asked the vendors how they would apply a minimum service charge and handle overtime hours. Respondent's staff posted a revised "tabulation" on June 11, 1996 showing the same computations as the initial tabulation but with the notation that there was "no recommendation" among the vendors. The revised tabulation also stated that "[d]ue to clarification of specifications a re-bid will be submitted." On June 12, 1996 Petitioner (through counsel) filed a Notice of Protest of the revised tabulation. On June 13, 1996 Respondent held a pre-bid workshop with prospective vendors, including Petitioner, for the purpose of discussing revisions to the specifications following the decision to reject all bids under Bid Request 2E- 625B. On June 21, Petitioner filed, pro se, a formal protest asserting that (1) if American Phone bid included an undisclosed service charge of 45 ($45) dollars per call, her bid was actually the lowest; (2) American Phone did not have five years' Bell System or equivalent experience; (3) the principals of American Phone failed to show a minimum of three accounts serviced within the previous three years because they had only been in business since March 1996; and (4) the principals of American Phone were barred from any contractual relationship with Respondent by virtue of Section 112.3185(4), Florida Statutes. On June 24, 1996, Petitioner filed, through counsel, a second formal protest. The second formal protest challenged the initial tabulation showing that American Phone was apparent low bidder, and the requisite experience of American Phone under the specifications, but omitted the remaining complaints of Petitioner's pro se formal protest of June 21, 1996. On June 25, 1996 Respondent approved the recommendation of its staff to reject all bids with respect to Bid Request 2E-625, and to invite new bids under Bid Request 2E-625B, after revising the specifications. Mr. Rodriguez served in the United States Air Force from 1982 to 1988. While he was in the armed services, Mr. Rodriguez obtained telephone communications skills and training in equipment repair. From 1988 to May 1996, he worked for Respondent as a computer technician. Mr. Rodriguez also worked on weekends, moonlighting, for American Phone for approximately a year and a half. He had five years of Bell System equivalent experience. Although Mr. Rodriguez previously worked for Respondent, he was never employed in the Telecommunications Division which was the procuring division for the subject bid. He was never the supervisor nor under the supervision of Robert McDonald. Mr. McDonald never made a promise to Mr. Rodriguez or gave him any reason to expect that American Phone would receive a new or renewal contract from Respondent. Mr. Rodriguez had no expectation that Mr. McDonald would advocate the renewal of the existing contract with American Phone. Before Mr. Rodriguez resigned his position with Respondent, he informed his superiors that he intended to acquire an interest in American Phone. He also told them that American Phone would bid on a contract with Respondent. Mr. Rodriguez's superiors informed him that he could not simultaneously be an employee of the Respondent and a vendor of services to the Respondent. Troy Masters and Chester Rodriguez were employees of the Respondent until March and May, respectively, of 1996. They worked in the data processing under the supervision of the Manager of Technical Services in the Management of Information Services Division, Department of Central Services. Robert McDonald worked in the Telecommunications Division of the Department of Central Services. Petitioner presented no evidence that American Phone participated in competitive bidding for contractual services which were within the responsibility of Masters or Rodriguez while they were employees of Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended that the protest of Petitioner in this matter be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Allen Watts, Esquire Cobb, Cole and Bell, P.A. Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 James R. Tanner, Esquire 339 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Joan Koval, Superintendent School Board of Volusia County Post Office Box 2118 Deland, Florida 32721-2118 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact On May 19, 1983, Respondent mailed official Invitations to Bid (IFB) forms to 18 different firms, including Petitioner, soliciting bids for Class VI printing in accordance with the specifications and conditions attached to the letter, signed by R. E. Read, Jr. This letter contained the comment, "As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularities in bids received." This letter also advised prospective bidders who had questions regarding the IFB to call Larry Amison, the individual who had drafted the accompanying specifications. The notice of IFB, published in the Tallahassee Democrat on Thursday, May 19, 1983, also contained a notice of reservation of the right to reject all bids. Only five IFB forms were returned. Three of the five were returned without bids for various reasons, such as "Not Competitive," "Unable to meet specified delivery date" and "Cannot schedule job of this proportion at this time." This type of explanation, in government procurement circles, need not be taken at face value, but is often used to signal the recipient's thanks for the invitation to bid and a desire to be invited to bid again at some time in the future. The other two forms received were bids: one from Zenith Communications Group, and one from Petitioner. This procurement was somewhat unusual in that the IFB stipulated the amount of money the agency had to spend and requested a hid as to the most product it could get for that money. There were two publications involved: "A" and "B." An alternative was given on delivery date options: one within 30 working days of receipt of approved proofs, and one within 45. Zenith offered to provide 7,180 copies of Book "A" and 7,155 copies of Book "B" (14,335 total books) for a total price of $53,400 1/ within 30 working days. Petitioner offered to provide 9,473 copies of Book "A" and 4,950 copies of Book "B" (15,423 total books) for a total price of $53,344.64 within 45 days. The bids were opened on June 1, 1983, and published from June 1 through June 10, 1983. They were brought to the Director for consideration upon opening. It is his responsibility to evaluate the bids and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Agriculture on the successful low bidder. Since there was only one bid on each delivery date, the Director felt there were not two comparative bids. As a result, he forwarded the bid package to Ms. Grace Harrison, a purchasing agent with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and an individual very familiar with the procurement of printing services. After a review of the entire bid package, Ms. Harrison's studied opinion was that there were two valid bids and Douglas was the low bidder, and it is so found. Ms. Harrison also felt it was unusual not to receive any more responses than were received on a procurement of this magnitude. This same opinion is held by Mr. Amison, who drafted the specifications. Others have differing opinions, however. Whether it was unusual or not, however, is immaterial. There were two valid bids, and only two are required for an award. However, even in the case of two bids, the agency reserved the right to reject any and all bids. As a result, on or about June 6, 1983, the Director decided, based on his understanding of state policy on the matter and in light of the size of the procurement, to seek more bids through rebidding. In this case, the Director felt more bids were available because of the responses of the nonbidders which referred to the response times being so short. Therefore, he directed a rebid, and this information was communicated to all bidders, including Petitioner. On June 7, 1983, Petitioner wrote to the Director, disagreeing with his decision and notifying him of its protest. On the following day, the Director notified Petitioner the rebidding was being delayed, giving Petitioner 10 days to file a formal notice of protest. This was done in a timely manner. The phrase regarding the agency's right to reject bids is contained in every State IFB. Its purpose is to permit state agencies to reject bids where it becomes apparent there is a valid and legitimate benefit to be gained by the agency in doing so. One such situation is when, in the bona fide opinion of the agency, there are insufficient bids. While there is a difference of opinion as to whether only two bids are unusual in a procurement of this nature, there is no dispute that it would have been beneficial to the agency to have received more than two, since more bids would increase competition. To rebid the contract at this juncture would undoubtedly increase competition to the potential benefit of the Respondent. However, Petitioner claims it would also work to its detriment because other potential bidders would have access to the details of the two present bids and would thereby gain an advantage. This may be the result of rebidding.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Douglas Printing Company, Inc., be awarded Contract DOF- ADM-79. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact In 1985, the Florida Legislature created a state satellite telecommunications network, and directed the Department to develop an implementing plan and coordinate this network, including purchasing the equipment and installing the system. This system would be for educational purposes and business teleconferencing, and would consist primarily of satellite receiving stations at 28 existing educational institutions throughout the state. The Department drafted the technical specifications for the equipment to be utilized in the system in consultation with a generally recognized expert in the field of telecommunications. When these specifications were finalized, the Department issued an Invitation to Bid on February 14, 1986. Subsequently, the Department modified the original bid specifications by relaxing some of the requirements, in order to increase the number of vendors capable of providing the equipment. An addendum was issued on March 5, 1986, and another was issued on March 17, 1986. Satellite was on the bidder list and it received a copy of the initial Invitation to Bid, but it did not submit a bid in response to either the initial invitation or to the March 5 addendum. Satellite did, however, compile its bid and submitted it in response to the March 17, 1986, addendum. In all, six companies submitted bids to the Department, including Microdyne whose bid was accepted. Satellite's bid and three others were rejected, and one bid was disqualified because it was not signed. The amount of the Microdyne bid was $569,509. Although the amount of the Satellite bid was $372,550, the Department rejected it because it was not in compliance with the Invitation to Bid and the specifications as amended by the addenda. Section 2.8 of the bid specifications requires that the award be given to the lowest bidder meeting specifications. The Satellite bid was rejected for the following reasons: The survival wind speed of the 5.0 meter dish offered by Satellite was 105 miles per hour. Section 4.4.2 of the bid specifications requires survival at 125 miles per hour. No operational wind speeds were specified by the Satellite bid, as required by Section 4.4.2 of the bid specifications. The ku band feed cross-polarization rejection that was offered by the Satellite bid was 25 decibels. Section 4.4.4 of the bid specifications requires 30 decibels. The receiver specified by the Satellite bid did not include a one- half transponder mode. Sections 4.5.2 and 4.6.1 of the bid specifications require one-half transponder reception on the ku band. The bid submitted by Satellite did not comply with the requirements of the bid specifications for the reasons described in the previous paragraph. The Microdyne bid was in substantial compliance with these specifications. The requirements as specified by the Department which Satellite's bid did not comply with are substantial and material requirements for the system proposed by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the protest of Satellite Television Engineering, Inc., to Bid No. 85-54 be DISMISSED. This Recommended Order entered this 11th day of August, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 11th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Richard A. Lotspeich Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire J. Riley Davis, Esquire Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith Brechner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The following issues were raised in the challenge of the award of the bid: Did Harris/3M fail to comply with Special Condition 28 of the Invitation to Bid, which required each bidder to provide references from two customers having similar equipment? Did the Department request a demonstration of the bid equipment under Special Condition 15? If such a demonstration was requested, did Harris/3M comply with the request? Were the machines bid by Harris/3M available under terms of General Condition 4(d)? Did the machines bid by Harris/3M comply with General Condition 4(f) requiring that the equipment bid carry the Underwriter's Laboratory listing? In response to Harris/3M's Motion for Directed Verdict on issue number 5, the Hearing Officer granted the motion on a finding that no evidence had been presented on this issue by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's compliance with the specifications was not at issue.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 15, 1986, the Department issued and advertised its Invitation to Bid 3162-86 related to the acquisition of 15 microfilm reader/printers for use in searching, reading and printing motor vehicle documents which had been microfilmed by the Department of Highway Safety. Microfilm reader/printers are essentially units of hardware into which cartridges of microfilm are inserted and the microfilm is passed through a camera which reflects the images of the microfilm onto a screen from which information can be read and copies printed. The Invitation to Bid required that the equipment must have a "controller," a device for automatically locating specific microfilm documents by the use of coded information or "blips" on the film. On or about January 5, 1987, responses to the Department's bid were submitted by Petitioner OSC and Intervenor, Harris/3M, together with bids from other bidders whose bids are not an issue in these proceedings. All bids were opened on January 5, 1987. The equipment bid by Harris/3M was the Model MFB1100 Reader/Printer with a "page search" kit or controller. Special Condition 28 of the Invitation to Bid states: "28. REFERENCES The bidder shall supply with his bid the names, addresses and telephone numbers of two references for whom the bidder has previously provided similar equipment being bid. If the bidder is unable to provide satisfactory references to the Department, the Department may, at its discretion, reject the bidder's bid if it determines that a responsive offer in full compliance with the bid speci- fications and conditions was not submitted. Failure to supply the references as required may result in rejection of the bid." (e.s.) Harris/3M provided two references in satisfaction of Special Condition Both of the references had versions of the Model MFB1100; however, neither of the references had the "controller" or page search kit, which was called for in the Invitation to Bid. Special Condition 28 was drafted by Merelyn Grubbs. According to Ms. Grubbs, the purpose of this requirement was to assure the Department that the bidder was responsible. "Similar" equipment is sufficient to assess the bidder's responsibility based upon machines made by the same manufacturer which performed essentially the same function. The MFB1100 without a page search kit is a "similar" machine. The two references provided were sufficient. Special Condition 15 states: DEMONSTRATIONS After opening of bid and prior to award of bid, the apparent low responsive bidder may be required to demonstrate to the Division of Administrative Services the equipment he proposes to furnish. If requested, a "working model" of the equipment bid and to be supplied in compliance with these specifications must be demonstrated in Tallahassee, Florida, within seven (7) calendar days from receipt of notification. If apparent low responsive bidder cannot successfully execute the demonstration, the Department shall revert to the next low responsive bidder and request demon- stration, continuing through the list of responsive bidders until a successful demonstration is achieved, the list of responsive bidders is exhausted or it is in the State's best interest to terminate the bid process. Demonstrations to be furnished at no expense to the Department." On January 7, 1987, Mr. Ray Boetch, the supervisor of the division within the Department of Highway Safety where the reader/printers would ultimately be used, wrote a memorandum to Merelyn Grubbs requesting that a demonstration be made on the Harris/3M Model MFB1100 Reader/Printer prior to the awarding of the bid. Mr. Boetch also discussed the matter with Ms. Grubbs indicating his primary concern was verifying the quality of the prints produced by the machine and whether it could print half pages. Ms. Grubbs spoke with Nick Vuillemot of Harris/3M about a demonstration of the equipment in Tallahassee. In these discussions, Harris/3M offered to fly representatives of the Department to St. Paul, Minnesota, the home office of the manufacturer, for a demonstration of the equipment. This was because Harris/3M had only two prototypes of the equipment and it was more economical for Harris/3M to fly Department personnel to Minnesota for purposes of the demonstration than to disassemble, ship to Tallahassee and reassemble the prototype for a demonstration. The Department declined to accept Harris/3M's offer. The Department accepted instead a demonstration of a Model MFB1100 without the controller or page search kit at the Division of Elections in Tallahassee, Florida. The MFB1100 without controller does not meet the specifications in the Invitation to Bid. The "controller" or page search kit is of modular construction in the MFB1100, which can be ordered with or without the controller or page search kit. However, the bid specifically calls for a reader/printer with a page search device. Following the demonstration of the MFB1100 without page search capability, the Department officially posted its bid tabulations on January 12, 1987, designating Harris/3M as the low and responsive bidder and OSC was the next low and responsive bidder. Item 4 (d). Conditions and Packaging of the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be new, current standard production model available at the time of bid. (e.s.) Item 18. Delivery Schedule of the special conditions required delivery of the items bid within 30 days of the bid award or, in the alternative, a substitute item acceptable to the Department at no cost to the Department. The bid submitted by Harris/3M certified that delivery of all 15 units would be delivered within 30 days after receipt of a purchase order. Although the Harris/3M Model MFB1100 Reader/ Printer without page search had been on the market for a number of months prior to the issuance of the Invitation to Bid, the Model MFB1100 with page search had not been authorized for sale by the manufacturer until late November 1986. At the time demonstration was requested, only two prototypes existed of the MFB1100 with page search capability. As of the date of the hearing on February 11, 1987, no Model MFB1100 Reader/Printers with page search capability had been installed in any customer location within the United States. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to support its claim that the MFB1100 Reader/Printer with page search did not have a UL listing.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid (ITB) for Bid No. 91-04, entitled "Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filter Installations and Exchanges" in September, 1990. Two bids were received in response to Respondent's ITB 91-04; one from Petitioner for a composite total price of $748,355.00 and one from Continental Water Systems, Inc. (Continental), for a total composite price of $904.475.00. An intended contract award was delayed until the bids were evaluated. Subsequently, Respondent determined to award the bid to Continental on October 12, 1990. The issue in the ensuing bid dispute in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 90-6962BID was the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid on carbon specifications to be used in water filters. The bid document did not require manufacturers' specifications, requiring instead only generic specifications or a description of the product to be used. Respondent awarded the bid to Continental after determining Petitioner's bid to be nonresponsive, although the bid appeared facially responsive. In the course of evaluating the bids, Respondent's personnel went beyond the bid submissions and telephoned the manufacturer of the carbon proposed to be used in Petitioner's bid submittal. The manufacturer confirmed the content of Petitioner's bid that a lot analysis and hand selection could be done to select lots of carbon of a specified iodine number of 950 or greater in satisfaction of Respondent's specifications. Absent such a selection process, no manufacturer in this country produces a standard carbon which meets Respondent's bid specifications. While the ITB required bidders to submit specifications for products, it did not require submission of manufacturer's specifications. However, Petitioner's bid submittal included the manufacturer's specification sheet for an activated charcoal product known as GAC 30. The iodine number 950 appeared on the sheet with an asterisk next to it. At the bottom of the page was a typed note explaining that lots with this iodine rating would be specifically selected to meet or exceed all bid requirements. In reviewing Petitioner's bid, Respondent's personnel were aware that Petitioner had been using selected lots of GAC 30 in fulfilling a previous bid award for the same project from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which specified carbon with an iodine number of 950. Further, Respondent's personnel knew that lot analyses were provided to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to confirm the carbon's standards. As a result of that knowledge, a provision for an analysis of each carbon lot to be used was included in Respondent's ITB. On October 9, 1990, when Respondent's employee telephoned the manufacturer whose specification sheet was submitted by Petitioner, he was orally informed that while the iodine number for GAC 30 is 900, the actual iodine number for GAC 30 is often above 950 and that lot selections of carbon could be made meeting or exceeding 950. Later, per the employee's request for written confirmation, he received a facsimile letter dated October 10, 1990, from the manufacturer. Without regard for these findings, Respondent rejected Petitioner's bid because the actual manufacturer's specification for the carbon proposed by Petitioner did not meet bid requirements. 1/ While Respondent's personnel deemed it appropriate to consider information from the manufacturer of GAC 30 that its actual specifications were different from those submitted by Petitioner, the manufacturer's confirmation of Petitioner's explanation that lots would be selected to meet bid requirements was rejected. Petitioner is a corporation which, at the time of the bid submittal, had its principal office in Winter Haven, Florida. At that time, Petitioner had 12 employees. Petitioner is a prevailing small business party and was awarded the bid by Final Order of Respondent dated February 18, 1991. In the course of the administrative litigation culminating in Respondent's Final Order, Petitioner incurred attorney's fees in excess of $15,000.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to agreement of the parties, this case was submitted to the undersigned Hearing Officer upon the filing of briefs and proposed final orders. There are no disputed issues of material fact. The legal issue in this case is whether Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The parties were represented as follows: Petitioner: Richard A. Lotspeich, Esquire Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Respondent: Sandra E. Allen, Esquire Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Intervenors: Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (Department of Education) Paul W. Lambert, Esquire Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (Microdyne Corporation) The parties' proposed final orders were filed on June 25, 1987 and a ruling on each proposed finding of fact is included in the Appendix to this Final Order.
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Respondent's proposed award on BID No. HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc., should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the solicitation of bids for and award of contracts for the construction of state buildings in Florida. Both Greenhut and Dunn are qualified contractors who are certified to bid on state construction contracts in general and this procurement in particular. In December, 1991, the Department issued an advertisement for bids for the project in issue herein, the construction of the Kirkman Complex Addition Data Center in Tallahassee, Florida. According to the Advertisement for Bids, all bids "must be submitted in full accordance with the requirements of the Drawings, Specifications, Bidding Conditions and Contractual Conditions, which may be examined and obtained ..." from the Department's designated architect/engineer, Clemons, Rutherford and Associates, Inc. in Tallahassee. Section B-21 of the request for proposals (invitation to bid) reads, in pertinent part: The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the owner. Bids received on this project were originally scheduled to be opened and read aloud on January 15, 1992 with the tabulation and Bid Award Recommendation to be posted the following days at the location where the bids were opened. The proposal as originally issued called for the submittal of a Base Bid with four Alternates, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. Alternate 1a was a deduct for merely extending the existing Johnson Controls System to incorporate the new work instead of providing a totally new and independent control system. Alternate 1b called for adding furniture and landscaping for certain of the rooms shown on the drawings; Alternate 2 called for adding a "shelled" fourth floor as described in the proposal; and Alternate 3, as originally issued, called for: Add a complete fourth floor as indicated in drawings including the finished interior partitions with full HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical Service. Include furniture and landscaping for rooms 414 and 419. (Includes items in Alternate No. 2) As a result of questions received from prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference which indicated some confusion as to the meaning and intent of the Department regarding Alternate No. 3, by letter to all prospective bidders, dated January 8, 1992 the Department's architect indicated: Alternate #3 shall be the fourth floor complete, as shown on drawings, which includes items in Alternate #2. Addendum #1 to the request for bids, dated January 10, 1992, clarified Item 1-3.6), PROPOSAL FORM, of the PROJECT MANUAL to ADD to "Alternate #3", "(Include items in Alternate #2)". Item #2-1 of Addendum #2, dated January 16, 1992, deleted the sentence changed by Item #1- 3.6, and revised the sentence to read as follows: This includes any items required in addition to Alternate #2 to complete the remainder of the work for the Fourth Floor. Information contained at the beginning of each Addendum calls the bidders' attention to the change and indicates that failure to incorporate it may result in disqualification. The due date for bids was extended at the instance of the Department. Both Petitioner and Intervenor submitted bids for this project as did several other concerns on January 23, 1992. Greenhut's base bid was $4,139,000 with a deduct of $63,600 for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b, 2, and 3 of $69,500, $239,000, and $209,000 respectively. Greenhut's total bid, therefore, through Alternate 3, was $4,592,900. Dunn's base bid was $4,079,000 with a zero deduct for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b through 3 of $67,000, and $428,000. Dunn's total bid, therefore, was $4,574,000 for a difference of $18,900. Greenhut's bid was submitted on a form which provided for the base bid, the deduct for 1a, and the additions for 1b. 2 and 3 with the figure for 3 being those costs in addition to those identified in Dunn's bid was submitted on a prior form which provided for a base bid, a 1a deduction if any, (there was none), and additions for 1b, 2, and 3 with the figure for 3 including the figure listed for 2. An initial review of Dunn's bid form, then, showed a base bid of $4,079,000, no 1a deduction, a 1b addition of $67,000, a 2 addition of $311,000, and a 3 addition of $428,000. This letter figure included the $311,000 figure for Alternate 2, which should have been deducted from the bid during tabulation. When the bids were opened on January 23, 1992 by Mr. Everline, each figure on each bid was read off and listed on the bid tabulation form in the appropriate area. No attention was given at that time to the appropriateness or correctness of the figures listed on each bid form, nor was any attention paid to any other technical requirement of the procurement. This was merely a transfer of figures from the bid form to the tabulation form, and when this was done, Mr. Everline announced to all in attendance, including many contractor representatives, that the "apparent low bidder" was Greenhut. In arriving at that conclusion, Mr. Everline added all of Dunn's figures together without deducting the $311,000 listed for Alternate 2, a figure which was included in the $428,000 figure listed for Alternate 3. This resulted in an incorrectly large total bid for Dunn. Sometime later that day, a representative of Dunn contacted Mr. Everline to indicate that Dunn had inadvertently bid on the wrong form which precipitated its misleading presentation. Mr. Everline properly declined to discuss the matter and referred the Dunn representative to the Department's legal counsel. Sometime thereafter, when the bids had been tabulated and reviewed for responsiveness and legal qualification of bidders, Mr. Everline suggested to representatives of DHSMV that in order to forestall a protest, only so much of the project as extended through Alternate 2 be awarded. DHSMV officials, however, had sufficient funds available for the entire project, including some additional funds, if necessary, for cabling, and insisted they wanted the entire project awarded. The Department's legal counsel, upon review of the situation, concluded that the Dunn's actual bid intent was clear to include the amount listed for Alternate 2 within that listed for Alternate 3, and not to consider the two as additives to each other. It further concluded that Dunn's use of the improper form on which to submit its bid was immaterial and afforded it no improper competitive edge over other bidders. Therefore, it was concluded that Dunn was the low responsive bidder and, on February 4, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Award to Dunn. Thereafter, Greenhut filed its Petition For Hearing taken as a protest to the award. Both the Department and Dunn agreed that Greenhut had standing to protest the award and that the protest was timely filed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Greenhut Construction Company, Inc., in regard to the proposed award of contact in bid number HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 21st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1297 BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Argument and not Finding of Fact except for 1st sentence which is accepted. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. FOR THE INTERVENOR: Accepted. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 19. Accepted. 20. & 21. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Emmanuel, Esquire 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire 315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Suite 307, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Suite 309, knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The two major issues in this case are as follows: Was the failure of Datamaxx to submit resumes of training and maintenance personnel as required by Performance Mandatory No. 10 of the Invitation to Bid a material deviation from the Invitation to Bid such as to render Datamaxx a nonresponsive bidder? If Datamaxx was a nonresponsive bidder, must the contract be awarded to Burroughs, or must DHRS, pursuant to Section 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, have the contract rebid, or seek single source procurement or negotiation approval from the Division of Purchasing?
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: For at least the past 10 years, the DHRS Data Communications Network has been maintained by Burroughs on a sole source basis. At the end of the previous Burroughs Terminal Maintenance contract with Burroughs, the Department of General Services (DOS) asked DHRS to bid the contract in lieu of sole source procurement, it being the belief of DOS that there was competition in this area. On or about September 19, 1986, DHRS published an Invitation to Bid which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on October 20, 1986, for a contract, known as "Burroughs Terminal Maintenance" [Bid No. 86 ATM] regarding maintenance of the terminals of the DHRS Data Communications Network. The Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid contained, among others, the following provisions: The State has established certain require- ments with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall," "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this Invitation to Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. Material deviations cannot be waived. (at p. 1) No negotiations, decision, or actions shall be initiated or executed by the bidder as a result of any discussions with any State employee. Only those communications which are in writing from the Department's Purchasing office may be considered as a duly authorized expression on behalf of the State. Also, only communications from bidders which are signed and in writing will be recognized by the State as duly authorized expressions on behalf of the bidder. (at p. 2) All personnel performing maintenance must be trained to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be completed before the individual is assigned to service the equipment covered by this contract. Training shall be provided to whatever level is necessary to ensure the individual has the required qualifications to perform satisfactory maintenance service on Burroughs equipment listed in Attachment A of this Invitation to Bid. Bidder shall submit with their bid a summary of their Burroughs training program and resumes of personnel who will be performing this training and the resumes of personnel who will be per- forming the maintenance. (at p. 8) Bidder shall certify to the State, at the time the bid is submitted, that bidder has existing established service centers staffed with personnel trained to service the equipment covered by this contract . . . In lieu of this requirement, if bidder does not have existing established service centers, liaison office, and trained personnel, and bidder submits a plan for compliance, the required certification must be given the State no later than two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated starting date of the contract as indicated in the paragraph of this document entitled Calendar of Events. Failure to comply with this requirement shall result in rejection of the bid and award of the bid to the next lowest responsive bidder. The Invitation to Bid was drafted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The only bidders on the contract (other than no- bids) were Burroughs and Datamaxx. DHRS found Burroughs and Datamaxx both to be responsive bidders and posted their bids making them public in the recognized manner of publicizing the bidder to be awarded a bid. Both bids were found to be responsive by DHRS at the time they were made public. The Datamaxx bid was the lowest bid and the Burroughs bid was the next to lowest bid. DHRS staff recommended the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. The Datamaxx bid was approximately $784,000 less than the Burroughs bid. In its bid Datamaxx indicated that it understood and agreed to all provisions of the Invitation to Bid, specifically including those dealing with Mandatory Requirements, Verbal Instruction Procedure, Rejection of Bids, Bid Evaluation, Performance Mandatories, and Certification. Datamaxx submitted the Certification required under the terms of the Invitation to Bid and did not submit a plan for compliance with its bid. Datamaxx never requested in writing that the requirement for resumes be waived, and DHRS never advised Datamaxx in writing that it did not have to submit the resumes. Datamaxx did not submit with its bid the resumes of training and maintenance personnel required under Performance Mandatory 10 of the Invitation to Bid. Performance Mandatory No. 10 required the submission of resumes with the bid, and did not concern an event that would take place after the bid had been let. DHRS considered the requirement for resumes to be a mandatory requirement. The qualifications of the persons who would be performing the maintenance under the contract would have a potentially significant effect on the quality of the maintenance provided. Nothing could be more material to the contract than the ability of the personnel to perform that contract. The difference in the dollar amount of the bids of Burroughs and Datamaxx influenced the decision of DHRS in finding Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder. This was a major reason Datamaxx was found to be a responsive bidder. In evaluating the Datamaxx bid, DHRS went outside the material provided in the Datamaxx bid. Subsequent to the posting of bids, DHRS met with Datamaxx and advised Datamaxx that its initial submission was deficient for not including resumes with the bid, that DHRS had waived the resumes, but that in order for DHRS to continue its recommendation that the bid be awarded to Datamaxx, DHRS had to have the resumes prior to the awarding of the bid. DHRS considered it an error and a deficiency in the bid that the resumes were not furnished. Datamaxx, on November 6, 1986, advised DHRS in a letter to Charles Ray that it would submit a plan which would address, among other things, service personnel resumes by November 17, 1986. DHRS could not have considered Datamaxx's letter of November 6, 1986, in evaluating whether Datamaxx was a responsive bidder, because that letter was not received until after DHRS had already found Datamaxx to be a responsive bidder and recommended that the contract be awarded to Datamaxx. Had Datamaxx not submitted the resumes prior to November 17, 1986, DHRS staff would have recommended that the award of the contract be withdrawn. The performance the State would receive under the contract would directly depend on the qualifications of the persons performing the service and the maintenance, and the resumes would be the only source of information regarding the qualifications of the personnel.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that a final order be entered to the following effect: Concluding that the bid submitted by Datamaxx USA Corporation on Bid No. 86 ATM should be rejected on the grounds that it is not responsive, Concluding that the bid submitted by Burroughs Corporation should be rejected on the basis of Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, and, Providing for the agency to issue a second invitation to bid/request for proposals or take other action provided by Rule 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-4460B1D The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties: Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted with a few minor editorial modifications. The first two lines of paragraph 20 are rejected as redundant. The remainder of paragraph 20 is accepted. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted in substance. Paragraph 3 is rejected as constituting unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are accepted. Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected in part as irrelevant and in part as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12 is accepted. Paragraph 13 is rejected as constituting irrelevant and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue This case concerns a challenge to the validity of Rules 13A-1.001(12), 13A- 1.002(1)(b) and 13A-1.002(3) , Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT) put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) as RFP-DOT-88-0l. Through this RFP the agency sought to acquire a new barrier and ticket toll collection system which would automate the toll collection operations and retrieval of audit data, having in mind increased reliability and performance. The project is principally one which envisions the purchase of commodities. It has an associated service component. Section 287.062(1)(e), Florida Statutes together with Section 287.073(3), Florida Statutes, established the basic authority for the award of RFP-DOT-88-01. The agency received responses in March, 1989, from three companies. The offerors were Petitioner and Intervenor and one other concern. The other company was AGS Informations, Inc. (AGS). Following evaluation DOT determined on May 18, 1989 to reject the Intervenor's proposal as nonresponsive. This rejection was followed by the Intervenor's notice of protest on Nay 25, 1989. A formal written protest was made on June 6, 1989. On July 31, 1989, Intervenor filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal of the formal written protest. This was addressed by the DOT final order of August 2, 1989 which dismissed the formal written protest. On November 21, 1989, DOT posted its intent to award a contract to Petitioner. This statement of intent to award was met by a notice of protest filed by Intervenor on November 27, 1989, followed by a formal written protest on December 6, 1989. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration and through response to a motion to dismiss the Hearing Officer in that case, DOAH Case NO. 89-6926B1D, entered a recommended order of dismissal. On January 22, 1990 DOT entered a final order dismissing Intervenor's petition and stating its intent to award the contract to Petitioner. An amendment to the January 22, 1990 order was made on February 21, 1990 reminding all concerned that the contract award was subject to review and approval by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the State of Florida, Department of General Services to decide the propriety of the subject purchase which was an information technology resources purchase under Section 287.073, Florida Statutes. On February 21, 1990, DOT sent notice to the three offerors that it was rejecting all proposals submitted. As described in the notice of agency decision, DOT was operating on the basis that a further review of the proposals revealed that the proposals by AGS and Intervenor were nonresponsive. It went on to say that to have competitive offerors there must be two or more offers submitted by responsive and qualified offerors. In this instance DOT felt that it did not have two acceptable proposals and did not have a competitive offer. Because the commodities sought were available from more than one source, it had decided to withdraw its notice of intent to award which was contingent upon the approval of the Governor and Cabinet. On February 27, 1990, Petitioner gave a notice of protest of the DOT decision to reject all bids. This was followed by a formal written protest on March 9, 1990. Although the decision to reject all proposals was not opposed by Intervenor, the motion by the Intervenor to intervene in DOAH Case No. 90- 1583BID was granted allowing limited participation in support of the DOT decision to reject all proposals. That outcome tended to create the opportunity for Intervenor to participate in any re-advertisement for proposals. As revealed in the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 90-1583BID, DOT utilizes Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, in the procurement process. Intervenor participated in the final hearing in DOAH Case NO. 90- 1583BID. The DOT decision to reject all proposals in which reliance upon the rules under challenge are perceived to support that decision has an adverse impact on Petitioner. By that arrangement Petitioner loses the opportunity for the contract. Additionally, it is placed in a disadvantaged position in that the particulars of its method of responding to the RFP have been revealed and are now known to the competitors who might be expected to utilize that information in a setting where a re-advertisement takes place. Under the circumstances, Petitioner filed its challenge to the existing rule on March 28, 1990. Intervenor sought the opportunity to intervene in this case on April 4, 1990, and that opportunity was granted on April 6, 1990. Intervenor intends to participate in any re-advertisements of the RFP. In his testimony at hearing William Monroe, Director of the Division of Purchasing for Respondent, established that in governmental purchasing the terms "offers" and "proposals" are synonymous. This opinion is accepted. Mr. Monroe also established that Respondent believed that it was implementing Section 287.012(15), Florida Statutes, when promulgating Rule 13A- 1.001(12), Florida Administrative Code. Through the promulgation of Rules 13A- 1.002(1)(b), and 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, Respondent believed that it was implementing Section 287.062, Florida Statutes. Respondent interprets Section 287.062, Florida Statutes, to require an agency making a commodity purchase to use competitive sealed proposals in instances where invitations to bid are not used. Mr. Monroe in speaking for Respondent indicated that this interpretation gained support from the language set out in Section 287.001, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Monroe the circumstance in which less than two responsive and qualified offerors respond to an RFP is one in which the procuring agency must reject all proposals or seek the approval from Respondent to negotiate with the one responsive offeror or where no responsive offerors were received to negotiate with someone whom the agency has chosen. Likewise, a sole source purchase negotiation must be approved by Respondent. Mr. Monroe's testimony, in speaking for Respondent, indicates that Respondent interprets the terminology within Section 287.062(2), Florida Statutes, "no competitive" to modify the words "bids" and "proposals." Thus, it is incumbent upon an agency to receive authority to negotiate in those instances where it receives less than two proposals submitted by responsive and qualified offerors who are responding to a RFP in acquiring commodities.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1982 the Chancellor of the State University System approved Amendment 567, as revised, to the Capital Outlay Implementation Plan. This Amendment budgeted $6,350,000 for the construction and equipment of a teaching gymnasium at Florida International University on the Tamiami Campus. Included within that figure were $350,000 of planning expenses appropriated by the 1981 Florida Legislature and $6,000,000 appropriated by the Legislature in 1982 for the expenses of construction, art work and contingencies. In the early part of 1983 the State University System advertised for bids from contractors to construct the gymnasium. The bids were open on May 17, 1983 at 2:00 PM. on the Florida International University Tamiami Campus. Petitioner's base bid of $5,998,000 was the lowest of the 17 received, nevertheless it was $350,000 above the estimate in Amendment 567. The next lowest bid was for $6,045,000. The bid specifications required that six alternatives in addition to the base cost be bid on, but through an oversight Sanmar's bids on these alternatives did not conform to the bid specifications. Sanmar's alternative bids failed to indicate that the amount reflected was in addition to the base cost bid. However, because the issues in this case concern the base bid amount, Sanmar's error with respect to the alternatives is not material. At the May 17, 1983 bid opening Respondent's agent, the architectural firm of Greenleaf-Telesca, announced that it would recommend to the Board of Regents that all bids be rejected as being in excess of the funds available through legislative appropriations. Respondent intends to make design changes in the project to make it less expensive and to then rebid it. On May 18, 1983 Sanmar timely filed a protest to the rejection of its bid. Subsequent to May 17, 1983 and Respondent's decision to reject all bids, the Florida Legislature through Section 2(2)(y), Chapter 83-333, Laws of Florida (1983), appropriated an additional $500,000 for the construction of the gymnasium. This appropriation became effective on July 1, 1983. After its receipt of Sanmar's bid protest Respondent provided in a letter dated June 3, 1983 the figures on which the Respondent based its decision to reject all bids including Sanmar's. These figures follow: Architects fee including additional services $ 379,240.00 **Architects construction observation (included in architects estimate as part of the fee and contingencies) $ 90,000.00 Sanmar Base Bid $5,998,000.00 Equipment $ 200,000.00 Contingency (3 percent of construction cost) $ 179,940.00 Based on Sanmar's bid $6,847,420.00 Artwork $ 28,240.00 $6,875,420.00 **Estimated based on 18-month construction time. Petitioner has taken issue with the 3 percent contingency amount included in the above figures, however, the evidence shows that 3 percent is a reasonable amount based upon the State University System's experience with previous construction and is a fair estimate to insure that projects once begun can be adequately funded by the amount appropriated for their construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Regents enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for the construction of a teaching gymnasium at the Tamiami Campus of the Florida International University. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
