Findings Of Fact It was Stipulated by the parties that the Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest and formal written protest (if section 120.53(5), Fla. Stat. (1986) is applicable) and timely filed a petition for formal administrative hearing. The Petitioner did not receive a written notice of the recommended award of the District as intended by paragraph 9 of the General Conditions of the second invitation for bids, and it did file a notice of protest with seventy-two hours of receiving notification of the District's decision to award the contract to Mid America as intended by paragraph 10 of the General Conditions, P. Ex. 3. It was Stipulated by the parties that the substantial interests of the Petitioner are at stake in this proceeding. The Department of Water Resources is involved in groundwater studies throughout the nineteen Florida counties that comprise the District, and is responsible for the District's drilling program. In the past, the District's waterwells have been in the 500 to 800 foot range, and have been constructed of 4, 6, and 8 inch casing. The Water Resources Department is currently constructing a regional groundwater monitoring network in the nineteen counties. The underlying geological formations differ greatly from county to county, and several water tables often have to be Penetrated before the well reaches the Floridan acquifer. To maintain mud circulation, it is often necessary to case off portions of the well from water table to water table. Moreover, wells are often in unconsolidated formations, and casing is needed to provide support for the hole, Particularly in the upper portions of the well. For these reasons, the District plans to construct step or telescoping wells in the regional groundwater monitoring network. The District expects that it will need to set 16 inch casing in the first eighty feet of some of these wells. In about 1984, by competitive bids, the St. Johns River Water Management District (the District) leased a Speedstar 15-III drill rig from Mid America Drilling Equipment, Inc. This rig was a Size larger than the drill rig that is the Subject of this formal administrative hearing, and had been manufactured in 1978. The District was satisfied with the performance of the larger Speedstar drill rig, and had very few problems with it. District staff became familiar with the operation of the rig. As the lease neared the end of its term, the District began to explore the question whether it should continue to lease, or should purchase its own rig. A member of the District Board Suggested that the District consider acquisition of a rig over a period of years by lease-purchase. This suggestion was adopted by the Department of Water Resources of the District. Due to his familiarity with the Speedstar rig, Mr. Munch decided to use that rig as a basis for bid specifications, but to use the next smaller size, a Speedstar SS-135. Mr. Munch copied the specifications from a Speedstar SS-135 specification sheet as the specifications for the first invitation for bids. Mr. Munch has had no education in engineering or in drill rig design. He has a degree and field work experience in geology, and is a licensed water well contractor. He has been a project manager on projects when outside contractors set 16 inch casing in wells as deep as 2,000 feet, but he has not personally set a 16 inch casing. P. Ex. 1 is the first invitation for bids and specifications for the invitation for bids, as well as the bid of the Petitioner, the George F. Failing Company. This invitation for bids was published on or about August 26, 1986. The invitation for bids provided six bid blanks providing six bid alternatives. The bid blanks appeared as follows: One Year Lease $ /month, renewal $ /month Two Year Lease-purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Three Year Lease-purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Four Year Lease/purchase $ /year, buy-out $ Five Year Lease/purchase $ /year, buy-out $ * * * Suggested Purchase Price $ Less 3 percent for payment in 20 days Four bids were received pursuant to this invitation for bids, including the Petitioner's bid and the bid of Mid America Drilling Equipment, Inc., P. Ex. 7. The four bids were opened on September 11, 1986. Mid America was the only bidder that bid a one year lease with an option to renew. Mid America, the Petitioner, and G & R Machine and Welding, Inc., were the only bidders to bid a lease-purchase. The Petitioners bid was $163,565.00 as an outright purchase price for a Failing model CF-15 and, relevant to the second bid, $5,432.00 per month for a three year lease-purchase, with the rig owned at the end of the three year lease period with no further buy-out payment. The Petitioner did not bid a one year lease. P. Ex. 1. Mid America bid $179,823.00 as an outright purchase price on a Speedstar SS135, and $56,340.00 per year for a three year lease-purchase, with a buy-out price of $61,920.00. Mid America also bid a one year lease at $6,125 per month, with a renewal at $5,288.00 per month. P. Ex. 7. Robert Schenk is the District's Director of the Division of General Services, and as such, Mr. Schenk was responsible for District Purchasing and evaluation of the bids received pursuant to the invitation of bids. Mr. Schenk Prepared an analysis of Several of the bids, including G & R Machine, Mid America, and the Petitioner. P. Ex. Mr. Schenk testified that he felt that the Mid America bid was unclear because of the total amount of the bid calculated over the years. He Said that he considered the Mid America bid for a three year lease-purchase to be ridiculous and out of line because it was $50,000 greater than the outright purchase bid. The bid of the Petitioner for a three year lease- purchase was about $32,000 higher than its bid for an outright purchase. P. Ex. 8. G & R Machine also bid a Speedstar SS-15. Mid America's three year lease-purchase bid was about $35,000 higher than the G & R Machine bid for the same three year lease-purchase. ($230,940.00 compared to $195,664.32.) P. Ex. 8. The bid of Mid America was also high compared to the bid of G & R Machine for a four and a five year lease-purchase, but was comparable for a two year lease-purchase and for an outright purchase. The bid of the Petitioner was $16,000 lower than the Mid America or G & R Machine bids for an outright purchase, was $31,000 lower than the G & R Machine bid and $34,000 lower than the Mid America bid for a two year lease-purchase, and was Slightly higher than the G & R Machine bid on all other bids. The bid of the Petitioner was substantially lower than the Mid America bid on all bids analyzed on P. Ex. 8. Although the Mid America bid was high, it was not an unclear bid. The bid of Mid America was clear and unambiguous. P. Ex. 7. Mr. Schenk thought that the Petitioner's bid was the clearest bid received in the first invitation for bids. Apparently on the same day as the bid opening, which was September 11, 1986, Mr. Schenk had one of his assistants telephone Mid America to ask that it clarify its bid. In response, on the same day as the bid opening, September 11, 1986, Mid America sent the District a letter, P. Ex. 9, which effectively lowered its bid for a three year lease-purchase by $36,612.00. This letter was ultimately not considered by the District in the evaluation of the bids. On September 23, 1986, four staff members of the Department of Water Resources, including Mr. Munch and Barbara A. Vergara, Director of that Department, recommended by memorandum to Mr. Schenk that the Mid America bid for a Speedstar SS-135 for an outright purchase price of $179,823.00 be accepted. These staff members were of the opinion that the drill rig bid by the Petitioner "did not meet all of the bid Specifications due to slight manufacturing differences." But they were also of the opinion that "[t]hese differences may not be critical to the performance and capabilities of the equipment." P. Ex. 10. The staff comparison of the Mid America bid and the Petitioner's bid included calculations for rental costs due to the differing delivery times of the equipment, and calculated that the Mid America bid had a net cost of $184,435 compared to the Petitioner's bid having a net cost of $182,013. Attached to the staff recommendation of September 23, 1986, was a comparison of the three drill rigs by specifications. The comparison used the incorrect specification sheet for the Mid America rig, and thus contained the following errors: the rig bid by Mid America had a single sheave, 3 part block, not a double sheave, 4 part block; the rig also had a working hook load of 20,000 pounds, not 32,700 pounds. Two to four days after September 11, 1986, (the date of the letter from Mid America changing its bid for a three year lease-purchase) Robert Auld, the Florida Branch Manager for the Petitioner, learned that such a letter had been requested, written, and received by the District, and called District staff to protest. Mr. Schenk thereafter apparently concluded that solicitation and receipt of the bid change from Mid America had been procedurally erroneous because he testified that as a result of all of the discussion and criticism that surrounded that event, on the second invitation for bids he concluded that he was procedurally unable to contact any of the bidders to request clarification of bids, even though he then thought that the Petitioner's bid was unclear. Mr. Schenk decided to reject all the bids from the first invitation for bids before Mr. Auld's telephone call. P. Ex. 15, p. 10. But he did not communicate this decision to the staff of the Department of Water Resources before they wrote their memorandum that was initiated through the chain of command on September 23, 1986. Mr. Schenk initially decided to reject all of the bids because the bidders had not all bid on all of the requested alternatives. Later, other reasons for rejection of all of the bids became apparent. Another major reason for rejection of all of the bids was because the specifications were drawn from the Speedstar SS-135 specifications, and unfairly eliminated the Petitioner's rig. Mr. Auld admitted that the Failing CF-15 did not meet the specifications of the first invitation for bids because the Failing CF-15 did not have an 8 1/2 inch rotary table, but was of the opinion that it met all other specifications. Mr. Schenk also rejected all of the bids because of the irregularity of having solicited and received the bid change from Mid America. On October 1, 1986, the District informed all bidders that the bids were all rejected and that the purchase would be again advertised for bids. No protest was filed concerning the first invitation for bids, and it was ruled during the formal administrative hearing that the foregoing facts are admissible as explanatory of the basis for the second invitation for bids, and not as a basis for challenge to the first invitation for bids. Mr. Munch then drafted specifications for the second invitation for bids. This time, he Specified "Speedstar SS-135 or equivalent." Mr. Munch had determined from his experience with the rented Speedstar that the Speedstar SS-135 was capable of fulfilling the needs of the District for drilling. His intention was to allow bids for other types of drill rigs that were the equivalent of a Speedstar SS-135. Ms. Vergara defined the term "equivalent" to mean no differences between a Speedstar SS-135 and the alternative drill rig with respect to doing work in the field that needs to be done by the District. At some time before the second invitation for bids was advertised, or at least before the second bids were filed, the District became Primarily (though not exclusively interested in receiving bids on a three year lease-purchase of a drill rig. Both the Petitioner and Mid America knew this before they prepared their second bids. P. Ex. 3 is the second advertisement for bids and was published on November 6, 1986. The advertisement asks for bids on a "lease-purchase of One Rotary Drill Rig." The attached sheet marked "specifications" stated that what was sought was a "[b]id for purchase or one year lease of a new Speedstar 135 rotary drill rig or at least the equivalent equipment with the following options." Following that were eight technical specifications. The second invitation for bids also specified the following: "Bidder must indicate any and all exceptions to specifications. "Bid shall be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsible bidder whose bid meets all specifications in the Invitation to Bid, including delivery, price and other factors most advantageous to the District." All bidders were to bid using the bid blank attached to the invitation for bids. The bid blank was different from the first invitation for bids apparently with the intent to make bid comparisons easier. The bid blank provided the following alternatives for bids: Purchase Price $ Lease Price $ /Month, first year (renewable) $ /Month, second year (renewable) $ /Month, third year One year guarantee non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of leased $ . Make and Model of Equipment . Manufacturers Warranty . (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ . Location of Maintenance Services . Since the District was then "primarily" (but not exclusively) "interested in" a three year lease-purchase, the bid blank form was incomplete and unclear. Paragraph A) of the bid blank form clearly provides for a bid for an outright purchase only, not a "lease-purchase." And Paragraph B) provides only for a lease without any mention of purchase; Paragraph B) asks for a price by month for the first year, with the notation that the lease is renewable (apparently at the option of the District, a lease price by month for the second year, with the notation again that the lease is renewable (at the option of the District), and a lease price per month for a third year, with no mention of any further renewability. Paragraph B) says nothing about purchase of the drill rig, ownership at the end of the lease term, or the buy- out price at the end of the lease term. Moreover, the rest of the invitation for bids is similarly incomplete and unclear. Although the first page of the invitation for bids states that bids were requested on a "lease-purchase" of one rotary drill rig, the specification sheet attached to the invitation stated the specification that the bid should be "for purchase or one year lease...." P. Ex. 3 (E.S.). The specification said nothing about a three year lease-purchase. P. Ex. 3, the second invitation for bids, was sent to all entities that had submitted a bid in response to the first invitation for bids. These included five companies that were Speedstar SS-135 dealers and the Petitioner. Only two bids were received in response to the second invitation for bids, one from Mid America and one from the Petitioner. The second Mid America bid is P. Ex. 11. The Petitioner's second bid is P. Ex. 4. The bids were opened on November 20, 1986. The opening was attended by Ron Owens, President of Mid America, and Robert Auld. Mr. Schenk announced that the Petitioner was the apparent low bidder. Mr. Schenk may have only intended his announcement of apparent low bid to have been with relationship to the bid for outright purchase. A bid tabulation sheet was prepared. P. Ex. Mr. Schenk also announced that the recommendation by the staff to the District Board as to which company should be awarded the contract would be made at the next Board meeting. At that time, the next Board meeting was January 14, 1987. The Petitioner's bid, typed on the bid blank required by the District, provided in pertinent part the following: Purchase Price $146,976.00 Lease Price $ NO BID /Month, first year (renewable) (OWNED AT END OF SECOND YEAR) $6,885.00 /Month, second year (renewable) (OWNED AT END OF THIRD YEAR) $4,592.00 /Month, third year One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of lease) $NOT AVAILABLE Make and Model of Equipment FAILING MODEL CF-15 Combination Drill GEORGE E. FAILING COMPANY standard Manufacturers Warranty warranty policy will apply, extended for 9 months (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery 120 days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ NO CHARGE Location of Maintenance Services GEORGE E. FAILING COMPANY 2101 Starkey Road Largo, Florida 33541 Mid America Submitted its bid on the bid blank form as follows: Purchase Price $179,823.00 Lease Price $5,241.00 /Month, first year (renewable) $5,241.00 /Month, Second year (renewable) $5,241.00 /Month, third year (SEE CONDITIONS BELOW) One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on lease equipment (renewable annually for term of lease) $3,000.00 per year Make and Model of Equipment Speedstar SS-135 Manufacturers Warranty 6 months or 1000 hours (minimum of 6 months or 1000 hours) Delivery 21 days (from date of order) Delivery Charges $ Included/No Charge Location of Maintenance Services Ocala, Florida * * * CONDITIONS #1. If the lease is written for a guaranteed 36 month period, there will be a purchase option available at the end for $1.00 #2. If the lease is written as a yearly renewable lease and runs 3 consecutive years there will be a purchase option available after the 36th payment for $8,092.00. The bid of Mid America was for a Speedstar SS-135, and thus complied with the specifications in that respect. The bid of Mid America was clear and enable the District to understand what its annual budgetary obligations might be should the alternatives in the bid be accepted. The Mid America bid provided the following three alternatives: Outright purchase for $179,823, which was $32,847 more than the bid of the petitioner of $146,976. Payment of a total of $188,676 over a three year period plus an additional payment of $8,092 at the end of the lease if the lease were to be written as yearly renewable for 3 consecutive years, for a total cost of $196,768. Payment of a total of $188,676 (plus a $1 buy-out option) over a three year period if the lease were to be written for a guaranteed 36 month period. This is the alternative ultimately accepted by the District. After publication of the second invitation for bids, but before the opening of those bids, Ms. Vergara appeared before the District Board to explain the manner in which the invitation for bids had been drafted. In particular she explained that the invitation used a "brand name or equivalent" specification. She further advised the Board that the staff recommended the Speedstar SS-135 as the equipment most capable of handling the drilling needs of the District, and that any equipment purchased must be at least equivalent to the Speed star SS-135. At some time before the opening of the second set of bids, Mr. Munch and his supervisor, Ms. Vergara, traveled to the offices of Mid America and inspected a Speedstar SS-135. The owner and President of Mid America was Present to explain the design advantages of the Speedstar SS-135. He was a Salesman, and had no background in engineering or drill rig design. None of the District staff visited the Petitioner's place of business to inspect a Failing CF-15. Mr. Munch and Ms. Vergara did not see a Failing CF-15 until preparations began for the formal administrative hearing. In a deposition prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Schenk testified under oath that the staff had already decided that they wanted a Speedstar SS-135 rather than a Failing CF-15 based upon the report of Ms. Vergera to the District Board. In a deposition prior to the formal hearing, Mr. Munch testified that he was never asked which rig he would rather have, that the issue was Strictly a cost decision, that he probably would have had no objection to purchase of the Failing CF-15 had it been cheaper than the Speedstar SS-135, and that the Failing CF-15 would probably have done the job needed by the District to be done. On December 12, 1986, Mr. Schenk sent a memorandum to the District Board concerning the purchase of the rotary drill rig. The memorandum advised the Board that the District had received two bids. It then presented five alternatives for the Board to consider. All of the bid alternatives (alternatives 1 through 4) related to the Mid America bid on the Speedstar SS-135, and presented all of the options bid by Mid America. None of the bid alternatives related to the petitioner's bid. The District Board was not advised as to the comparative purchase prices bid by the two bidders (the Petitioner's price being $32,000 less than Mid America's), it was not advised as to the two interpretations of the three year option in the Petitioner's bid, and it was not advised that under the second interpretation of the Petitioner's three year lease-purchase bid, the Petitioner's bid had a net cost, after accounting for delivery time, that was $9,529 less than the Mid America bid. (See finding of fact 60.) Mr. Schenk thought that paragraph B), as modified by the "CONDITIONS" placed on the bid by Mid America, presented an option to "renew" the lease monthly at $5,241 per month, for an annual cost of $62,892. Evidentially, then, Mr. Schenk thought that the word "renewable" pertained to renewal by month. P. Ex. 15, p. 2, para. 2. With respect to this option, nothing is mentioned about purchase. Mr. Schenk also treated the word "renewable" to be intended to be exercised annually, resulting in a three year lease (renewable annually). The differing use of the word "renewable" came as a result of the modifications placed on the bid form by Mid America. The District Board chose option 3, which was condition number 1 on the bid blank submitted by Mid America, (a guarantee 36 months lease with a purchase option of $1.00) with the addition of the words "Subject to the availability of funds." The Second invitation for bids had Stated in Paragraph 3 of the third page that "all lease-purchase agreements must include a nonappropriation of fund Paragraph as required by Florida Statutes." Thus, the condition that the lease be "guaranteed" was modified by the District consistent with the specification of the invitation for bids relating to the appropriation of funds. On the day of the District Board meeting approving a lease-purchase with Mid America, January 14, 1987, the District entered into a contract with Mid America for the lease-purchase of a Speedstar SS-135. SJRWMD Ex. 3. The lease agreement contains a Paragraph allowing the District to terminate the lease upon nonappropriation of funds, Subject to certain conditions. Id., para. 11. In February, 1987, Mr. Auld learned at a trade show in Orlando that the District had awarded the contract to Mid America. Mr. Auld called Ms. Mildred Horton, the Assistant Executive Director of the District, to ask for the reasons why his bid was not accepted. Ms. Horton wrote a letter to Mr. Auld dated February 17, 1987, Setting forth the reasons for the award to Mid America and attaching two amortization Schedules, one for each bid. The letter and attachments is P. Ex. 6. Ms. Horton stated that the Schedules attached were the only ones in existence, to her knowledge. None of the reasons given by Ms. Horton for the rejection of the Petitioner's bid could have been known prior to the opening of the bids. The amortization schedules attached to Ms. Horton's letter had been prepared by Mr., Schenk. The schedule for the Petitioner's bid showed a total cost over a three year period of $224,344, which resulted in an effective interest rate of 31 percent compared to the outright purchase price on the Petitioner's bid of $146,976. The schedule assumes that the Petitioner's bid was for a monthly payment of $6,885 for two years followed by a monthly payment of $4,592 in the third year. P. Ex. 6. Mr. Schenk testified that he considered the possibility that the Petitioner's bid for a three year lease purchase was $4,592 per month for 36 months, and prepared an alternative amortization table based upon that possible interpretation as well as the amortization table attached to the letter sent to Mr. Auld by Ms. Horton described above. P. Ex. 12. Mr. Schenk concluded, however, that the Petitioner's bid should be interpreted as a bid of $6,885 per month for two years and $4,592 for the third year, for a total cost of $224,344. He testified that it was confusing that the Petitioner's bid did not contain a price for the first year, but he also concluded that the price of $6,885 placed on the second line of paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid was intended to be a price for both the first year and the second year. He further testified that the Petitioner's bid may have been more understandable had the word "renewable" been stricken on the bid form. Finally, he testified that he disregarded the additions to the Petitioner's bid form because these were "alterations" to the form, but considered the additions to the bid form by Mid America because these were only "additions." As discussed above, after the Second invitation for bids was published, the District was Primarily interested in receiving bids for a three year lease-purchase. The bid blank in the second invitation for bids, however, failed to provide a clear method for bidders to bid that option. Paragraph B) of the bid blank drafted by the District was defective because it did not in any manner state that a purchase (a transfer of ownership) was included in the "lease" for which a price was being asked, because it failed to state whether the District wanted bids on a one year lease- purchase, a two year lease-purchase, a three year lease-purchase, or only a lease for those periods of time, because the word "renewable" was susceptible of being interpreted as renewal from month to month as well as from year to year, as so construed in Mr. Schenk's December 12, 1986 recommendation to the District Board. Paragraph B) was also defective because it failed to provide a place to show the price of the purchase option at the end of the lease, or zero if there were to be none. Without the "CONDITIONS" attached to the Mid America bid, the filled-in blanks of Paragraph B) on the bid form only resulted in a bid on a lease. Mr. Schenk recognized this as he construed Paragraph B) of the form as only asking for a lease bid when he informed the District Board of option number 2 in his memorandum of December 12, 1986. P. Ex. 13. Since the bid form was defective, it was foreseeable that bidders would have to have added additional words to the bid form to make it sensical. It was also foreseeable that different bidders would take different approaches in trying to draft additions to the form to enable them to bid all critical aspects of a lease that included a purchase at the end of the lease. The bid of the Petitioner should have been construed with this foreseeability in mind. In particular, the failure of the Petitioner to place a price on the first line of paragraph B) (relating to the first year) coupled with the placing of a price at the second year line and the third year line, and the addition of the words "owned at end of second year" and "owned at end of third year" should have been construed as the Petitioner's attempt, like the attempt of Mid America, to cure the ambiguities in the bid form. As discussed above, without such words, a price in the first line of paragraph B) of the bid form would have only been a bid for a renewable lease for one year, with no purchase option. The District argues that it did not ask for a bid on a two year lease-purchase, and that the Petitioner's attempt to bid on that as well as on a three year lease-purchase caused confusion. But the problem is that the bid form, as discussed above, did not ask for any purchase associated with a lease, and asked for prices for a lease that could have either a one, two or three year term based upon the option to renew. It was not unreasonable, then, for the Petitioner to have bid a two year lease-purchase. The interpretation of Petitioner's bid as a bid for a total cost of $224,344 over three years is not reasonable. The interpretation of the Petitioner's bid as providing for a total cost of $224,344 over three years results in an interest cost of 31 percent, a rate of interest that is facially unreasonable. But more important if, as assumed in that interpretation, the District were to enter into a contract with the Petitioner at a monthly charge of $6,885 per month for two years, it would own the Failing drill rig at the end of the second year. This is so because the Same line that contains the price ($6,885) also has the added words "owned at end of second year." If it owned the rig after two years, the District Surely would not continue leasing it for the third year at $4,592 per month. Payment of $6,885 for 24 months would cost a total of $165,240, which reasonably compares to Petitioner's outright purchase price of $146,976, plus the cost of paying over a two year period. Since it was more reasonable to construe line two of the Paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid form as a bid for a two year lease-purchase, the third line should have been given the same construction, that is, to construe the price placed on the line as the price each month for the entire period (here, three years) with ownership automatic at the end of the term. The reasonable interpretation of line 3 of Paragraph B) of the Petitioner's bid is for a lease-purchase for three years at $4,592 per month, for a total cost over three years of $165,312, the rig then being owned by the District at the end of 36 months with no buy-out cost. The reasonableness of this interpretation is further supported by the fact that payment of $165,312 on a machine that cost $146,976 to buy outright results in an interest rate for payment over three years of 7.9 percent, which is a normal and usual interest rate that would be expected in a competitive bid. P. Ex. 12. Mid America's bid offered to deliver in 21 days, while the Petitioner offered to deliver in 120 days. Since the District was then renting drilling equipment at $4,612 per month, it would potentially have incurred about one month extra rental ($4,612) on the Mid America bid, and $18,448 for four months extra rental on the Petitioner's bid, or an additional cost of $13,836 on the Petitioner's bid. Including this cost of rental during the potential delivery period, the net cost of the Petitioner's three year lease-purchase bid was $183,760, and the net cost of the Mid America bid alternative that was accepted by the District was $193,289. Thus, with respect to the bid actually accepted by the District, the Petitioner's bid was $9,529 less than the bid of Mid America. During the formal administrative hearing, it appeared from the evidence that the District relied upon the following additional issues, other than price, as the reasons for selection of the Mid America bid: One year guaranteed non-routine, major maintenance and repair on the lease equipment, renewable annually for the term of the lease. A manufacturers warranty of at least 6 months or 1,000 hours. The delivery date. The location of the maintenance Services. All of the foregoing were bid specifications printed on the bid form. P. Exs. 11 and 4. Of these, only the issue of non-routine maintenance was mentioned in the letter of Ms. Horton to Mr. Auld on February 17, 1987. P. Ex. 6. Mid America bid $3,000 per year for non-routine maintenance. The Petitioner Stated on its bid form that this item was "not available." Non-routine maintenance is needed only at the end of the warranty Period. In the industry, its is well understood that non-routine maintenance normally does not apply and is not Purchased until the end of the warranty period. The District had not purchased the non-routine maintenance at the time of the formal administrative hearing. The prices quoted in the bids, pursuant to the invitation for bids, were to have been fixed only for 90 days. Thus, it is uncertain whether the $3,000 bid of Mid America for non-routine major maintenance would still hold. The term "non-routine, major maintenance and repair" was not further defined by the bid form. Although the Petitioner did not bid on non-routine maintenance, it did offer a one year warranty which was six months beyond the minimum specified by the District. Thus, for this six months period only, the Petitioner effectively provided a free non-routine maintenance offer at least to extent of the warranty. But the Petitioner failed to offer non-routine major maintenance for the 24 month period following the first year of the lease. Both bidders complied with the specifications with respect to the manufacturer's warranty, but the Petitioner offered a warranty that was better by six months. The District Board was incorrectly advised that the Petitioner's warranty was only for 90 days (and thus not in compliance with specifications). P. Ex. 13. The delivery date was considered during the hearing only with respect to the cost of rental of equipment until the new rig would be delivered, and thus was an element of net cost discussed above. The Petitioner's delivery date caused its bid to have an additional rental cost of $13,836 as compared to the Mid America bid, but the Petitioner's total net cost still was lower than the Mid America bid, as discussed above. The Petitioner's location of maintenance services was Largo, Florida, and Mid America's location was Ocala, Florida. Mid America's location is approximately 100 miles closer to Palatka than the Petitioner's location. The difference is a difference of about 4 hours in travel time, roundtrip, or only two hours for delivery of a part. Mr. Schenk testified that this factor carried only "some weight." Mr. Schenk did not know how often maintenance at the seller's location might occur, what percentage of maintenance might be in the field rather than in the seller's shop, or the problems that might occur from lack of a part. From the testimony of Mr. Winchester, who was the only rig expert who testified, and the testimony of Mr. Munch regarding the leased Speedstar rig, it appears that maintenance on the rig for major problems should not occur very often, if at all, and that many problems can be corrected in the field. In most cases, parts will have to come overnight by bus. It is inferred that a part from Ocala will arrive no sooner by overnight bus than a part from Largo by overnight bus. Thus, the closer location of the Mid America shop is of little importance on this record. The February 17, 1987, letter from Ms. Horton to Mr. Auld Stated that the failure of the Petitioner to bid on a one year lease was one of the reasons for not accepting the Petitioner's bid. As discussed above, the District was primarily seeking a three year lease-purchase, not a one year lease, and communicated this to the two bidders. Indeed, it was the existing one year lease that prompted the desire by the Board to explore a purchase over time. The District did not enter into a one year lease with Mid America, either. Thus, a bid on a one year lease was not a material or substantial part of the bid specifications. Specification number 2, listed as a desired option, was that the drill rig have a five speed transmission. The Speedstar SS-135 had a five speed transmission, thus giving it a lower first gear, and the Failing CF-15 did not. There is no evidence that the Petitioner could have have offered a five speed-transmission. On the other hand, there is no evidence that a four speed transmission would not effectively meet the needs of the District. The only evidence was that the five speed transmission would have a lower first gear, but there was not substantial evidence that the District would encounter drilling circumstances needing only the lower gear of the Speedstar SS-135. When the rotary table is retracted on the Speedstar SS- 135, the opening is 18 inches in diameter, thus allowing the Speedstar SS-135 to set 16 inch casing. The Speedstar SS-135 otherwise marginally has the power and related mechanical ability to drill and set 16" casing, particularly lighter PVC casing, to depths of 80 feet in about six hours. Drilling the first 80 feet in six hours is very slow in comparison to the normal operation of either the Speedstar SS-135 or the Failing CF-15, and would be more a matter of use of the mud pump to wear away the soil rather than actually drilling the hole. However, the Speedstar SS-135 is in fact being used in Florida by other owners to drill and set 16 inch casing. When the rotary table is retracted on the Failing CF-15, the opening is 14 1/2 inches in diameter, and thus the Failing CF- 15 does not have any capacity to drill or set 16 inch casing. If the District had chosen the Failing CF-15, in those cases in which it needed to drill and set 16 inch casing, it would have to contract out to a larger drill rig to drill and set such casing. In all other respects the Speedstar SS-135 and the Failing CF-15 are functionally equivalent machines, and are considered to be equivalent in the industry. For the most part, the design differences explained by Mr. Munch with respect to the video tape of views of both machines were not differences causing the machines to be not functional equivalents, except as discussed above. The recommendation of the staff of the District to purchase the Speedstar SS-135 would probably have been the same, based upon factors other than price, had the staff considered the bid of the Petitioner to have been $9,529 less than that of Mid America for a three year lease-purchase, as discussed in finding of fact 60. While the District entered into the process of obtaining bids for the drill rig with a preference for a rig capable of performing like the Speedstar SS-135, it did not intend to favor the Mid America Company over the Petitioner, nor did it act in bad faith. At all times relevant to these invitations for bids and award of the contract, the District did not have rules governing purchasing of commodities or governing the notification to interested persons concerning the procedures for contesting a proposed purchase. It did not have any policy or rule requiring that the lowest bid be accepted without consideration of other factors. It did have written policies, SJRWMD Exs. 1 and 2, providing for the following: Purchases in excess of $5,000 must be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation no less than ten days prior to bid opening. The District Purchasing Director may withdraw the entire proposal, and may reject all bids or parts of bids, if the District's interest will be served by that action. Departments or Divisions of the District submitting requisitions must do so with items described in such terms to allow unrestricted bidding and to afford full opportunity to bid to all qualified bidders. Any purchase order made contrary to the provisions of the purchasing policies shall be of no effect and void.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter its final order that the bid of the George E. Failing Company pursuant to Bid Number 87-01, second call for bids, dated November 6, 1986, was properly rejected because it did not meet all specifications of the invitation to bid. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL 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 28th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1606BID The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties which have been rejected. The numbers correspond to the numbers used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the George F. Failing Company: 2. The third sentence is rejected because Mr. Munch chose the Speedstar SS-135 as a basis for the Specifications due to his familiarity with the leased drill rig of the same make. 6. Not relevant. 19 and 20. Mr. Auld's testimony that a manufacturer's warranty on a 1985 truck would be less inclusive that on a 1987 truck was hearsay, and cannot support a finding of fact as to that point. Thus, those portions of these proposed findings concerning a 1985 truck are irrelevant. 36. Ms. Vergara did not testify that the planned monitoring wells would be 2,000 feet deep. 38. Subordinate to finding of fact 71. 45. Rejected by finding of fact 42. Rejected by finding of fact 50. There is no evidence that the Speedstar SS-135 bid by Mid America was a display model. The delivery date of the Speedstar SS-135 is not in evidence. Findings of fact proposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District: 4. There is no evidence as to the depths of the proposed monitoring well network, and thus a finding of fact that the depth will be 1000 feet cannot be made. 8. The existence of a buy-out price in the first Mid America bid did not cause the bid to be unclear. 12. The fourth sentence, as to what the District thought the second bid blank "should" contain, is not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is rejected because it is not clear that the bid blank was a "renewable lease-purchase in one year intervals." See findings of fact 34, 55, and 56. 14. The evidence is that the Speedstar SS-135 can set 16 inch casing, not 17 1/2 inch casing. The findings concerning the failure of the Petitioner's bid to give the District the option of being able to "exit the lease" in one year is rejected because that option was securely provided in the invitation for bids, so securely so that it was construed by the District to be an implicit part of the Mid America bid that ultimately was accepted by the District. See finding of fact 50 concerning the non-appropriation of funds condition. Additionally, the findings concerning the inability of the District to construe the bid of the Petitioner to know its first year fiscal obligations are rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 56 through 58. The second sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 34 and 55. The last sentence is rejected by these findings of fact as well; the ambiguity was created by the bid form, not by the bidders. These findings of fact have essentially been rejected by findings of fact 34 and 55. Further, the word "renewable" was not inconsistent with ownership at the end of a two year period because the word "renewable" could be given the construction given it by Mr. Schenk, renewable from month to month. See finding of fact 49. 22 and 23. Rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 34 and 55 through 58. These proposed findings of fact are essentially correct as a matter of law, but are not facts. These findings of fact are rejected by findings of fact 34 and 55 through 58. 27. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact (4) is rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 66. 29. Subordinate to finding of fact 71. 32. While these Proposed findings are true and have been Substantially adopted, the proposed findings are not relevant in view of the stipulations contained in findings of fact 1 and 2. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Henry Dean, Executive Director St Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429 Linda M. Hallas, Esquire 9455 Koger Boulevard, Suite 209 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32078-1429
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in selecting Intervenor as the lowest bidder for a contract to supply the state with lamps valued at $3,692,499.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for soliciting bids to establish a contract for the purchase of large lamps by state agencies and other eligible users. Petitioner is a Florida corporation and the incumbent vendor under similar contracts for the preceding 10 years. Petitioner does not manufacture lamps. Petitioner sells lamps manufactured by Osram-Sylvania ("Sylvania"). Intervenor is an Ohio corporation doing business in Florida. Intervenor manufactures the lamps it sells. The ITB On March 15, 1996, Respondent issued Invitation To Bid Number 39-285- 400-H, Lamps, Large, Photo and STTV (the "ITB"). The purpose of the ITB is to establish a 24 month contract for the purchase of Large Lamps (fluorescent, incandescent, etc.), Photo Lamps (audio visual, projection, flash), and Studio, Theatre, Television, and Video Lamps ("STTV") by state agencies and other eligible users. The contract runs from July 10, 1996, through July 9, 1998. The ITB estimates the contract price at $3,692,499. The ITB contains General and Special Conditions. General Conditions are set forth in 30 numbered paragraphs and elsewhere in DMS Form PUR 7027. Special Conditions are set forth in various unnumbered paragraphs in the ITB. General Conditions Paragraphs 5, 11, and 24 of the General Conditions are at issue in this proceeding. The terms of each paragraph are: 5. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and effect and are inapplicable to this bid. If submitted either purposely through intent or design or inadvertently appearing separately in transmittal letters, specifications, literature, price lists, or warranties, it is understood and agreed the general and special conditions in this bid solicitation are the only conditions applicable to this bid and the bidder's authorized signature affixed to the bidder's acknowledgment form attests to this. 11. QUALITY ASSURANCE: The contractor, during the contract term, upon mutual agree- ment with the Division of Purchasing, will provide reasonable travel and lodging accommodations for one (1) to three (3) government employees to perform an on-site inspection of the manufacturing process(es) and review of the manufacturer's product quality control(s) and total quality manage- ment program(s). The contractor will reim- burse the State for actual transportation cost, per diem and incidental expenses as provided in Section 112.061, F.S. It is the State's desire that the contractor provide demonstration of quality control for improvement rather than post production detection. 24. FACILITIES: The State reserves the right to inspect the bidder's facilities at any reasonable time with prior notice. Included Items Special Conditions in the ITB require bidders to submit prices for "Item 1" and "Item 2" lamps ("included items"). 1/ Item 1 lamps consist of Group 1 and 2 lamps. Group 1 lamps are Large Lamps such as fluorescent, incandescent, quartz, mercury vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium lamps. Group 2 lamps are Photo Lamps such as audio visual, projection, flash, and STTV lamps. The total price for each group is multiplied by a weighted usage factor. The product calculated for Group 1 is added to the product calculated for Group 2 to determine the total price for Item 1 lamps. Item 2 consists of a category of lamps described as "T- 10 Lamps." The total price for Item 2 lamps is determined without application of the weighted usage factor used for Item 1 lamps. The total price for Item 2 lamps is a de minimis portion of the contract price. Special Conditions in the ITB require Respondent to award a single contract for included items to a single bidder. Special Conditions state that, "During the term of the contract established by this bid, all purchases of items will be made from the successful bidder." 2/ Excluded Items Special Conditions require that, "The bidder shall offer a fixed discount from retail prices on all excluded items." Excluded items include high technology lamps. The requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items is not considered in evaluating bid prices for included items. Rather, the requirement is intended to reduce the state's cost for both included and excluded items by assuring a meaningful discount on excluded items. Formatting Requirements Special Conditions prescribe the format in which bids must be submitted. Price lists and authorized dealers' lists are required to be submitted in hard copy and on computer diskette. The format prescribed for computer diskette includes requirements for font and graphics. The Special Conditions state that, "Failure to comply with this requirement will result in disqualification of your bid." The Bids The ITB prohibits the alteration of bids after they are opened. Respondent opened bids on April 10, 1996. Seven vendors submitted bids in response to the ITB. Included Items Four vendors, including Petitioner, submitted a bid for both Item 1 and Item 2 lamps. Intervenor and two other bidders did not submit a bid for Item 2 lamps. General Conditions Intervenor deleted paragraphs 11 and 24 of the General Conditions from its bid. At the direction of Intervenor's legal department in Cleveland, Ohio, Intervenor's regional sales manager struck through paragraphs 11 and 24 and initialed the deletions. The deletions are consistent with Intervenor's corporate policy. Intervenor routinely objects to contract provisions requiring inspection of Intervenor's facilities. Excluded Items Petitioner's bid includes a fixed discount of 44 percent on excluded items. Intervenor's bid includes a fixed discount of 0 percent. Formatting Requirements Intervenor included the information required by the ITB on the diskette it submitted with its bid. However, Intervenor supplied the information in Courier 12 characters per inch ("cpi") font, not the Courier 10 cpi font prescribed in the ITB. Proposed Agency Action Respondent determined that Intervenor's bid was responsive. The purchasing specialist for Respondent who reviewed each bid to determine if it was responsive failed to observe the deleted paragraphs in Intervenor's bid. The purchasing specialist forwarded those bids determined to be responsive to the purchasing analyst assigned by Respondent to: determine if the lamps offered in each bid met the specifications prescribed in the ITB; and evaluate bid prices. The purchasing analyst noted that paragraphs 11 and 24 were deleted from Intervenor's bid. The purchasing analyst and purchasing specialist conferred. They determined that paragraph 5 of the General Conditions cured Intervenor's deletions without further action. The purchasing analyst correctly determined: that lamps offered by Petitioner and Intervenor met ITB specifications; that Intervenor's bid is the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps; that Petitioner's bid is the second lowest such bid; and that Petitioner's bid is the lowest bid for Item 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid for Item 1 lamps is approximately five percent greater than Intervenor's bid. Respondent proposes to award one contract for Item 1 lamps to Intervenor. Respondent proposes to award a second contract for Item 2 lamps to Petitioner. At 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Respondent posted its intent to award the contract for Item 1 lamps to Intervenor. Petitioner timely filed its formal protest on June 3, 1996. Respondent did not award a contract for excluded items. Respondent's failure to award a contract for excluded items is not at issue in this proceeding. Arbitrary Respondent's proposed award of a contract to Intervenor for substantially all of the items included in the ITB is a decisive decision that Respondent made for reasons, and pursuant to procedures, not governed by any fixed rule or standard prescribed either in the ITB or outside the ITB. Respondent's proposed agency action is arbitrary. Excluded Items The requirement for bidders to offer a fixed discount on excluded items operates synergistically with the requirement for Respondent to award a single contract on included items to a single bidder. The combined action of the two requirements operating together has greater total effect than the effect that would be achieved by each requirement operating independently. The requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items, operating alone, may not induce a bidder who could receive a contract solely for Item 2 lamps to offer a discount that is as meaningful as the discount the bidder might offer if the bidder were assured of receiving a contract for Item 1 and 2 lamps upon selection as the lowest bidder. 3/ By assuring bidders that a single contract for Item 1 and 2 lamps will be awarded to a single bidder, the ITB creates an economic incentive for bidders to provide a meaningful discount on excluded items. Respondent frustrated the synergy intended by the ITB by applying the requirements for a fixed discount and for a single contract independently. Respondent penalized the bidder conforming to the requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items by awarding only a de minimis portion of the contract to the bidder. Respondent rewarded the bidder not conforming to the requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items by awarding substantially all of the contract to that bidder. If Respondent elects to purchase all excluded items from Petitioner, Respondent will have used the contract for Item 1 lamps to induce a meaningful discount from Petitioner without awarding Petitioner with the concomitant economic incentive intended by the ITB. Such a result frustrates the ITB's intent. Paragraph 5 Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 fails to explicate its proposed agency action. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5: leads to an absurd result; is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms of the ITB; and is inconsistent with Respondent's actions. Respondent's interpretation imbues paragraph 5 with limitless curative powers. Respondent's interpretation empowers paragraph 5 to cure the deletion of all General Conditions in the ITB whether stricken by pen or excised with scissors. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 would transform a bid containing no General Conditions into a responsive bid. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. Paragraph 5 operates to cure "additional" terms. It does not operate to restore deleted terms. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 is inconsistent with Respondent's actions. Respondent did not rely on paragraph 5 to cure Intervenor's deletions without further action. Respondent took further action to cure the deletions. Further Action On the morning of May 20, 1996, the purchasing analyst for Respondent telephoned Intervenor's regional sales manager. The purchasing analyst demanded that Intervenor accept the conditions Intervenor had deleted from its bid by submitting a letter of acceptance before the bid tabulations were posted at 4:00 p.m. on the same day. The regional sales manager contacted Intervenor's corporate headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. Intervenor authorized the regional sales manager to accept the deleted paragraphs. By letter faxed to Respondent at approximately 3:20 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Intervenor accepted the paragraphs it had previously deleted. The letter stated that, "GE Lighting [will accept] the Contract Conditions noted in Paragraphs 11 and 24 of the Lamp Quotation." [emphasis not supplied] At 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Respondent posted the bid tabulation form. The bid tabulation form stated that the "award is contingent upon General Electric's acceptance of all the terms in conditions (sic)" in the ITB. Respondent argues that the purchasing analyst who contacted Intervenor on the morning of May 20, 1996, exceeded her authority. Respondent characterizes the word "contingent" in the bid tabulation form as "poorly written" and a "bad word." Agency Construction Of ITB Terms Respondent construes terms in the ITB in a manner that is inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning. The ITB requires that, "The bidder [shall] offer a fixed discount from retail price list on all excluded items." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning the bidder may offer such a fixed discount if the bidder elects to do so. The purpose of the ITB is to establish "[a] 24 month contract" to supply large lamps to the state. [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that the purpose of the ITB is to establish two contracts. The ITB states that, "During the term of the contract established by this bid, all purchases of items [will] be made from [the] successful bidder." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that purchases of some items will be made from one successful bidder and that purchases of other items will be made from a second successful bidder. The ITB states that the contract "[shall] be made statewide on an all or none basis" to the responsive bidder who satisfies the conjunctive requirements for: "[the] lowest "Award Figure Item (1; [and] lowest Award figure for Item (2." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that separate contracts may be made statewide on less than an all or none basis to separate responsive bidders who satisfy the disjunctive requirements for either the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps or the lowest bid for Item 2 lamps, or both. The ITB requires offers to be submitted for all items listed within a group for a bid to qualify for evaluation. Respondent interprets the requirement as meaning that a bidder who does not qualify for evaluation for all of the groups in the contract nevertheless qualifies for evaluation for the contract. Finally, the ITB states that failure to comply with the formatting requirements for the diskette "[will] result in disqualification of your bid." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted language to mean that failure to comply with prescribed formatting requirements may result in disqualification of a bid. The interpretations of the quoted terms proposed by Respondent, individually and collectively, frustrate the purpose of the ITB. They also ignore material requirements of the ITB. Material Deviation Respondent deviated from the rule or standard fixed in the ITB in several respects. First, Respondent altered the bid evaluation procedure prescribed in the ITB. Second, Respondent ignored the requirement to award a single contract to a single bidder. Third, Respondent ignored the requirement that bidders provide a fixed discount on excluded items. Fourth, Respondent ignored the requirement to comply with the formatting requirements prescribed in the ITB. Each deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the ITB is a material deviation. Each deviation gives Intervenor a benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Each deviation affects the contract price and adversely impacts the interests of Respondent. 4/ 5.5(a) Benefit Not Enjoyed By Others Intervenor enjoyed a benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Intervenor obtained a competitive advantage and a palpable economic benefit. Respondent altered the bid evaluation procedure prescribed in the ITB. On the morning of May 20, 1996, Respondent disclosed the bid tabulations to Intervenor alone, 5/ gave Intervenor an opportunity that lasted most of the business day to determine whether it would elect to escape responsibility for its original bid, allowed Intervenor to cure the defects in its bid, accepted Intervenor's altered bid, and conditioned the bid tabulations on Intervenor's altered bid. Respondent used a bid evaluation procedure that is not prescribed in the ITB and did not allow other bidders to participate in such a procedure. 6/ In effect, Respondent rejected Intervenor's initial bid, with paragraphs 11 and 24 deleted, and made a counter offer to Intervenor to accept a bid with paragraphs 11 and 24 restored. Intervenor accepted Respondent's counter offer. Respondent excluded other bidders from that process. Respondent gave Intervenor an opportunity to determine whether it would elect: to escape responsibility for its original bid by declining Respondent's counter offer; or to perform in accordance with an altered bid by restoring paragraphs 11 and 24. A bidder able to elect not to perform in accordance with its bid has a substantial competitive advantage over other bidders unable to escape responsibility for their bids. 7/ Respondent awarded substantially all of the contract to Intervenor even though Intervenor failed to provide a meaningful discount on excluded items. Respondent provided Intervenor with a palpable economic benefit. 5.5(b) Bid Price And Adverse Impact On The State Respondent did not award a contract for excluded items. Respondent's proposed agency action allows Respondent to purchase excluded items from either Intervenor or Petitioner. If Respondent were to purchase all of the excluded items it needs from Intervenor, Respondent could pay substantially more for excluded items than Respondent would save from the five percent price advantage in Intervenor's bid for Item 1 lamps. In such a case, Respondent's proposed agency action would effectively increase costs to the state that are inherent, but not stated, in the ITB. 8/ Conversion of incorrectly formatted data to the required font shifts prices to incorrect columns and causes other problems in accessing information in the diskette. Such problems can not be rectified easily but require substantial time and effort. Responsive Bidder Respondent did not award the contract intended by the ITB to the lowest responsive bid. Although Intervenor's bid is the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps, it is not the lowest responsive bid for Item 1 and 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid is the lowest responsive bid for Item 1 and 2 lamps. 9/ Respondent is statutorily required to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder. 10/ Illegal Intervenor's bid is not responsive within the meaning of Sections 287.012(17), Florida Statutes (1995). 11/ It does not conform in all material respects to the ITB. Intervenor's unaltered bid deletes paragraphs 11 and 24. It does not include a fixed discount on excluded items, does not include a bid for Item 2 lamps, and does not conform to the formatting requirements in the ITB. Section 287.057 requires Respondent to award the contract to the bidder who submits the lowest responsive bid. Respondent has no authority either: to consider bids that are not responsive; or to award the contract to a bidder other than the lowest responsive bidder. Respondent's attempt to engage in either activity is ultra vires and illegal. Minor Irregularities The ITB encourages, but does require, bidders to include quantity discounts for Item 1 and 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid does not include quantity discounts. Petitioner's bid does not fail to conform to material requirements in the ITB. Petitioner does not manufacture Item 1 and 2 lamps. Sylvania manufactures the lamps Petitioner sells. Petitioner has no legal right to require Sylvania to allow inspection of its facilities pursuant to paragraph 11 of the General Conditions. Petitioner's ability to provide the requisite inspections requires the cooperation of Sylvania. Petitioner's bid requires payment by the state within 30 days of an invoice. Section 215.422 and the ITB provide that Respondent has 40 days to issue warrants in payment of contract debts and that interest does not accrue until after 40 days. The defects in Petitioner's bid are minor irregularities within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60A-1.001(16). 12/ They neither affect the bid price, give Petitioner a competitive advantage, nor adversely impact Respondent's interests. Petitioner has the practical ability to arrange inspection's of Sylvania's facilities. Petitioner is legally responsible for failing to do so. Respondent's employees have never visited Sylvania's facilities during the 10 years in which Petitioner has been the contract vendor to the state. The requirement for payment within 30 days does not obviate the provisions of Section 215.422. Private contracts can not alter mutually exclusive statutory provisions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's protest of Respondent's proposed agency action. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 26th day of September, 1996.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department should award the contract for State Project numbered DOH 95209100 to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact State Project numbered DOH 95209100 commenced with an invitation to bid on a construction project which involved the restoration and adaptive use of the Gato Cigar Factory in Key West, Florida. The construction would rehabilitate that existing historic structure and construct internal office and clinic spaces for both Monroe County and the Department of Health. Since both agencies would use the building, the project was divided between them. Monroe County and the Department issued separate invitations to bid for their portions of the structure, and each will enter into its own contract with the winning bidder or bidders. It was not required that a bidder submit a bid for both the Monroe County and the Department portions of the work. Any bidder could bid on one or the other or both. Although the invitations to bid and the contracts to result therefrom were not interrelated, some of the construction work was interrelated as some of the systems being installed under one contract would directly affect the other contract. For example, both the air conditioning system and the roofing system, although being performed under one entity's contract, would be applicable to both projects. The Department's invitation to bid required bidders to submit a base price, plus specific prices on particular items. Alternate numbered 1 added to the base price the cost of a second air conditioning chiller. The base price plus alternate numbered 1, taken together, included all work to be performed under the Department's scope of work. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were deductions from the work included in the base price. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were included in the Department's invitation to bid to cover the possibility that all bids might come in over budget. In that event the Department could select Alternates numbered 2 through 5, sequentially, until sufficient items had been deducted from the Department's scope of work to result in bids under the amount budgeted by the Department for the project. Section 01030 of the bid specifications is entitled "Alternates." Section 1.2E of Part 1 provides, in part, as follows: Include as part of each Alternate, miscellaneous devices, accessory objects and similar items incidental to or required for a complete installation whether or not mentioned as part of the Alternate. Each Alternate Bid must interface with the work being constructed under a separate contract with Monroe County. Each Alternate Bid item is also applicable to the Monroe County work. An alternate which is deducted from one project will be added to the other. If bidding both projects, the Deductive Alternate price for one project must match the Add Alternate price for the other project. The prospective bidders were also given this information in the pre-bid meetings. The Department received a number of bids for less than the amount budgeted for its portion of the work. Accordingly, the Department was able to select Alternate numbered l, which taken together with the base bid, covered the entire scope of work allocated to the Department. The lowest bids through Petitioner's bid were as follows: Bidder Total Bid D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $1,418,744. McTeague Construction Co., Inc. $1,454,500. Lodge Construction, Inc. $1,501,500. Rovel Construction, Inc. $1,559,000. Neither McTeague Construction Co., Inc., nor Lodge Construction, Inc., participated in this proceeding to challenge the Department's intended bid award. For the lowest bidder, Intervenor Porter, discrepancies occurred in its first, third, and fifth alternative prices of $3,500, $375, and $l,497, respectively. For the second lowest bidder, McTeague, a discrepancy of $9,000 occurred in its first alternate price. For the third lowest bidder, Lodge, a discrepancy of $3,165 occurred in its fifth alternate price. For the fourth lowest bidder, Petitioner Rovel, there were no discrepancies in any of its alternate prices. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for the Department was $38,500. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for Monroe County was $35,000. Porter's estimating staff overlooked the instruction that the two numbers should match. The reason for the difference between the two Alternate numbered 1 amounts is that the bidders were instructed to prepare the two bids as two separate contracts. Alternate numbered 1 required moving one of two chillers from the Monroe County project to the Department's project. Porter could not assume that it could use the crane from the contractor on Monroe County's portion of the project to install this chiller in the Department's portion of the project. Therefore, the cost of a crane had to be added to the Department's project, but the cost of the crane could not be deducted on the Monroe County bid. Porter was the fourth highest bidder on the Monroe County project. Monroe County has not yet awarded its contract. If the Monroe County project is awarded based upon the bids submitted, Porter will not be awarded the Monroe County project. The Department's bid tabulation and notice of intended award were prepared without any reference to the bid opening for the Monroe County project and before the contents of the Monroe County bids were known by the Department. The deviation in price between Porter's Alternate numbered 1 bids did not give Porter an advantage over the other bidders, several of whom made the same error. It was a minor deviation, not a material one. The price submitted on the Department's bid reflected the actual cost of performing that portion of the work. Petitioner's bid listed Florida Keys Electric, Inc., as its electrical subcontractor, its fire alarm subcontractor, and its lightening protection subcontractor. That company is not certified by the State of Florida, but it is registered. The bid specifications provide in section B-14, in part, as follows: Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section 16010, Part 1, section 1.9, subsection A., of the technical specifications which form a part of the bid specifications involves supervision of the construction and provides, in part, that "At least one member of the Electrical Contracting Firm shall hold a State Master Certificate of Competency." Florida Keys Electric, Inc., would use Delor J. Ellis as its qualifying agent. Although Ellis is certified by the State, at the time of the bid submittal and through the date of the final hearing in this cause, Ellis' license was in an inactive status, and no application to activate his license was pending with the State of Florida. Fire alarm work and lightening protection work require a specialty license in the State of Florida. Florida Keys Electric, Inc., is not licensed to perform either type of work. When Florida Keys Electric, Inc., contracts to perform such work, it does so through its own subcontractor. Although the requirement for certification and/or registration contained in the bid specifications is not consistent with the requirement for State certification contained in the technical specifications portion of the bid specifications, Petitioner did not comply with either provision. Accordingly, Petitioner's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications. Porter, which submitted the lowest bid, is responsive to the bid specifications and is, therefore, the lowest responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive, dismissing Petitioner's bid protest, and awarding to D. L. Porter Construction, Inc., the contract for the restoration of the Gato Cigar Factory. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Robert A. Hingston, Esquire Welbaum, Guernsey, Hingston, Greenleaf & Gregory, L.L.P. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michael E. Cover, Esquire Morton R. Laitner, Esquire Department of Health Miami-Dade County Health Department 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 William G. Christopher, Esquire Brown Clark, A Professional Association 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue Whether Respondent's determination that the bid submitted by Petitioner was non-responsive, was arbitrary, capricious, or beyond Respondent's scope of discretion as a state agency.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the formal hearing, the following relevant facts are made: A. Background The Department issued a Request For Proposal and Bid Submittal Form (BID) for a full service lease, Lease Number 700:0556, seeking to rent office space in an existing facility located in Polk County, Florida. Responses to the BID were to be filed with the Department by 10:00 a.m. on June 12, 1990. Six proposals were timely submitted in response to the BID, including McCarty's and Fearn's proposal. The Department evaluated the six proposals and made site visits to the properties proposed to be leased. The McCarty proposal received the highest evaluation score of 95.4 points, while the Fearn proposal received the second highest evaluation score of 92.6 points. Because the McCarty proposal had been found responsive to the BID and received the highest evaluation score, the Department awarded the lease contract for Lease No. 700:0556 to McCarty. Fearn filed a timely protest challenging the award to McCarty. The Fearn protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing. However, after the protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings but before McCarty could intervene or a hearing could be held, the Department reviewed the McCarty proposal and found it to be non- responsive. The Department determined that the McCarty proposal was non-responsive because the McCarty proposal was for more space than authorized by the BID and that not all owners of the property proposed to be leased signed the BID. After determining that the McCarty proposal was non-responsive, the Department rejected the McCarty proposal and awarded the lease contract for Lease No. 700:0556 to Fearn. Upon Fearn withdrawing its protest, the Division of Administrative Hearings closed its file by relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department and the Department entered a Final Order dismissing the Fearn protest. By letter dated July 31, 1990, the Department advised McCarty of its decision to reject his proposal as non- responsive and award the bid to Fearn. By this same letter, the Department advised McCarty of his right to file a protest and his right to a formal administrative hearing. B. Lease Space Requirement Prior to issuing the BID the Department submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) a Request For Prior Approval of Space Need (BPM Form 4405) wherein the Department justified, through a Letter of Agency Staffing, the need for 3,108 square feet of office space to be located in an existing facility in Auburndale, Polk County, Florida. However, the Department requested approval of only 3,017 net square feet. DGS approved the request for 3,017 net square feet of space and the Department issued the BID referred to in Finding of Fact l. The BID requested bidders to submit proposals to lease 3,017 square feet (plus or minus 3%) measured in accordance with Standard Method of Space Measurement and advised the bidder that the space offered must be within the plus or minus three percent required. The maximum square footage requested by the BID was 3,108 square feet (3017 + 3%). The McCarty proposal was for 3,150 square feet or 42 square feet over the maximum requested. The Department was aware of, and considered, the square feet of rental space proposed by each response to the BID in the initial evaluation since it rejected two proposals for exceeding this requirement by 145 and 392 square feet, respectively. The Department apparently considered the excess 42 square feet of space in the McCarty proposal in its initial evaluation but through an oversight failed to reject the McCarty proposal as it had in the other two proposals. Upon the Fearn protest being filed the Department's legal office reviewed the McCarty proposal and determined that the excess 42 square feet of space was a deviation that should not have been waived. At this point, the McCarty proposal was found to be non-responsive. The price per square foot of the McCarty proposal in all years, one through five, was less than the Fearn proposal. The total price of the lease in the McCarty proposal, including the excess 42 square feet, in all years, one through five, was less than the Fearn proposal. There was no evidence that the cost of the McCarty proposal would exceed the amount budgeted by the Department for this lease. C. Signature of Owner(s) and Transfer of Ownership Requirements. At the time McCarty signed and submitted the BID he was co-owner of the property bid with Adrian Gabaldon. Gabaldon was aware that McCarty was offering the property in question for lease to the Department having witnessed McCarty's signature on the BID and having been involved with the Department personnel concerning the BID. Section D. 4. A, General Provision, page 8 of the BID provides in pertinent part: Each proposal shall be signed by the owner,(s), corporate officer(s), or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal McCarty's signature was the only signature, as owner, appearing on the McCarty proposal. Below McCarty's signature the word "owner" was handwritten. Gabaldon signed the McCarty proposal as a witness to McCarty's signature and not as an owner. There is insufficient evidence to establish that at the time McCarty submitted his proposal the property bid was owned by a partnership consisting of McCarty and Gabaldon. There is no printed or typewritten partnership name in the vicinity of McCarty's signature in his proposal or anywhere else in his proposal. Sometime between the date McCarty submitted his BID and the date of the hearing, Gabaldon transferred his interest in the property bid to McCarty. D. General By signing the BID, McCarty agreed to comply with all terms and conditions of the BID and certified his understanding of those terms and conditions. In accordance with Section D.10., General Provisions, page 9 of the BID, all question concerning the specifications were to be directed to C. Donald Waldron. And, although McCarty or Gabaldon may have discussed the space requirement and other matters with certain employees of the Department, they knew, or should have known, that these questions should have been directed to Waldron. Otherwise, the answer could not be relied upon. Neither McCarty or Gabaldon ever contacted Waldron concerning the terms, conditions or specifications of the BID and, more specifically, concerning the space requirement or who was required to sign the BID. Submitted with the Fearn proposal was a letter from Entrepreneur of Tampa as owner of the property bid in the Fearn proposal appointing David Fearn, CCIM and The Fearn Partnership, Inc. as its agent to submit a proposal on behalf of Entrepreneur of Tampa.
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William R. Cave, held a formal hearing in the above- captioned case on October 16, 1990 in Tampa, Florida.
The Issue Whether the Florida A&M University's intended action to reject all bids and re-advertise the project to construct "Utilities Improvement-Central Chilled Water Plant, Phase V", known as BR-389, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Neel Mechanical Contracting, Inc., is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in Florida and licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Its business is air conditioning, and it specializes in larger projects such as the one at issue herein. Robert C. Sullivan is the President of Neel Mechanical. Thomas Gregory Lang is a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical and the chief estimator for Neel Mechanical; Mr. Lang is the person primarily responsible for preparing Neel Mechanical's bid proposal for Project BR-389. The Florida Board of Regents is a corporate body consisting of the Commissioner of Education and thirteen citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by three members of the Cabinet; it is subject to the general supervision and control of the Department of Education. Sections 240.203(2), 240.205, and 240.207(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a member of the State University System, is charged generally with overseeing the state universities, and has the authority to approve and execute contracts for "construction for use by a university when the contractual obligation exceeds $1 million." Sections 240.209 and 240.205(6), Florida Statutes (1999). 4/ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ("FAMU") is a public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, and is one of ten universities in Florida's State University System. Section 240.2011, Florida Statutes (1999). The university president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for its operation and administration. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Frederick S. Humphries was president of FAMU, and Samuel J. Houston was the Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. Mr. Houston has primary responsibility for supervising the bid process and the staff that prepared the bid documents and evaluated the bids for Project BR-389. Mr. Houston acts in this capacity on behalf of President Humphries and the Board of Regents. Mr. Houston also is ultimately responsible for the administration of Project BR-389. Bayou Mechanical, Inc. ("Bayou Mechanical") is a mechanical contractor which submitted a bid on Project BR-389. Call for Bids In Volume 25, Number 13, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, dated April 2, 1999, FAMU, on behalf of the Board of Regents, issued a Call for Bids on Project BR-389, which involves construction of a chilled water plant on the FAMU campus. The Call for Bids provided that all bidders must have a valid Florida license to do the work at the time of bid opening and a minimum of five years experience with similar projects. Project BR-389 involves a construction contract and is the fifth phase of the construction of an underground chilled water system on the FAMU campus. The project consists of constructing a portion of the system and connecting it to the existing system. The Call for Bids notified prospective bidders that sealed bids would be received at FAMU on May 4, 1999, until 2:00 p.m., after which time the bids would be opened and the bid tabulations posted. The Call for Bids further provided: "Bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual." The Call for Bids advised that these documents were available at the offices of the Architect/Engineer for the project, Bosek, Gibson & Associates, Inc. ("Bosek, Gibson"), in Tallahassee, Florida. In Addendum #2 to the Project Manual, dated April 30, 1999, the date for submission of bids was changed from May 4, 1999, to May 11, 1999. The Project Manual contains Instructions to Bidders, consisting of pages 6 of 106 through 22 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 23 of 106 through 106 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; Special Conditions of the Contract, consisting of pages I-1 through I-10 and dated October 16, 1989; Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996; Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5 and identified as the February 1999 Revision; Exhibit L, Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 2 through 16; and the Technical Specifications, which are separately identified and numbered. As noted in the Call for Bids, drawings are also included in the bid documents. Neel Mechanical, Bayou Mechanical, and Council Contracting submitted bids for Project BR-389 on May 11, 1999, the date on which the bids were opened and the price proposals were read. According to the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form that was posted from May 14 through 19, 1999, Neel Mechanical was the apparent low bidder on the base bid and on the two alternates 5/; Neel Mechanical's base bid and its bid on alternates were within FAMU's budget for the project. Bayou Mechanical submitted the second lowest bid on the base bid and the alternates; Bayou Mechanical was within the budget on the base bid but over budget on the alternates. No recommended award or intent to award was indicated on the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form. Shortly after the bids were opened, several issues were raised with respect to the bid process. First, the FAMU staff discovered that Neel Mechanical had failed to affix its corporate seal to the signature page of the bid Proposal Form and to the Bid Bond that was part of the bid submission. Second, York International Company ("York") sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, a letter advising FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid. This letter raised the third issue: Of the two manufacturers identified in the project specifications, York and The Trane Company ("Trane"), only Trane manufactured a chiller that could meet the project specifications. Fourth, Mark A. Daughtery, a project manager for Bayou Mechanical, sent a letter dated May 14, 1999, to Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson advising him that Bayou Mechanical intended to file a formal protest on Project BR-389 and identifying two issues of concern to Bayou Mechanical: Neel Mechanical's failure to affix its corporate seal to its bid submission and "the Chiller being sole sourced to Trane Company." Each of these issues is discussed in detail below. Corporate Seal The Instructions to Bidders contained in the Project Manual provide: B-16 Preparation and Submission of Bids Each Proposal shall be submitted on the form contained in the Project Manual and bid prices shall be indicated thereon in proper spaces, for the entire Work and for all Alternates. (See B-8) In the event of a discrepancy in the bid amount on the Proposal between the numeric and written quotes, the written amount will govern. Each Proposal must give the full business address of the Bidder and state whether it is an individual, corporation or partnership. Proposals by a corporation must be signed with the legal name and seal of the corporation followed by the name of the state of its incorporation and the manual signature and designation of an officer, agent or other person authorized to bind the corporation. (Emphasis added.) When it was submitted on May 11, 1999, Neel Mechanical's bid did not include the impression of its corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form signature page or on the Bid Bond submitted as part of the proposal. After the bid opening, an employee of Neel Mechanical received a telephone call from Henry Swift, FAMU's Project Manager for Project BR-389, in which he advised Neel Mechanical that its bid had not been sealed. This conversation was followed by a request from Mr. Swift, sent via facsimile transmittal to Neel Mechanical on May 13, 1999, requesting a "Letter of Clarification which confirms your status as a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, registered with the Secretary of State, etc. Finally, please be sure to sign and seal your letter with your corporate seal." A letter to Mr. Swift, dated May 14, 1999, was signed and sealed by Robert C. Sullivan, President of Neel Mechanical. The letter was received in FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction on May 19, 1999. Shortly after Mr. Sullivan sent the May 14, 1999, letter, Neel Mechanical received another telephone call from Mr. Swift in which he advised Neel Mechanical that the seal needed to be physically affixed to the bid Proposal Form. Peter Lang, a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical, had business in Tallahassee, so Mr. Sullivan asked that he take the seal to Mr. Swift's office and affix it to the bid Proposal Form. When Peter Lang arrived at Mr. Swift's office, someone brought out the file and gave him the bid Proposal Form, and he affixed Neel Mechanical's corporate seal to the signature page of the form. Neel Mechanical's corporate seal was not affixed to the Bid Bond, although the seal of the surety company was on the Bid Bond when the bid was submitted. The Bid Bond was part of Neel Mechanical’s bid submission. FAMU verified on May 13, 1999, that Neel Mechanical was authorized to do business in Florida and held the requisite Florida license to perform the work required by the project. Centrifugal chiller specifications and York's letter of "intent to protest" Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications included in the Project Manual contains the specifications for the Centrifugal Chillers - Water Cooled to be installed as part of Project BR-389. Those specifications provide in pertinent part: PART 2 - PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Available Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide centrifugal chillers from one of the following: Trane Co., The York Int'l. UNIT DESCRIPTION: * * * Refrigerant: Chiller shall be provided with low pressure refrigerant HCFC-123. The size of the chiller specified for Project BR-389 was 2200 tons. 6/ Lane Jackins is the owner of Applied Mechanical Equipment and is a manufacturer's representative for York. He reviewed the technical specifications for the chiller contained in Part II of Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications for Project BR-389 and determined that York could not furnish a chiller that met the specifications. York does not manufacture a chiller of 2200 tons that uses R123 refrigerant, although it uses R123 refrigerant in smaller machines up to 750 tons. The equipment manufactured by York in the 2,000-ton range uses R134A refrigerant, which operates at different pressures than R123. The York equipment using R134A refrigerant is of an entirely different design than that using R123 refrigerant. In addition, York does not manufacture a chiller with the voltage required by the project specifications. Three or four days before the bids were to be submitted, either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lang spoke with Mr. Jackins about York's providing Neel Mechanical with a price for the chiller. Mr. Jackins responded that York would not submit a price for the equipment because York did not manufacture a chiller that would meet the technical specifications included in the bid documents. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: B-12 Basis for Bidding - Trade Names For clarity of description and as a standard of comparison, certain equipment and materials have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base the Proposal on the particular systems, equipment or materials specified and approved substitutes as provided in Paragraph 3.19, Substitutes, of the General Conditions. After bids are received, no equipment or materials will be approved as a substitute for the specified product. Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions provides: Substitutions Substitutions for a specified system, product or material may be requested of the Architect/Engineer, and the Architect/Engineer's written approval must be issued as an addendum before substitutions will be allowed. All requests for substitutions must be submitted prior to the opening of bids, and approvals shall be granted no less than seven (7) days prior to the bid date. Substitutions requested after that date will receive no consideration. Substitutions are changes in materials, equipment, methods, or sequences of construction, design, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, air conditioning controls, or other requirements of the Drawings or Specifications. (Emphasis in original.) In the portion dealing with "SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS," Section 15010 of the Technical Requirements, "MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS," provides as follows: By submitting a bid for equipment or material other than the "Design Basis Equipment" (i.e., that which is shown on the Contract Drawings), the Contractor: Represents that he has personally investigated the proposed substitute product and determined that it is equal or superior in all respects to that specified and complies with all the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions; Certifies that the cost data presented is complete and includes all related costs under this Contract but excludes costs under separate contracts, and excludes the Engineer's redesign costs, and waives all claims for additional costs related to the substitution which subsequently become apparent; Will coordinate the installation of the accepted substitute, making such changes as may be required for the work to be complete in all respects; and, Certifies that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the Contract Documents. Neither York nor any prospective bidder on Project BR-389 requested within the time limits specified in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions that a York product be substituted for the chiller specified for Project BR-389. Mr. Lang contacted Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson a day or two before bids were to be submitted and told Mr. Allen that York was not able to provide a chiller that met the project specifications. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen responded that he "was totally surprised that they [York] didn't have a machine that was going to meet this spec." 7/ Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on pricing information it received from Trane, which manufactures a chiller that meets the project specifications. An additional reason Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on the Trane equipment was his belief that, all things being equal, FAMU preferred to have Trane equipment installed in Project BR-389 because other chillers installed at FAMU were manufactured by Trane. Mr. Lang believed that the specifications for the chiller had been deliberately drawn to require use of Trane equipment. In a letter dated May 11, 1999, the day the bids for Project BR-389 were submitted and opened, Mr. Jackins notified FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid on Project BR-389. Mr. Jackins stated in the letter: The chiller as specified is a flat specification. There is only one manufacturer that will meet the criteria as spelled out in the contract documents. This is not in the best interest of the University System of Florida or the State of Florida. An official protest outlining all the proprietary items will be forthcoming. The letter was sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, prior to the time the bids were opened. Mr. Jackins believed that the "flat specification" was not in the best interest of the university because it precluded competitive pricing for the chiller. Mr. Sullivan learned on May 11 or May 12, 1999, that York intended to file a bid protest. Believing that Neel Mechanical would be awarded the contract as the apparent low bidder, Mr. Sullivan met with Mr. Jackins and several employees of Neel Mechanical, including Greg Lang, at which time Mr. Sullivan proposed an alternative to York's filing a bid protest. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Jackins that, in his opinion, the situation could best be handled through a meeting between Neel Mechanical, Mr. Jackins, Mr. Houston, and the project engineers. According to Mr. Sullivan's plan, Mr. Jackins could present York's pricing, and FAMU, with the engineers’ assistance, could decide if they wanted to switch from the equipment specified in the bid documents to York equipment. If FAMU agreed to accept the York equipment, then, if it were awarded the contract, Neel Mechanical would purchase the York equipment rather than the Trane equipment Neel Mechanical had included in its proposal. After some discussion, Mr. Jackins agreed with Mr. Sullivan's proposed solution. Post-bid activity from the perspective of Neel Mechanical Immediately after the bids were opened, Craig Allen, an employee of Bosek, Gibson telephoned Mr. Lang and asked if Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen stated that "this is a standard practice of mine on bid day to call the apparent low bidder and just make sure that they haven't found some colossal error in their math or whatever that made them low." 8/ Mr. Lang told Mr. Allen that Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. After this conversation, Mr. Lang waited for the letter from FAMU awarding the contract to Neel Mechanical. He was not concerned that the award was not made immediately because, in his experience, some time always passed between bid opening and the time the winning bidder received the contract. However, in anticipation of the award of the contract, Neel Mechanical proceeded to talk with subcontractors, to start scheduling the project, and to line up equipment that it would need to purchase for work on the project. Neel Mechanical employees also made several visits to the site of the project. At some point after the bids were opened, Mr. Sullivan heard that the procurement officials at FAMU were discussing with FAMU's legal department the issues of Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal to its bid and the ramifications of York’s threatened bid protest. Mr. Sullivan responded by telephoning the office of FAMU's general counsel. He spoke with Faye Boyce about these issues and told her that he considered his failure to affix the corporate seal to Neel Mechanical's bid to be insignificant. He also advised her that he had worked out an arrangement with the representative of York whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would talk with the engineers about the York chiller so a decision could be made whether they wanted to use the York equipment or stay with the Trane equipment which met the project specifications. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Boyce, Mr. Sullivan received the impression that she had looked into the issues he had raised in their previous telephone conversation. Mr. Sullivan could not recall Ms. Boyce's exact words, but had the impression from their conversation that the contract award to Neel Mechanical had been approved and that confirmation would be sent out shortly. At some point after Mr. Sullivan's conversation with Ms. Boyce, Greg Lang telephoned Henry Swift to find out the status of the contract award. Mr. Swift told Mr. Lang that, in Mr. Lang's words, "the problem had been reviewed and found to be insignificant, and . . . that the letter of intent to award had already been made." 9/ According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift told him that FAMU would notify the bidders of the intent to award the contract to Neel Mechanical. On the basis of this conversation, Mr. Lang believed that Neel Mechanical would receive a letter "just any day." When Neel Mechanical did not receive a letter, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Swift again. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift stated that he did not know why the matter was being held up. After this second conversation with Mr. Swift, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Houston several times but did not receive a return call. Mr. Lang then wrote a letter to Mr. Houston, dated July 9, 1999, in which he inquired about the status of the contract award: It has now been almost two months since you received bids for this project, and as the low bidder we have still not received notification of your intent to award. We have had several telephone conversations with the attorney representing the regents in this matter, and we were lead [sic] to believe that we would have received information before this time. Please review this matter and call us. If there are outstanding issues which concern you, we would like to know about them and work with you to get them resolved. Post-bid activity from the perspective of FAMU Mr. Houston and members of his staff considered the omission of the corporate seal to be a minor deficiency in Neel Mechanical's bid proposal. Nonetheless, even though Neel Mechanical had been allowed to seal the bid Proposal Form, Mr. Houston asked FAMU's Office of General Counsel to conduct research and determine if the deficiency was one that could be waived. Mr. Houston was not involved in drawing up the technical specifications for Project BR-389; rather, he relied on the project engineers to be familiar with the products to be used in the project. Mr. Houston advised the project engineers that he wanted a competitive bid, and, because the chiller was a major component of the project, he instructed the engineers to prepare specifications that could be met by equipment produced by at least two manufacturers. In a letter dated May 18, 1999, Craig Allen, the engineer at Bosek, Gibson who prepared the specifications for Project BR-389, notified Mr. Houston that he was not aware until the "notice of protest" was received from York that York could not provide a chiller of the required capacity which used R123 refrigerant. Mr. Allen advised Mr. Houston that Mr. Jackins, the York representative, had indicated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Allen to discuss York's chiller selections for the project. A recommendation that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical was signed on June 8, 1999, by Phyllis Nottage, the Assistant Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction; on June 10, 1999, by Mr. Houston; on June 14, 1999, by Louis Murray, an Associate Vice President of FAMU; and on June 14, 1999, by Robert Carroll, a Vice President of FAMU with supervisory authority over the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. The recommendation was contained in a document entitled "Award of Construction Contract," which provided as follows: On May 11, 1999, bids were received for the above-referenced project within the approved budget for the Base Bid and Alternates One (1) through (2), in the total amount of $3,996,400. The requirements for the Minority Business Enterprise Plan as set forth in the project specifications have been satisfied by the Contractor. The consulting Architect/Engineer and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office recommend the award of this contract to Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. President Humphries signed the Award of Construction Contract on June 17, 1999. The preparation and signing of the Award of Contract form and the preparation of the Letter of Intended Decision were part of the bid review process, but Mr. Houston considered them preliminary, without effect until the final decision on the contract award was made and the bidders were formally advised of FAMU's intended decision with respect to the award of the contract. On June 21, 1999, Mr. Houston received a telephone call from Kenneth Ogletree, Director of the Board of Regents’ Office of Facilities Planning, 10/ in which Mr. Houston was advised that the Board of Regents had received an inquiry from a legislator in reference to Project BR-389 and requesting that Mr. Houston prepare a response to the legislator's inquiry. Mr. Ogletree sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Carey Huff, President of Bayou Mechanical, to Durell Peaden, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and a State Representative from District In the letter, Mr. Huff complained that Neel Mechanical, although apparent low bidder for Project BR-389, had failed to seal the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond and that, therefore, Neel Mechanical's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Carey requested that Representative Peaden contact FAMU so that Bayou Mechanical would be awarded the contract for the project as lowest responsive bidder. Mr. Carey stated in his May 28, 1999, letter to Representative Peaden that the college had refused to allow Bayou Mechanical to examine Neel Mechanical's bid but that Mr. Houston had informed them that Neel Mechanical had failed to seal its bid properly. 11/ Mr. Ogletree also sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter from Representative Peaden to Dr. Adam W. Herbert, Chancellor of the State University System. In his letter, Representative Peaden asked that Dr. Herbert look into the matter and "see that all equity was followed in the bid process." In response to the Board of Regents' request that he respond to Representative Peaden's inquiry, Mr. Houston prepared a letter dated June 22, 1999. In this letter, which was directed to Mr. Ogletree, Mr. Houston stated that FAMU wished to award the contract for Project BR-389 to Neel Mechanical as the low bidder on the project. Mr. Houston stated that FAMU considered Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond to be a minor discrepancy. Mr. Houston further stated that FAMU's Office of General Counsel agreed with the conclusion regarding the corporate seal issue and recommended that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical. Finally, Mr. Houston advised Mr. Ogletree that President Humphries had signed the "Award of Construction Contract" form and that Mr. Houston's office was preparing "Letters of Intended Decision" to be sent to the bidders. The final decision on the contract award had not been made on June 10, 1999, when Mr. Houston signed the recommendation that the contract for Project BR-389 be awarded to Neel Mechanical, nor had it been made on June 22, 1999, when Mr. Houston wrote his letter to Mr. Ogletree. Rather, on June 22, 1999, the issues raised with respect to the bid process for Project BR-389 were still being reviewed by Mr. Houston and his staff and by FAMU's Office of General Counsel. The decision to reject all bids on Project BR-389 was made on June 24, 1999. On that date, Mr. Houston met with Vice President Murray, FAMU's attorney, and the Assistant Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction, and the issues relating to the bidding process for Project BR-389 were reviewed. Mr. Houston identified these issues as Neel Mechanical's failure to seal its bid Proposal Form and its Bid Bond; potential protests from York and from Bayou Mechanical; and the problem relating to the technical specifications for the chiller. Of these issues, Mr. Houston considered the most serious the fact that, of the two manufacturers listed in the bid specifications, only Trane could provide the chiller for Project BR-389. The chiller was a major part of the project, and Mr. Houston wanted at least two sources for the chiller in order to encourage competition so that FAMU would get the lowest possible price for the project. Mr. Houston was also concerned that the specifications for the chiller created a de facto "sole source" bid and that the bid solicitation would, therefore, be illegal because FAMU didn't satisfy the statutory requirements necessary for it to specify that the chiller be purchased from a sole source. 12/ FAMU's attorney advised the participants at the June 24, 1999, meeting that the legal department had found no precedent within the State University System for waiving the requirement in the bid documents that the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond be sealed with the bidder's corporate seal. The participants at the meeting considered all of the outstanding issues and decided that it would be in the best interests of FAMU to reject all bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. After the decision to reject all bids was made, Mr. Houston marked an "X" through the Award of Construction Contract form signed by President Humphries, and he prepared letters notifying the bidders of the intent to reject all bids for Project BR-389. Neel Mechanical's bid protest In a letter to Neel Mechanical dated July 6, 1999, Mr. Houston stated: Bids on the above referenced project were opened May 11, 1999. However, we regret to inform you that all Bids have been rejected as in the best interest of the University. This project is presently being re-advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University apologizes for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We trust that you will cooperate with our course of action and look forward to receiving a proposal from you at the next opening. Thanks for your continued interest in the State University System's Construction Program. The envelope containing Mr. Houston's July 6, 1999, letter was post-marked July 9, 1999, and the letter was received by Neel Mechanical on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: Rejection of Bids The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the Owner such rejection is in the best interest of the Owner. Paragraph B-1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides that the Board of Regents is the owner of the project. On July 13, 1999, after Neel Mechanical received the letter from Mr. Houston notifying it that all bids on Project BR- 389 had been rejected, Mr. Sullivan and Greg Lang went to Mr. Houston's office to urge him to rescind the decision and award the contract to Neel Mechanical. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Houston that they felt that the issue regarding the corporate seal was insignificant. At this time, Mr. Sullivan also told Mr. Houston that he and York had reached an agreement whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would present the York product to the University and let the University decide if it wanted to go with the Trane chiller or switch to a York product. Mr. Sullivan thought that Mr. Houston was sympathetic to Neel Mechanical but that the decision had been made by the administration and the legal department. Mr. Sullivan also got the impression that the decision to reject all bids was based on the corporate seal issue. On July 13, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Notice of Intent to Protest Bid to Samuel J. Houston, Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction at Florida A&M University and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. There is no dispute that the Notice of Intent to Protest Bid was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 13, 1999. On July 23, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings to Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. Also on July 23, 1999, a copy of the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was sent by United States Mail to the Board of Regents, Office of General Counsel, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1454, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950. There is no dispute that the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 23, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual dated October 16, 1989, provide: Bid Protest To be considered, a bid protest must be received by the Director, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1601 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, as provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Failure to file a notice of protest in this manner shall constitute a waiver of the Bidder's right to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. * * * B-26 Special Conditions Bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. (Emphasis added.) Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996, provides in pertinent part: (This supplement revises portions of the Project Manual for State University System projects dated October 16, 1989, and supersedes any other previously issued supplements related to the referenced topics.) Revise the Instructions to Bidders Section of the Project Manual as Follows: * * * Revise Paragraph B-22, Bid Protest, to read as follows: B-22 Bid Protest Any person who is affected adversely by the Board of Regents decision or intended decision shall file with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and State legal holidays, after receipt of the bidding documents if the protest is directed toward the bidding conditions or after the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision on contract award or bid rejection if the protest is directed toward contract award or bid rejection. Thereafter, a formal written protest by petition in compliance with Section 120.53(5), and Section 120.57, F.S., must be filed with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, within ten (10) days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Failure to file a timely notice of protest of [sic] failure to file a timely formal written protest petition shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. Any protest filed prior to receipt of the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision will be considered abandoned unless renewed within the time limit provided for protests. (Emphasis added.) Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5, provides in pertinent part: SUPPLEMENT TO PROJECT MANUAL ISSUED BY FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING PARAGRAPH B-26, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (February 1999 Revision) B-26 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - This supplement modifies paragraph B-26 by adding and clarifying bidding requirements and instructions. * * * PROTEST PROCEDURES: This paragraph supersedes the paragraph (No. B-22) under the general terms and conditions whereby the notice of intended protests or written formal protests including bonding requirements from bidders must be submitted to: Mr. Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, FL 32307. A bid tabulation with the recommended award(s) will be posted at the address indicated in Paragraph B-26, sub- paragraph 6 (Posting of Bid Tabulation). Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the award or intended award which is filed before the bid tabulation posting is null and void. To be considered, a notice of protest or formal written protest must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the specifications issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to any amendment issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added.) The instructions regarding the filing of bid protests in Supplement K supersede the instructions in Supplement J, which is dated February 13, 1996, and in the Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual, which are dated October 16, 1989. Summary The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is sufficient to establish that it timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings by hand-delivering the documents to Mr. Houston, at his office on the FAMU campus. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that FAMU acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in deciding that it was in the best interest of FAMU to reject all of the bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. First, FAMU's concerns that, by inadvertently including a technical specification that could be met by only one manufacturer, it had limited competition with respect to the chiller to be used in Project BR-389 and had inadvertently put out an illegal "sole source" specification were legitimate concerns. Mr. Houston instructed the engineer who prepared the technical specifications that he wanted the specifications drawn so that at least two manufacturers could provide the product, and the engineer prepared specifications relating to the "available manufacturers" which clearly contemplated that a chiller meeting the technical specifications could be provided by both York and Trane. FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered as one factor underlying the decision to reject all bids the lack of precedent in the State University System for waiving the requirement that the bid Proposal Form and Bid Bond carry the corporate seal of a corporate bidder. The evidence submitted by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the corporate seal issue was ultimately the only or even the major factor on which FAMU's decision to reject all bids was based. Mr. Houston identified the possibility that bid protests would be filed by York and by Bayou Mechanical as factors which FAMU considered in deciding to reject all bids. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as a whole permits the inference that the focus of the concern about the potential bid protests was not on avoiding the protests but on the validity of the issues raised by York and Bayou Mechanical. Accordingly, FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered these potential bid protests as one factor contributing to the decision to reject all bids. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish that the "Award of Contract" form executed by President Humphries on June 17, 1999, or Mr. Houston’s June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Ogletree bound FAMU to award the contract to Neel Mechanical or that the subsequent decision to reject all bids defeated the purpose of the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and denying Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 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 12th day of November, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent has acted acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally, or dishonestly with regard to the intended award of ITB 93/94-040- LOT/P.
Findings Of Fact By correspondence filed July 18, 1994, this bid protest was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings from the Department of Lottery for the conduct of formal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The formal bid protest document consists solely of a single page letter signed by Petitioner's president, C. Whitside-Curry, basically stating that the letter is to serve as Petitioner's formal written protest to Respondent's "Notice of Award - Notice of Non-Responsiveness - ITB 93/94-040-LOT/P - Invitation To Bid for Painting the Interior of the Lottery Central Building. Final hearing in the matter was scheduled for August 2, 1994, in compliance with requirements of Section 120.53(5)(e), Florida Statutes, that bid protests be set for hearing within 15 days absent stipulation of the parties waiving that statutory time frame. By motion filed July 29, 1994, counsel for Petitioner sought a continuance of the final hearing for a period of one week. Counsel had just been retained by Petitioner. As reflected in Petitioner's motion, counsel's request for a one week delay was acceptable to counsel for Respondent, provided that: the 30 day time frame governing issuance of recommended orders in bid challenge cases was not waived. that deposition of a principal of Petitioner, C. Whitside-Curry, be held on August 3, 1994 at 11:30 a.m. and that certain documents also be produced. A telephone hearing on Petitioner's continuance motion was held on August 1, 1994, to clarify the hearing officer's understanding that a one week continuance of the final hearing would not subtract a period of one week from the 30 day time frame following the final hearing within which to prepare a recommended order in the case. Thereafter the motion was granted and final hearing rescheduled, as agreed in the telephone conference, for August 9, 1994, one week after the initial hearing date. By notice filed on August 3, 1994 (transmitted to Petitioner's counsel by facsimile transmission on July 29, 1994), Respondent documented the agreed upon deposition of C. Whitside-Curry and documents to be produced. By motion filed on August 3, 1994, subsequent to Respondent's notice, Petitioner's counsel sought a further continuance of the final hearing and noticed the unavailability of Petitioner's principal, C. Whitside-Curry, for the scheduled deposition on August 3 or the final hearing scheduled for August 9, 1994. By motion filed on August 3, 1994, subsequent to Petitioner's second motion for continuance, Respondent moved for imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of the bid protest on the basis that Petitioner had not complied with conditions agreed to by the parties as a part of the one week continuance, i.e., C. Whitside-Curry did not appear for deposition and documents were not produced. The motion further related that Respondent's notice of the deposition and request to produce documents (filed on August 3, 1994) had been transmitted, as noted above, to Petitioner's counsel by facsimile transmission on July 29, 1994. In the course of telephone conference with the parties on August 8, 1994, Petitioner's counsel agreed to payment of costs related to court reporter expense incurred by Respondent at the deposition where Petitioner's principal failed to appear. Respondent's counsel refused to consent to further continuance of the final hearing and Petitioner's request for a second continuance was denied. At final hearing, consideration was given to an Petitioner's Amended Second Motion For Continuance. The motion differed from previous motions to the extent that an attached copy of a letter dated April 21, 1994, appeared to indicate that a mediation meeting in another legal proceeding required the Petitioners' presence in Tampa, Florida, on the afternoon of August 9, 1994. No direct admissible evidence of Petitioner's inability to attend the hearing was presented. Upon denial of the amended motion for continuance, counsel for Petitioner announced that he could not go forward.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed in response to Respondent's intent to award ITB 93/94-040-LOT/P, be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 10th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Curley R. Doltie, Esquire 1103 Hays Street P.O. Box 1325 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Capitol Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4011 Marcia Mann Secretary Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4002 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4011 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case. ================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA J C & C ASSOCIATES, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED vs. CASE NO. 94-3185 DOAH CASE NO. 94-3955BID DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY, Respondent. / Opinion filed January 22, 1996. An Appeal from Order of the Department of Lottery. Curley R. Doltie, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Louisa H. Warren of Department of the Lottery, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., and SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE, CONCUR. MANDATE From DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT To the Honorable Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings WHEREAS, in that certain cause filed in this Court styled: J C & C ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 94-3185 DOAH CASE NO. 94-3955BID DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY, Respondent. The attached opinion was rendered on January 22, 1996. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that further proceedings be had in accordance with said opinion, the rules of this Court and the laws of the State of Florida. WITNESS the Honorable E. Earle Zehmer Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District and the Seal of said court at Tallahassee, the Capitol, on this 11th day of March, 1996. (SEAL) Jon S. Wheeler Clerk, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 26th day of February 1996.
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1989 the District published its request for bids (number 8980) for an atomic absorption spetrophotometer in local newspapers and to prospective interested parties, as shown in joint Exhibit 1 in evidence. The specifications for the instrument were included in the bid package and were authored by Mark Rials, the District's Laboratory Supervisor. The District received two bids for the instrument in response to the request for bids, one from Varian for approximately $57,000 and one from Perkin-Elmer for approximately $59,900. Mark Rials evaluated the bids. Upon evaluation it was determined that the Varian instrument proposal did not meet bid specifications in three major areas. The specifications required a system capacity of 40 megabytes, hard drive capability. The capacity offered by Varian in its bid was for 20 megabytes. The specifications required a combination of a 5 1/4 inch disk drive for its computer system as well as a 3 1/2 inch disk drive. Varian only bid the 3 1/2 inch diskdrive. It did not offer the 5 1/4 inch disk drive which was required. Additionally, at item IX of the specifications, the District required that a list be submitted with the bid which stated, on an item-by-item basis, how the instrument met or exceeded the specifications. Each item in the specifications had been carefully selected to insure optimum performance for the laboratory so that exceptions to the specifications were required to be noted and attached in the bid response. Varian failed to conform to this item of the specifications. This item allowed a vendor to describe in its bid response how it could differently meet the specifications in a better manner or even exceed the specifications, but Varian failed to provide this itemized list. It was also determined that the Varian bid did not conform with the specifications of item IV page 4 of the invitation to bid document concerning the provision of service manuals, system and application software documentation, methods, manuals, parts catalogs, supplies, accessories, catalog, and training manuals. Conversely, it was determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was responsive in all respects, met the bid specification in these major categories and was the most responsive bidder. After witness Rials conducted the evaluation of the bids, in terms of compliance with the specifications, he and the District determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the lowest, responsive bidder which met all specifications. It duly published the intended award and notified all bidders of the bid results. In this evaluation and award process it was demonstrated that the District followed all applicable procedures in its rules and policies concerning evaluation and award. Varian timely filed an objection to the award of the bid; and in accordance with its normal bid protest procedures, the District scheduled a conference between representatives of Varian and District representatives to review Varian's bid. Varian made several statements at that meeting which constituted a substantial deviation from the bid package it had earlier submitted and amounted to an attempted restructuring of its bid in an effort to meet bid specifications. The District declined to countenance this effort and adhered to its initial intent to reject the bid which was submitted by Varian and to not allow the attempted material deviations to be ascribed to Varian's bid, after the point of bid opening and announcement of award. In summary, based upon the bid specifications issued by the District the evaluator's determination concerning the specifications that the evaluator drafted was that the Varian instrument failed to meet bid specifications because of the major deficiencies in the areas found above, regarding systems capacity, computer disk drive availability, and specification response. It has clearly been demonstrated by competent substantial evidence that the District's decision to reject Varian's bid was a reasonable one. It was based solely on a fair comparison of the response of the two bids to the specifications contained in the invitation to bid and notice to all potential vendors. In consideration of the facts established by the evidence in this record, it is found that the bid by Perkin-Elmer substantially met all bid requirements or specifications, even though the Perkin-Elmer bid was the second low bidder in terms of dollar cost. Since the low-cost bidder, Varian, failed to meet major bid specifications, the facts demonstrate that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the most responsive of the two bids at issue and is, therefore, the best bid. Consequently, award should be given to the Perkin-Elmer bid for the instrument in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order denying the petition filed by Varian Instrument Group and awarding bid number 8980 to Perkin-Elmer Corporation, as the lowest, responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9 are accepted. Petitioner Filed No Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Mickey McAllister District Sales Manager Varian Instrument Group 505 Julie Rivers Road, Suite 150 Sugar Land, TX 77478 A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Bid No. 88-8-1, and therefore entitled to the contract award. Whether the special conditions set forth in the bid documents were timely objected to by the Petitioner, and so ambiguous as to warrant a rejection of all bids in Bid No. 88-8-1.
Findings Of Fact The Department sent invitations to bid in Bid No. 88-4-2 to various providers of telephone answering services within the Brevard County area. The purpose of the invitations was to obtain the lowest responsive bid for an after- hours telephone answering service for a one year period at the Department's Monroe Center in Cocoa Beach, Florida. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, Answerphone's bid was recommended for the award as the low bidder. On June 16, 1988, the bidders were notified by mail that the bid would not be awarded as recommended at the public bid opening. The bidders were told that the bids were being reevaluated, and they would be notified later as to when the award would occur. On June 24,1988, the bidders in Bid No. 88-4-2 were notified that the Department rejected all bids because of the belated discovery of inherent ambiguities in the solicitation which made it impossible for the Department to determine the lowest and best bid. The Department did not receive any notices of protest based upon its decision to reject all bids, and the decision became final seventy-two hours after the bidders were notified of the rejection. New bid specifications were created, and the Department sent invitations to bid to Bid No. 88-8-1 to the same list of providers who had received invitations in Bid No. 88-4-2. In paragraph 2 of the new invitation to bid, prospective bidders were notified that questions concerning specifications should be directed in writing to 705 Avocado Avenue, Cocoa, Florida. The invitation cautioned that no interpretation of the specifications should be binding on the Department unless provided in writing. Paragraph 4 of the special bid conditions attached to the invitation allowed the bidders to orally present questions about the bid requirements at the pre-bid conference held on August 30, 1988. Paragraph 6 of the special bid conditions required prospective bidders to file a notice of protest within seventy-two hours after receipt of the bid solicitations if there were concerns about the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid. The Petitioner was represented at the conference and the Department was asked to explain what was meant by the specification which required that the system have the capability of receiving and patching or paging multiple calls at one time if necessary. The Petitioner's representative was told that the system must be able to handle multiple calls at one time without losing a call. The provider should have an adequate system of holding, handling, and routing these calls as specified in items one through four of the list of services required in the bid documents. The Answerphone representative indicated to the Department that all of his questions had been satisfactorily answered before the pre-bid conference was brought to a close. No requests were made to the Department to place its explanation in writing and no written interpretation was provided. A notice of protest by Answerphone about the specifications in the bid solicitation was not filed with the Department prior to the Department's acceptance of bids in Bid No. 88-8-1. When the bids were opened on September 6, 1988, Elite Answer Service, Ltd., was the apparent responsive low bidder in Bid No. 88-8-1. Answerphone filed a protest to contest the award because Elite does not have the technological capacity to complete the contract under the specifications, as interpreted by Answerphone. During the administrative hearing, it was learned that the Department meant the following interpretation to be given to its specification which requires the service to handle multiple calls: During after hours, the Department has one telephone line and one telephone number linked to an answering service. When an incoming call to that number is received by the service, no other callers can dial that number and gain access to the service. The second caller will receive a busy signal. The service must have the capacity to take the call which has been received and call the necessary people at other telephone numbers who might need to speak with each other or the caller, together or separately. Therefore, the service must be able to place various people on hold at different times in the sequence, and patch the appropriate people together at the proper times when the service has been directed to do so. Answerphone interpreted the specifications to mean that the service should be able to handle more than one incoming call to the one local HRS telephone number and telephone line which is available to the public at night. For example, if three different calls were dialed to the local number, all three would be received by the service instead of two receiving a busy signal. The service would then proceed to dispatch the different callers to all of the different people as described above in paragraph 14 of the Findings of Fact. Answerphone has the technological capacity to accomplish this feat. Elite does not.. Answerphone's interpretation of the bid specifications was an untenable one in that it restricted competition instead of promoting it. This is contrary to the clear intent of the Department as set forth in the invitation to bid. The bid specifications were clear and unambiguous in that the Department's requirements from the after-hours answering service were to begin after the dialer's telephone call rang into the answering service. The Department's opportunity to handle more than one incoming call dialed during the time the one line at Monroe Center was already in use was never addressed in the specifications. The mistake in the interpretation of the bid specifications belonged to the petitioner. Paragraph 4(c) of the general conditions place the risk of mistake on the Petitioner. Opportunities to correct possible mistakes in interpretation by the prospective bidders were provided during the bid process. The Petitioner did not avail itself of these opportunities.
