The Issue In this case, Petitioner has challenged Respondent's choice of responsive low bidders related to bid solicitation for contracts pertaining to four classes of diesel engine rebuild programs. In particular, Petitioner alleges that in all four classes the low bidder, and in two instances, the second low bidder, in settings in which the Petitioner was second low bidder or third low bidder respectively, have failed to meet specifications and are not entitled to the award of contracts. Petitioner asserts that it can meet the terms of the contract and was prepared to meet those contract terms upon the Respondent's opening of the bids. Petitioner questions Respondent's failure to confirm that each prospective bidder was capable of meeting each specification within the bid solicitation document prior to bid opening or, at the latest, at the point when the bids were opened. Concomitantly, Petitioner contends that it was inherently unfair for the Respondent to confirm the ability of the low bidders to comply with the specifications following bid opening and in the face of challenges to the qualifications of the apparent low bidders offered by unsuccessful bidders.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, invited bids from forty firms related to a program for rebuilding certain diesel engines owned by the Department. These firms were initially seen to have the necessary expertise to provide the rebuild service. There were 16 specific types of engines which the Department wished to have rebuilt pursuant to separate contracts. There was a seventeenth category which dealt with miscellaneous types of engines described as "others." The bid document set forth that those individuals who were interested in submitting bids for the diesel engine rebuild program must be able to comply with a number of requirements. Among those requirements was the requirement in the section of the bid documents pertaining to engine rebuild specifications which, under the subsection for parts and services, indicated that "the Contractor must rebuild the engine according to the Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) rebuild procedures and specifications." Furthermore, the bidders were to comply with certain facility requirements, which were: * * * The Contractors facility must have the following minimum machine equipment and tools: Vat-type hot tank for engine block cleaning Magnaflux machine (minimum 2000 amp hr) Connecting rod reconditioners Pin boring machine Flywheel surfacer Cylinder boring and honing equipment Engine block align boring machine Surfacer for heads and blocks Dynomometer OEM specified service tooling for engine series quoted OEM service manuals for engine series quoted It was noted in the specifications pertaining to necessary facility requirements that the machinery must have the capacity to perform the work on the engines that were specified in the bid solicitation. Finally, it was a requirement that the subcontracting work meet this restriction: All machine and rebuilding work must be performed in the Contractors shop, with the exception of fuel pump and fuel injector rebuilding, and crankshaft and camshaft grinding. Requirements set forth in the previous paragraph did not indicate whether it was necessary for the bidder to have the service items on hand at the time that the bid responses were offered, at the time the bid opening was conducted, or at the point at which a written contract was entered into between the Department and a successful bidder or before commencing the work. The assumption on the part of the Department employee who was responsible for the bid solicitation process was to the effect that bidders would be considered in compliance with these requirements if they were able to comply with all conditions at the point at which the contract documents were executed between the successful bidder and the Department or before service work commenced. This interpretation was given by Mark Sawicki, who was responsible for arranging to have the Department's diesel engines rebuilt. Sawicki did not feel that any attempt at prequalification by inspection of the forty prospective bidders was in the best interests of the Department. He felt that an attempt at prequalification of forty potential bidders was an extravagance which the Department could not afford. Having described the requirements that the Department had in mind through the bid document, Sawicki assumed that the contractors whom he had preselected without inspecting their facilities could meet specifications if they responded to the bid solicitation. When the bids were opened on June 17, 1986, eleven separate bidders had responded to the invitation. Some of the bidders responded to each category of engine sought for contract and others responded to select categories. Petitioner offered its response to all but one category of engines. It was not the apparent low bidder in any category. In its protest, Petitioner has questioned the Department's intent to award contracts to the apparent low bidders in the engine classes number 3208, number 1150, number 1160 and the miscellaneous category described as "others." The apparent low bidder in the engine class number 3208 was Coastal Power. In the miscellaneous class of engines, the apparent low bidder was First Coast Truck. In those two engine classes, the Petitioner was shown to be the second low bidder. In the engine class numbers 1150 and 1160, the apparent low bidder was Coastal Power, the second low bidder in those engine categories was Zabatt and Petitioner was the third low bidder. Sawicki made an inspection of the facilities of Coastal Power on June 19, 1985, and confirmed that the low bidder had the requisite facility to comply with the requirements of the bid document pertaining to machinery, etc. for the engine classes in dispute. Sawicki also confirmed that the Zabatt facility met requirements. Inspection of Zabatt was made on June 19, 1986. Although the Dynomometer available to Zabatt was in a facility next door, the Dynomometer would be operated only by personnel from Zabatt and was accessible to Zabatt routinely. After bids were opened, another employee from the Department made similar efforts at confirmation of the acceptability of the facility at First Coast to rebuild the miscellaneous class of engine. The president of First Coast Truck has also given an indication of its equipment in correspondence addressed to the Department on July 10, 1986. It was not established at what point in time these companies were first able to meet the requirements related to facilities and equipment, whether it be at the point of offering their responses to the bid advertisement, at the point of bid opening or on the day that the facilities were inspected by employees of the Department. Obviously, these bidders could have met the bid requirements for facilities and equipment prior to contracts' being completed between the successful bidders and the Department, in that contracts have not been executed pending the outcome of this hearing. No competent evidence was presented which identified what equipment Petitioner had on hand to comply with the bid requirements or when the equipment was acquired.
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1984, the Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), formalized its minimum specifications for the purchase by competitive bid of a vacuum catch basin and storm sewer cleaner mounted on a truck carrier (Joint Exhibit 1). The primary purpose of this equipment, as stated in the specifications, was . . . to clean catch basins and to flush debris from storm sewer lines while vacuuming it from the catch basin. The sewer cleaner will also be used to vacuum gutters while in motion and may be used for other purposes such as washing signs or fighting brush fires. The equipment had to be specifically designed to handle dry and wet sand and soil, leaves, stones, roadside litter, small limbs, and other material which is washed into storm sewers. DOT's equipment specification required, among other things, a dual engine configuration (one engine to drive the carrier and a separate engine to drive the vacuuming system) and a tilt dumping capability. DOT specified a VAC- ALL 3010, Vactor 810, or equivalent. Petitioner, Interstate Pipe Maintenance, Inc. (Interstate) is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of cleaning sanitary and storm sewers, and the sale of related equipment including the Camel, a single engine--ejector dumping storm sewer line cleaner--manufactured by Super Products. Interstate objected to DOT's February 27, 1984, minimum bid specifications, alleging that it was precluded from bidding its product, the Camel, because of the arbitrary and capricious establishment of the dual engine and tilt dumping requirements set forth in the bid specifications. The Camel, which Interstate would have bid, meets the minimum bid specifications with the exception of the dual engine and tilt dumping requirements. The sole issue for resolution in this case is whether the establishment of the dual engine and tilt dumping requirements was arbitrary and capricious. The Camel, manufactured by Super Products and distributed in Florida by Interstate, does not have a separate auxiliary blower engine for the vacuum unit. The Camel uses the truck engine to drive the vacuum pump from a split shaft power takeoff. The Camel vacuum system uses a positive displacement blower, rather than the industrial blower engine (centrifugal system) used in both the VAC-ALL 3010 and the Vactor 810. A unit using a positive displacement system has 85 percent efficiency whereas a centrifugal system has only 40 percent. Because of this difference in design, the Camel can perform the same functions with one engine as the VAC-ALL 3010 and Vactor 810 can with two. In 1972, Interstate had also filed a bid protest to DOT's procurement specification requiring a two-engine system. Interstate withdrew its protest upon DOT's promise to (1) have a demonstration of the Camel, and (2) consider the characteristics of the Camel prior to use of the specification for future procurement activity. DOT did receive a demonstration of the Camel and, at the final hearing in this case, only voiced two negative observations: (1) the Camel ran out of water before the job was done, and (2) the takeoff and gear box assembly was extremely noisy. These observations did not, however, effect the Camel's ability to facially meet the minimum bid specifications. In September, 1983, DOT (by its Mobile Equipment Engineeer, R. C. Lassiter) prepared a questionnaire and submitted it to all district maintenance engineers to elicit their recommendations as to certain of the storm sewer machine requirements. Of the questions posed, one specifically inquired "Should the dumping characteristics of the unit be tilt dumping or ejection dumping?". Four out of the six engineers who responded specified tilt dumping since it required less maintenance or the machine was easier to clean and service when the storage area could be raised. Of the two engineers who preferred ejection dumping, neither expressed any reason for his preference. Mr. Lassiter's September, 1983, questionnaire did not seek the opinion of the district maintenance engineers on the dual versus single engine question which had been raised in the 1982 bid dispute. Mr. Lassiter's reason for not asking that question was . . . because I did not consider that question appropriate to ask the operators. Our Roadside Maintenance Engineer, Mr. Lewis, has indicated it would be preferable for the unit to be able to pick up debris while in motion. To accomplish this, it appears that the carrier engine and upper works engine must be separate. Also, it is my opinion, from an engineering standpoint, as well as from demonstrations witnessed, that the positive displacement blowers offered by all single engine units do not move enough air to offer the degree of air entrainment required to satisfactorily meet the Department's needs. Our specification requires that the blower be able to handle 12,000 cfm of air at 48" negative water pressure. The positive displacement blowers used on single engine units that we have reviewed cannot obtain this quantity of air flow. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) (Emphasis added) The factors upon which Mr. Lassiter (DOT) based his decision to require a dual engine specification were based on specified performance factors which he felt a single engine machine could not meet. The Camel can, however, meet these specifications. The evidence established that DOT had no cogent reason to require a dual engine standard.
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 The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the School Board of Broward County properly awarded Bid 92-143T for the procurement of propane gas for the school system for three years.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1991, the School Board of Broward County issued ITB's to various potential suppliers to supply it with liquid propane gas, (LP gas), for the next three years, under ITB number 92-143T. The current supplier under the contract let in 1989 is the Petitioner herein, Synergy. Synergy was one of the potential suppliers to receive a copy of the Board's new ITB. Paragraph 12 of the Special Bid Conditions required any protest of the specifications or conditions of the ITB to be filed within 72 hours of its receipt. Paragraph 15 of the Special Conditions allowed prospective bidders to address questions concerning the ITB to the Board's purchasing department. That agency's activity was limited to referring the inquirer to bid provisions which they could read and interpret for themselves. No Board employee was authorized to interpret any portion of the ITB or to release any information regarding requirements other than was contained in the written bid document. That Special Condition also notified prospective bidders that any official interpretations of the bid documents or its requirements, if necessary, would be communicated to the bidders in writing. The ITB was mailed on August 19, 1991 and bid opening was noticed therein to be at 2:00 pm on October 2, 1991 at the Board's purchasing department. The ITB was mailed to Synergy's Hollywood, Florida office and was, from there sent to the head office in New York. Mr. Garey, the responsible individual in Synergy's marketing department believes he received it on or about August 25, 1991. The general and special conditions and specifications of this ITB were, for the most part and as pertinent here, identical to those set forth in the 1989 ITB except that the current bid calls for delivery of the gas to the Board at specified locations which was not required in the prior contract. Shortly after receiving the ITB, Joel Garey, a long time employee of Synergy, who has prepared thousands of bids for government procurements, because gas prices were widely fluctuating, began to collect data on the price of LP gas preparatory to formulating Synergy's bid. Shortly before the bid was due, based on the latest available price information, Mr. Garey prepared Synergy's bid for the signature of Jeffrey Vogel, Synergy's vice president. The first bid prepared by Mr. Garey contained an error on the bid summary sheets. When, on October 1, 1991, one day before the bid was due, he noted what to him was an inconsistency in the bid specifications which, at paragraph 13, called for the bidder to deliver "full 100# tanks [of LP gas]," and to price invoice tickets, "with the conversion rate of 22 gallons per cylinder shown." The Board also wanted the filling of several 40# tanks for which delivery tickets and invoices, "will be in gallons based on the standard of 4.24 pounds per gallon." The parties agree that the accepted weight of a gallon of liquid propane gas weighs 4.24 pounds. Extrapolating from that point, Mr. Garey reasoned that if the Board wanted its tanks "filled to capacity", the 100# tanks would take 23.5 gallons of LP gas, (100 divided by 4.24), and the 40# tanks would take 9.43 gallons, (40 divided by 4.24). As a result, and being somewhat confused, Mr. Garey telephonically contacted the Board's contact point, Mr. Toman, who referred him to Mr. Combs, another Board official. Mr. Combs, notwithstanding the weight of 4.24 lbs/gal for LP gas listed in the Board's specifications, would not accept that figure from Mr. Garey without independent proof. Mr. Combs gave Mr. Garey his fax number so the proof could be sent when available and, in the meantime, said to fill the tanks to capacity. When he hung up from talking with Mr. Combs, Mr. Garey called his local manager and determined that under the 1989 contract which Synergy had with the Board, it had been filling the Board's tanks to capacity. When he called Mr. Tomans back at 4:00 PM that same day, Garey was told that Tomans had not heard from Combs about the problem, but that Garey should submit his bid timely or be out. Tomans also wanted to know why the issue had not been raised during the existing contract. Mr. Garey had no answer to that question. Based on the information he then had, Mr. Garey changed Synergy's bid and submitted one based on full tanks rather than the 22 and 6 gallons, respectively, mentioned in the bid specifications. Coincidentally, the bid as submitted was still in error in that Item C of the bid specs misstated the price per gallon delivered and this error was reflected in Items D, E, and G, and, ultimately, the total. This error was corrected, however, and did not play in the Board's decision to reject the Petitioner's bid. In arriving at Petitioner's bid based upon the "totally full" basis, Mr. Garey computed using the 23.5 and 9.43 gallon capacity cost divided by the 22 and 6 gallon conversion figures dictated by the Board. Mr. Garey was subsequently advised that Synergy was not the successful bidder. He also determined, from a telephone conversation with Mr. Tomans on October 3, 1991, that had the Petitioner's bid price not been raised to accommodate the larger volume, it's bid price would have been lower than that submitted by the successful bidder, Peoples Gas. During that conversation, Mr. Tomans advised Mr. Garey that ordinarily a bidder had 72 hours from receipt of the ITB to protest the specifications, but since there was some merit to Petitioner's contentions of an inconsistency regarding volume, he, Tomans, felt there should be an exception. However, Special Condition 15 specifically cautions prospective bidders it could not rely on any information given orally by Respondent and must submit any questions as to the bid consistent with the terms of General Condition 7. Mr. Garey admits he was remiss in not reading the fine print of paragraph 7 of the ITB and the protest provisions but on the afternoon of October 1, 1991, when he discovered the discrepancy, he immediately called the school board. If at that time they had told him he was too late to protest the specifications, this would have satisfied him and he would not have filed an appeal or protest. Instead, he was told that due to the merit of his argument he could protest, and he did so. His letter of protest was accepted even though not timely and the matter was brought to a hearing before the school board which ruled against Synergy on grounds other than time. He contends that the executive summary prepared for the school bard misled it into rejecting his protest. Mr. Garey also asserts that the bids were so close, if the margin had been greater than the discrepancy in the number of gallons to go into the cylinders he would have accepted the loss. Here, however, the total discrepancy is accounted for by the 3,770 gallons difference out of over 300,000 gallons. Mr. Arthur Hanby is the Director of Purchasing for the Broward County School Board and is familiar with this procurement and Synergy's bid. The provision in the ITB which provides for questioning of specifications was designed to comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes and the school board's policy. It is put in to equalize the opportunity for all prospective bidders to protest on an equal basis. It has been used by others in the past and when invoked, the bid solicitation process has been suspended until resolution of the matter in question. Mr. Hanby was also employed by the school board when the prior contract for propane was let with essentially the same specifications as are in issue here. The conversion rate was changed this year to more accurately reflect the market place. Even then no challenge was filed to the bid specifications. No written inquiry was received as to how to interpret them either, and at no time since Synergy, the winner then, has had the contract has it shown any confusion at to what it was to provide. Penny Good, General Manager for Peoples Gas, and the individual who prepared that company's bid read the bid solicitation thoroughly before preparing her company's bid. She was also employed with Peoples Gas when the prior contract was bid but had nothing to do with the bid at that time. She claims to have had no confusion as to what the school board wanted on this solicitation. She asked no questions of the school board because it was clear to her and she was satisfied the board wanted 22 gallons in a 100 # tank and 6 gallons in a 40 # tank, less than a tank filled to capacity. As she understands the business, there is no such thing as a "legal limit" on a tank. Admitting that an empty 100# tank would hold 23.5 gallons, which, practically, would be the maximum amount it could hold, it is easy to put less than 22 gallons in a 100# tank and less than 6 gallons in a 40 # tank. Under the terms of the agreement, tanks would not be filled on site. Empty tanks would be picked up and replaced with other tanks filled with either 22 gallons or 6 gallons as pertinent. From a review of all the evidence, it is clear that Synergy and Peoples Gas were not bidding the same thing. The quantity's to be provided were different and this accounts for the difference in bid price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's protest of the Board's award of Bid No. 92-143T to Peoples Gas Company, and denying Peoples Gas Company's request for an award of costs and attorney's fees. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-7494-BID The following constitutes my specific rulings on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this proceeding under Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact. & 13. Accepted. & 15. Rejected as not Findings of Fact but more Conclusions of Law. Accepted but Synergy's bid is not responsive to the Bid specifications. Rejected. Not a Finding of Fact. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 20. Not Findings of Fact pertinent to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel Garey Marketing Department Synergy Gas Corporation 23102 Sandalfoot Plaza Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33428 Joel Garey Synergy Gas Corporation 175 Price Parkway Farmingdale, N.Y. 11735 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 201 Victoria Park Centre 1401 East Broward Blvd. Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Arthur S. Hamby, Jr. Director Purchasing and Warehousing Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312-7535 James L. Brady Director Business Affairs Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312-7535 Peoples Gas Company 2700 Southwest Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esquire Mishan, Sloto, Hoffman & Greenberg Suite 2350 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendnet School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312-7535 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 24th day of September 2002.
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 The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 2nd day of October, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's protest challenging the Department of Transportation's Notice of Intent to Award Contract No. E-6A14, FIN Project No. 251999-1-32-01/251999-1-52-01, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc., should be sustained in whole or in part.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the stipulations of fact set forth in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation: 3/ The District VI Warehouse. The District VI (District) warehouse is used to store archived records, paper supplies, and surplus equipment. In addition, it houses the District's divers and their gear. The District Warehouse Roof Since at least the time of the first solicitation, the District warehouse roof has had a ponding problem and been in disrepair. The condition of the roof has deteriorated to such an extent that there is now an urgent need to replace it. The current roof has five overflow drains or scuppers. The Department has determined that additional scuppers are necessary to provide adequate drainage. The List of Interested and Prequalified Contractors When the District warehouse roof replacement project was originally advertised in 1997, 25 contractors, including Petitioner, A-1, Zurqui, Grace, ART, and Southern Coast Enterprises, requested that the Department send them information about the project. The Department compiled a list containing these 25 contractors' names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers. The Department subsequently prequalified each of these 25 contractors. Petitioner Pedro Glaria is Petitioner's president. He is now, and has been since 1981, licensed in the State of Florida as both a general contractor and a professional engineer. Petitioner currently has two contracts with the Department, the dollar values of which are $140,000.00 and $110.00.00. Both contracts were awarded during the summer of 2000. They each require Petitioner to provide "roadside mowing" and "roadside litter pickup" services. Since its incorporation in 1989, Petitioner has had a total of 10 to 12 contracts with the Department, at least one of which involved roofing work. At no time has the Department indicated to Mr. Glaria that it has been dissatisfied with Petitioner's work. The Third Solicitation In the third solicitation, as in the first two solicitations, the District warehouse roof replacement project was advertised as a design-build project (involving both design and construction services). The Notice of Informal Bid (No. 6012DS) that the Department used to solicit bids contained the following "work description," "evaluation criteria," and "project information": Work Description Sealed written bids are requested from licensed roofing contractors, general building contractors, professional architectural engineers or professional consultant services for the purpose of a design-build project consisting of roof replacement for the District warehouse building located at the District office complex, 1000 Northwest 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The bidder shall provide all labor, materials, supplies, travel, consultant inspection services, shop drawing reviews to design, and furnish plans and specifications necessary to perform all work required for this project. Evaluation Criteria The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will evaluate the technical bid along with the price bid at the same time. The Department may award this contract to the firm whose proposal meets the needs of the Department as outlined in the technical bid criteria, and to the responsible, responsive bidder submitting the lowest total bid. Technical Bid Will Consist of the Following Experience and qualifications of personnel Plans and specifications. 3). Design Warranty Contract time Price Bid 3). Certified Minority Business Enterprise (CMBE) Participation . . . Project Information ESTIMATED BUDGET AMOUNT: N/A With respect to a protest of the specifications contained in an Invitation to Bid or in a Request for Proposals, the Notice of Protest shall be filed in writing within seventy two (72) hours after the receipt of notice of the project plans and specifications or intended project plans and specifications in an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals." A formal written protest stating with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based and in substantially the same form as a petition in accordance with Rule 60-4.012, F.A.C., shall be filed within ten (10) days after filing of the notice of protest. The ten (10) day period includes Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays; provided, however, if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or Legal Holiday. Any person who files an action protesting an award shall post with the Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond payable to the Department in the amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Department's estimate of the contract amount for the purchase requested or five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), whichever is less, which bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against him in the Administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent Appellate Court Proceedings. In lieu of a bond, the Department may accept a cashier's check or money order in the amount of the bond. The protest must be filed with The Department of Transportation, Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 THE DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY OR ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED. Exhibit "A" (Attachment V) to the Notice of Informal Bid was the "Scope of Services for Design Build of Replacement Roof at the District Warehouse Building," Section 2.5(a) of which provided as follows: Bidder shall furnish plans and specifications that comply with the South Florida Building Code, Permits Office of the Department of Management Services, and the State Fire Marshall's Office, including but not limited to the following: The design of the roof shall provide for the installation of overflow drains or scuppers in addition to the existing scuppers to prevent an accumulation of water. Petitioner's technical bid, which was prepared by Mr. Glaria, contained a roof design that did not provide for the installation of the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." In Mr. Glaria's professional opinion, these additional scuppers were unnecessary for the design of the roof to comply with the South Florida Building Code. (Petitioner, however, did not file a protest challenging the bid specifications.) By not incorporating the additional scuppers in its design of the roof, Petitioner was able to submit a price bid lower than it could have offered had its design been in compliance with the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." All three members of the Department's Technical Review and Awards Committee found Petitioner's technical bid to be non- responsive because it deviated from the requirements of Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A.". Had the Department not rejected the Department's technical bid on the grounds that it was non-responsive, Petitioner would have had an unfair competitive advantage over those bidders whose design of the roof included the additional scuppers required by Section 2.5(a) of Exhibit "A." Petitioner's Formal Protest of the Department's announced intention to contract with A-1 contained the following argument concerning the Department's determination that Petitioner's technical bid did not "comply with design criteria for overflow scuppers": FDOT's Technical Panel determined that SPEC failed to comply with the design criteria for overflow scuppers because SPEC did not provide for additional scuppers. . . . The roof already contains five scuppers. As engineer of this design- build project, SPEC determined that additional scuppers were not necessary for proper drainage of the roof. Rather, the roof only necessitated the installation of crickets between the existing scuppers to facilitate drainage of water between the scuppers. The drawing submitted with SPEC's bid reflects the location of the existing scuppers and the use of the crickets to drain any water on the roof. A-1's drawing reflects the use of additional scuppers, but the location of these additional scuppers cannot assist water drainage as the scuppers are located above the crickets, and therefore above roof level, thereby losing any effectiveness. . . . The additional scuppers provided by A-1 will not prevent the accumulation of water as required by section 2.5 and will only create unnecessary expenditure for FDOT. SPEC's design for the drainage of water from the roof is superior to that of A-1, complies with the requirements of the bidding documents and does not require unnecessary expenditure of funds. Accordingly, SPEC should be awarded the project. The Department's December 17, 1998, Notice of Intent Not to Award (Re: Informal Bid No. 6012DS) stated, in pertinent part, as follows: It is the intent of the Department of Transportation to not award the above Contract. This contract will be re- advertised at a later date. . . . ALL BIDS HAVE BEEN REJECTED On January 4, 1999, Petitioner's attorney, Alejandro Espino, Esquire, sent a letter to Department Assistant General Counsel Brian McGrail, which read as follows: This letter confirms our telephone conversation today wherein you stated that the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") rejected all bids on the above referenced project because FDOT intends to rewrite the specification for the mansard roof wood replacement and because FDOT has no available funding for the project. However, you stated that FDOT will not provide a written explanation to SPEC Incorporated or any other bidder for the rejection of the bids for the project. If you believe that the above is not an accurate summary of our conversation, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Best regards. Mr. McGrail responded to Mr. Espino by letter dated January 4, 1999, which read as follows: I am in receipt of your letter this morning regarding our telephone conversation concerning the captioned matter. In response to your rendition of our conversation, I must clarify that I expressed my understanding that the specifications for the project will be reviewed, which may include the issues raised in the protest about the bid specifications, before any further action will be taken by the Department. However, the Department's decision to reject all bids is due to the unavailability of funding for this contract at the present time. I cannot speak to the future of the project with any degree of certainty, nor represent any to you or your client. This is a matter strictly for District VI to decide, and I am not involved in that decision making process. The Department will defend the decision to reject all bids based on the lack of available funding. I refer your attention to Attachment II of Informal Bid #6012DS, Contractual Obligation, Section 1.10 through 1.13. In particular, Cancellation Privileges, regarding the Department's obligations under the Notice of Informal Bid and subsequent agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon the availability of monies appropriated for this contract. Additionally, I am sure that you are aware that the bid documents clearly and repeatedly state the Department's reservation of rights to reject any and all bids for this bid letting. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the Department's action in rejecting all bids is appropriate under Florida law, if not required, due to the lack of available funds at the present time. If Spec Inc. intends to p[rotest] the Department's decision to reject all bids, I feel it is my responsibility to advise you that the Department will seek any and all costs and attorney fees to which it may be entitled against the protest bond filed in this case. If however, Spec Inc. decides to withdraw the current protests against the intent to award filed on September 28, 1998, and the rejection of all bids filed on December 22, 1998, the Department will agree to return the protest bond in full. After you have had an opportunity to review this matter with your client, please advise at your earliest convenience how Spec Inc., wishes to proceed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to a prompt response, as the hearing date is approaching rapidly. Mr. Glaria "realized that [Petitioner was] going to have a hard time [in its bid protest] to overcome the issue of lack of funding." In addition, he had the "hope that [Petitioner] would [have the opportunity to] bid the project again for the fourth time." Accordingly, he authorized Mr. Espino to file, on behalf of Petitioner, the following Notice of Voluntary of Dismissal of Formal Protest, dated January 11, 1999: Petitioner, SPEC Incorporated, hereby withdraws its formal protest, dated October 18, 1998, of the Florida Department of Transportation's notice of intent to award Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, to A-1 Duran Roofing, Inc. Upon agreement of counsel for the parties, SPEC Incorporated's bid protest bond will be returned to it. Mr. Espino, in addition, sent the following letter, dated January 11, 1999, to Mr. McGrail: Based on the Florida Department of Transportation's ("FDOT") representation that it rejected all bids for Informal Bid No. 6012DS, Financial Project Nos. 2519993201/25199915201, Dade County, because of the unavailability of funds and because of necessary amendments to the project specifications, SPEC Incorporated hereby withdraws its formal protest of FDOT's notice of intent to reject all bids. As we discussed earlier, FDOT will return SPEC Incorporated's protest bond thirty days after FDOT files . . . the final order in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Fourth Solicitation The Project is funded through appropriations made by the Legislature in the fixed capital outlay category. 4/ Fixed capital outlay funds are subject to reversion if not obligated (through the execution of a contact or the issuance of a notice of intent to award a contract) within 19 months of their appropriation by the Legislature. In mid-January of 2001, Brenda Garner, the manager of the Department's Fixed Capital Outlay Program, advised Ms. Lyons that, if not obligated by February 1, 2001, a portion of the funds ($45,000.00) appropriated for the Project would revert. Ms. Lyons (who had not been involved, as the District's contract administrator, in the first three solicitations) quickly proceeded (in a day's time) to assemble the documents needed to solicit bids for the Project. These documents included detailed plans and specifications that the District's senior structural engineer and senior project manager had prepared, at Ms. Lyons' request, following the third solicitation, as well as "boilerplate" that the Department uses for non-design-build fixed capital outlay projects like the Project. Ms. Lyons determined that it was unnecessary to advertise for bids and that the Department only needed to solicit bids from three contractors. She selected these three contractors from the list of interested and prequalified contractors that the Department had compiled in the first solicitation. As Ms. Lyons was aware, each of the three contractors she selected (A-1, Zurqui, and Grace) was a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (MBE). She intentionally selected MBE contractors because the District was "trying to meet an MBE goal." Ms. Lyons had some professional familiarity with the three MBE contractors she selected. A-1 had just completed another roofing project for the District, and Zurqui and Grace were performing construction work at the District office complex. Ms. Lyons' decision to not include Petitioner among the three contractors asked to submit bids was not made in bad faith. Inasmuch as the Department was "in a big hurry to get that project done" she did not ask more than three contractors to submit bids. Ms. Lyons required each of the three contractors to first provide proof that it was a licensed general contractor qualified to work on the Project. After receiving such proof, Ms. Lyons then asked the three contractors to bid on the Project. A-1, Zurqui, and Grace submitted their bids on January 25, 2001. The Technical Review and Awards Committee met on January 26, 2001, to review the bids. All three bids were deemed to be responsive. A-1's bid of $58,300.00 was the lowest of the three bids. Neither Zurqui nor Grace protested the Department's proposed decision, announced in its January 26, 2001, Notice of Intent to Award, to award the contract for the Project to A-1. Only Petitioner, which had not been invited to submit a bid and had first learned of the fourth solicitation when Mr. Glaria saw the Notice of Intent to Award while at the District office complex on January 26, 2001, filed a protest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order rejecting in its entirety Petitioner's protest of the Department's announced intention to award Contract E-6A14 to A-1. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 5th day of June, 2001.
