Findings Of Fact During March 1988, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid by which it sought to lease 17,973 net usable square feet of office space to be located within a specified geographic area in Tampa, Florida, under a nine year lease with two additional three year option periods. This Invitation to Bid is referred to as Lease Number 590:1927. Three bids were received in response to the Invitation to Bid, and they were opened on May 13, 1988. Bids were received from the Petitioner, 8900 Centre, Ltd., and the Allen Morris Management Company. All bidders were determined to be responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Despite the fact that petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated June 10, 1988, of its intent to award Lease Number 590:1927 to 8900 Centre, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. Petitioner has timely filed its protest seeking review of that decision. It is undisputed that Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. For the first year of the lease, Petitioner bid $7.85 per square foot, while 8900 Centre bid $7.95 per square foot. Thereafter, Petitioner proposed a yearly increase of 50 cents per square foot, reaching $11.85 per square foot in the ninth year of the lease, while 8900 Centre proposed annual increases of approximately 75 cents, reaching $14.00 per square foot in the ninth year. This equates to an actual dollar difference over the nine year term of approximately 185,000. However, using a present value methodology and a present value discount rate of 8.81 percent referred to on page 17 of the bid submittal form, the present value difference in these two bids is approximately $1,000 per month, which would result in a present value difference between Petitioner and 8900 Centre of approximately $108,000 over the nine year period. Neither the Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, nor the actual bids were offered into evidence. One page of the bid submittal form, designated as page 17 of 18, was offered and received in evidence. This portion of the bid submittal form states that the "successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best." It also sets forth evaluation criteria, and assigns weights to each criteria. The evaluation criteria include associated fiscal costs (35 points), location (40 points) and facility factors (25 points) . A synopsis of bids was also offered and received in evidence showing the points awarded to each bidder by the Respondent's bid evaluation committed. Out of a possible 100 points, 8900 Centre received 95.17 points, while Petitioner received 82.25 points and the Allen Morris Management Company received 70.67 points. Petitioner asserts that the members of the evaluation committee were not qualified or knowledgeable in basic construction, design and engineering principles, and therefore could not competently evaluate the bids submitted. However, Petitioner did not offer competent substantial evidence to support this contention. Only the chairperson of the committee, Susan Jennings, was called to testify, and she appeared thoroughly knowledgeable in the bid process, the needs of the agency, the bid requirements and the representations made to the committee members by each bidder, including Petitioner, when the committee made its site visit to each location. Since the actual Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, and evidence about the other committee members were not introduced, it is not possible to know what the specific duties of the committee were, how they were to carry out their duties their qualifications and training, and whether they failed to competently carry out these duties, as alleged by Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's lower bid, Respondent awarded this lease to 8900 Centre, Ltd., based upon the evaluation committee's determination assigning 8900 Centre the highest number of evaluation points. Out of a possible 35 points for fiscal costs, Petitioner received 34 and 8900 Centre received 31.5. Thus, Petitioner's status as low bidder is reflected in the points awarded by the committee. Since neither the bid invitation or specifications were introduced, no finding can be made as to whether the difference between these two bidders comports with any instructions or directions provided by the agency to potential bidders, or whether this difference of 2.5 points on this criteria reasonably reflects and accounts for the dollar difference in these two bids. Petitioner received 34.75 points out of a possible 40 points on the general evaluation criteria "location," while 8900 Centre received the full 40 points. Within this criteria, there were three subcategories, and on the first two subcategories (central area and public transportation) there was an insignificant difference of less than one-half point between Petitioner and 8900 Centre. The major difference between these two bidders which accounts for their significant difference on the location criteria, was in the subcategory of environmental factors, in which Petitioner received 15.17 points and 8900 Centre received the full 20 points. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence to discredit or refute the committee's evaluation in the subcategory of environmental factors. To the contrary, the only testimony from a committee member was that of Susan Jennings, and according to her, Petitioner failed to explain the availability of individual air conditioning and heating controls, or the possibility of separate program entrances, which could be made available under its bid. Although Petitioner sought to explain at hearing that these desires of the agency could be accommodated in its bid, there is no evidence that such an explanation was provided in its bid or during the bid process when the evaluation committee visited the Petitioner's site. The committee was aware, however, that 8900 Centre would provide individual heating and air conditioning controls, as well as separate outside entrances for the three programs which would occupy the leased space. Additionally, the committee was concerned, according to Jennings, that parking areas at Petitioner's facility were more remote and removed from the building entrance than at 8900 Centre, and were somewhat obscured by trees and shrubbery, thereby presenting a potential safety concern for employees working after dark. Finally, every employee would either have a window or window access at 8900 Centre, while it was not explained that Petitioner's site would offer a similar feature. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the evaluation committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for environmental factors to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. The evidence reflects a reasonable basis for this difference. The other significant difference between these two bidders was in the subcategory for layout and utilization under the evaluation criteria "facility." Petitioner received 13.67 points while 8900 Centre received a full 20 points. Jennings explained that the separate outside entrances leading directly into the three programs that would occupy this space was preferred to a single reception area for all three programs. Petitioner offered the single reception area in its bid and site visit presentation, while 8900 Centre made it clear that each program would have its own entrance. Since these programs do not have a receptionist position, and none wanted to give up a secretarial position to serve as receptionist for all three programs, the committee did not consider the single reception area entrance to be desirable. Additionally, Petitioner's facility was a two-story building, while 8900 Centre is a single story facility. Jennings explained that the committee considered a ground level facility to be preferable to a two story building, particularly since the Medicaid program was to occupy the major portion of this space. The Medicaid program would have to be split up at Petitioner's facility, either in two separate buildings or on two levels of the same building, while at 8900 Centre, Medicaid could be accommodated in one, single story building, with the other two programs in a second, single story building. Finally, parking at 8900 Centre was directly next to, and outside the entrance of the building, while Petitioner offered to make assigned spaces available in a general parking area which serves its entire 100,000 square foot complex. The parking offered by Petitioner is more remote than that offered by 8900 Centre, and would be less secure at night due to a greater distance from the building entrances and the parking lot. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for layout and utilization to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. There is a reasonable basis for this difference, according to the evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest to Lease Number 590:1927. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of December 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 88-3765 BID) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted, in part, in Finding of Fact 1, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but Rejected in 7. 6-7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3-4. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5 and 6, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record of this case. Adopted In Findings of Fact 5, 7-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the point difference in this subcategory is insignificant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael V. Giordano, Esquire 7821 North Dale Mabry Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Jack Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Fifth Floor, Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent's proposed award for ITB 09-22 for Building 14B renovation is contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact The University of North Florida published its Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal in reference to ITB #09-22 entitled "GC's for Building 14B Renovation" on December 19, 2008, with a submission deadline of January 27, 2009. The opening date was eventually extended to January 30, 2009. There were four addendums to the ITB #09-22 Project. The Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal document contained the following provisions: This project consists of the following scope of work: The work includes all labor, supervision, equipment, and materials required to execute the Contract Documents in two phases for the tenant build-out of the existing UNF Building 14-B (approximate square footage 9742). The work includes, but is not limited to, demolition of all interior walls, finishes, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communication components as well as a new exterior curtain wall system. Exterior construction will include new glazing in aluminum curtain wall. Interior construction will include new gypsum wallboard partitions with metal stud walls, millwork, suspended acoustical and gypsum wallboard ceilings, wood and metal doors in hollow metal frames, coiling overhead grilles, toilet partitions and vanities. Interior finishes include carpeting, resilient tile, ceramic tile, painting, and window treatments. Mechanical work includes installation of new Owner provided HVAC units with ductwork and all necessary connections to the UNF Central Plant chilled water system. Plumbing includes new piping and fixtures for the tenant build-out and renovation of the group male and female restrooms. Electrical work includes new wiring, devices and lighting for the new tenant build-out. Successful bidders must have demonstrable previous experience with the described systems and technical requirements. All bidders must be qualified at the time of the bid opening in accordance with the Bidders Qualification within the ITB 09-22 Bid documents. . . Article I, Section 2 includes a heading in bold stating "Qualification Criteria." This section states: Participants must qualify to bid on this project. UNF will utilize the following criteria to qualify the general contractors within this ITB. The information must be completed on the UNF Qualifications Form provided (page 10-11): Bonding: Demonstrates a bonding capacity of at least $2 million dollars and has an A.M. Best Rating of "A-V" or better. Licenses: Company is licensed to do business in the state of Florida and approved by the US Department of Treasury listing as an acceptable surety. Project references: Company has successfully completed at least 3 commercial construction projects of more than $1 million dollars each in the past three (3) years. List 3 such projects to include project name, client name, completion date, location, project value, role in project. Reference: Project name, owner, owner's representative name/phone number, completion date and construction cost. Years of experience: Company has a minimum five (5) years of GC experience under the current company name. The directions for the General Contractor's Qualification Summary, under Related Experience, reiterated that the bidder was to list "No more than 4 projects of comparable type, size and complexity. (1) Project must be for a college/university)." Addendum I for the Project, issued January 9, 2009, clarified that the requirement for having completed successfully a project of similar size and scope at a Florida University in the last three years is a qualification factor for this project. Addendum II, issued January 12, 2009, removed the requirement for bidders to have completed one project for a college or university. The other two addenda did not address contractor qualifications. Petitioner, Core Construction Company (Core Construction or Petitioner) bid in response to the ITB. Approximately 19 other bidders also responded. Core Construction was the apparent low bidder on the project, with a bid of $1,073,000. There was some concern expressed by the architect reviewing the bids because the bids were all within ten percent of each other for the top bidders, with the bidders 2-10 being within six percent of each other. In an e-mail to Dianna White, the Senior Buyer for UNF purchasing, Mr. Norman stated: Overall there was a 20% range in bid prices which I attribute to a significant difference in the size, quality and abilities of the contractors that bid this project. The apparently low bidder was $60,516 below the second low bidder and $83,000 below the third low bidder. This is a significant concern since there is only $46,484 between the second and fifth low bidders. I suggest the apparent low bidder be contacted and asked if they feel comfortable with their bid, because it appears to me they are missing something significant in their pricing. Purchasing should also carefully review their current financials and current bonding capacity if this is allowed. Project reference checks, price verification against the architect's construction estimate and bonding checks were performed with respect to the four lowest bidding companies: Core Construction, Pooley Contracting, Rivers & Rivers and Warden Construction. Pooley Contracting, the second-lowest bidder, was disqualified as non-responsive because its bid package did not include a bonding letter. Core provided the names of three completed projects that were valued at over one million dollars. Dianna White called each of the references provided, not only for Core but for three of the four lowest bidders. The same questions were asked of each reference for each company: 1) Was the project on time and within budget; 2) Did the project run smoothly; 3) Were project issues handled; and 4) Would you use the contractor again. Calls related to Pooley Contracting were not completed because it was disqualified as non-responsive. While the references for Rivers & Rivers and Warden were consistently good, two of the three references received for Core were not. Ms. White described them as the most "strongly negative" references she had ever received. In particular, the references indicated difficulty in completing jobs within budget and on time, which the Respondent viewed as the basis for determining whether a contractor had successfully completed a project. Two of the references indicated that they would not use the contractor again, or as one put it, "not if there was any way around it." Based on the recommendations received, the Purchasing Office for the University recommended that Core Construction be disqualified for failing to demonstrate successful completion of three projects over one million dollars that were similar in scope. Because Pooley Construction was also disqualified, the Purchasing Department recommended that the Project be awarded to the third-lowest bidder, Rivers & Rivers. The recommendation to award the project to Rivers & Rivers was accepted by the Vice President of Administration and Finance, and on February 18, 2009, a Notice of Award issued identifying Rivers & Rivers as the company receiving the award. On February 19, 2009, Core Construction notified Respondent that it intended to protest the award of the Project to Rivers & Rivers. On February 24, 2009, Core Construction provided a $10,000.00 surety bond and a written protest of the award. The basis of the protest was two-fold. First, Core Construction contended that Rivers & Rivers did not meet the qualification criteria set out in the ITB, because it was did not have a minimum of five years of general contractor experience under the current company name. Second, Core felt that the poor references received should not be a basis for disqualification. Upon receiving the bid protest, Respondent contacted Rivers & Rivers to verify its licensure status. Upon inquiry, it was determined that while the principals of the company had over 30 years of experience, the Rivers & Rivers entity had not been licensed under that name for the requisite five years. While no action has been taken while this bid protest is pending, Respondent indicated its intention to withdraw the award from Rivers & Rivers and award the contract instead to the next lowest bidder. The procedures used by the University in determining the appropriate award were not contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid. It was consistent with University policy to check references for projects of similar scope and size. Therefore, it was appropriate to ask for and check references for projects of over one million dollars. There is no indication that any bidder questioned what the University would consider as successful completion of a project. The time for questioning this issue would have been when the specifications were issued, consistent with Article I, Section 7 of the ITB. Having a project come in on time and within budget is a reasonable measure of successful completion. It is not the same as "substantial completion," which generally refers to a point of time in the construction process, not the final completion of the project.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the President of the University of North Florida, pursuant to his authority under Board of Governor's Regulation 18.002, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's written protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay H. Chung Core Construction Company, Inc. 4940 Emerson Street, Suite 205 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Paul Christopher Wrenn, Esquire University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2100 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224 John A. Delaney, President University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2800 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0032366. On March 29, 1979, Respondent, doing business as Bert Kinast Construction Co., entered into a contract with Gary and Harriet Nelson to construct a residence for the sum of $65,122. On April 15, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit stating that all bills for materials and labor performed as of that date for the construction of the Nelson residence had been paid. Respondent signed the affidavit for the express purpose of obtaining a draw payment for construction performed and, as a result of the affidavit, did receive a draw payment of $9,765.30. At the time Respondent signed the affidavit, Panama Machinery & Supply Co. was owed $193.98 for material furnished to Respondent for the construction of the Nelson residence. On June 4, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit stating that all bills for materials and labor performed as of that date for the construction of the Nelson residence had been paid. Respondent signed the affidavit for the purpose of receiving a draw payment for construction performed and, as a result of the affidavit, did receive a draw payment of $22,792.70. At the time Respondent signed the affidavit, he owed Panama Machinery & Supply Co. $1,249.94. During August, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit stating that all bills for materials and labor performed for the construction of the Nelson residence had been paid. At the time Respondent signed the affidavit, certain materialman and subcontractors who furnished labor and material for the Nelson construction project were not paid, to wit: Panama Machinery & Supply Co., Coastal Insulation, West Florida Natural Gas Company, Culligan Water Services, Inc., Dixie Window Co. and Rachel's Lighting & Home Accessories. Respondent violated Section 1115.7 of the 1979 Edition of the Standard Building Code by not providing adequate head room in the stairwell at the Nelson residence. On or about August 3, 1979, Respondent entered into a contract with John C. and Barbara L. McHaffie to construct a residence for the sum of $105,475. On or about October 11, 1979, Respondent endorsed an instrument, specifically a check, acknowledging that all bills for labor and materials furnished for the McHaffie residence had been paid in full. Respondent endorsed the check to obtain payment for construction he had performed to that date. At the time Respondent signed the check containing that acknowledgment, certain material-men and subcontractors were unpaid, to wit: Buckley's Plumbing, Moore Concrete Products, William Smith and Panama Machinery & Supply Co. On or about November 20, 1979, Respondent endorsed an instrument, specifically a check, acknowledging that all bills for labor and materials furnished for the McHaffie residence had been paid in full. Also on November 20, 1979, Respondent signed an affidavit entitled "Partial Release of Lien on Progress Payment," stating that all bills for labor and materials furnished for the construction of the McHaffie residence were paid in full. Respondent endorsed the check and signed the affidavit in order to obtain a construction draw and did, as a result, obtain the construction draw for labor and materials used in the construction of the McHaffie residence. At the time that Respondent endorsed the check and signed the affidavit, certain materialmen and subcontractors were not paid, to wit: Parker Heating & Cooling, Culligan Water Services, Inc. , Moore Concrete Products, Overhead Door Company of Panama City, Inc., Coastal Insulation, Panama Machinery & Supply Co., G & H Building Materials and William Smith. Respondent received $50,937.50 which was to be used by Respondent to pay for materials and/or labor provided by various materialmen and/or subcontractors for the construction of the McHaffie residence. Certain materialmen and/or subcontractors were not paid from the monies received by Respondent for that purpose, to wit: Parker Heating & Cooling, Culligan Water Services, Inc., Buckley's Plumbing, Moore Concrete Products, Overhead Door Company of Panama City, Inc., Coastal Insulation, Hodges Lumber, Panama Machinery & Supply Co., G & H Building Materials and William Smith. On August 17, 1979, Respondent obtained permit number 5260 from Bay County, Florida, to perform the McHaffie construction. Respondent represented on the application for the above-referenced permit that his estimate of the building costs for the McHaffie residence was $57,250. Since the contract for the McHaffie residence was for $105,475, the price of the building permit would have been nearly $160 more since Bay County charges $3 permit cost per every $1,000 construction cost. During his construction of the McHaffie residence, Respondent violated Sections 1603 and 1706.8(1) of the 1979 Edition of the Standard Building Code in that the concrete floor in some areas was less than three and a half inches thick and caulking or flashing was not installed around the sliding glass doors. On or about November 25, 1981, Respondent was convicted of passing a worthless check, in violation of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes. Respondent's worthless check was given by Respondent to West Building Materials on or about March 25, 1981, as payment for building materials.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaint, suspending Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor; for a period of three years, imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 and placing Respondent on probation for three years upon reinstatement of his license, with the terms and conditions thereof to be set by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire J. K. Linnan, Executive Director 547 North Monroe Street, Construction Industry Licensing Suite 204 Board Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Mr. Berthold Kinast 1244 Airport Road Panama City, Florida 32401 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's engineering license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Michael V. Carr, P.E. is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE0026675. He has been engaged in the practice of engineering for more than 15 years. Mr. Carr's area of expertise is in civil and structural engineering. He is not experienced in electrical or mechanical engineering. In 1989, Mr. Carr was employed as a full-time engineer and construction project manager by a local development and construction company. He also operated, on a part-time basis, an engineering business. The purpose of his part-time business was to offer engineering services to people who are experienced in the construction industry or are working with someone who is experienced in the construction industry and have to varying degrees developed their own plans. Respondent also would serve as the construction manager on those projects. During 1989, Respondent performed engineering services on four buildings owned by four different owners. All four buildings, involved relatively simple construction. Three of the buildings, Dr. Zummarraga's office, the Raulerson/Liberty National building, and Bay Podiatry Center, were designs comparable to residential structures. The Eleventh Street Office Park, while a larger structure, was a shell building and a simple structure, as well. Respondent was not retained to provide engineering for the construction of the interior of the Eleventh Street Office Park. In regards to all four buildings, the Respondent was not retained to provide plumbing, electrical or mechanical engineering services. Those items were left to the respective trades involved in the construction of the project. The limited plans submitted for the plumbing, electrical and mechanical aspects of the four buildings met the standard of practice in the Bay County area and were sufficiently complete for the various trades to perform its respective part of each project. Moreover, the simplicity of the construction plans for these four buildings meant that standard construction methods are provided in the Standard Building Code and/or are known in the industry. Such standard construction methods include detail on roof systems, spacing and connections, as well as live load requirements. Therefore, not as much detail needed to be provided on the plans for these projects. It was standard engineering practice in the Bay County area not to include such detail if it was adequately covered in the building code. In each instance, the owners of the buildings contacted Respondent to perform limited engineering services and to act as the construction manager on each project. Except for Mr. Raulerson, each owner had, prior to the time Respondent was hired, worked out some rough plans with a person qualified to create such plans and had a general idea of what type of building they wanted. Mr. Raulerson had drafted a fairly complete set of building plans. The goal of each owner of the four projects was to obtain a set of plans from what the owner already had developed which would at least minimally meet the local building code requirements sufficiently to allow a building permit to be issued for the construction project. In each instance, the Respondent's plans were submitted to the local building code enforcement agency which reviewed and accepted the plans. A building permit was issued for each building project. During the construction of each building, Respondent provided engineering inspections on each project. The plans submitted to the Bay County building department were not as-built plans and were never intended to be 100% complete plans since several of the owners had not made final decisions on a number of details such as roof line or plumbing facilities. 1/ Such open-ended plans were justified by the specific circumstances of each case and the professional judgment of Respondent, especially since Respondent acted as the project manager of the construction project. For purposes of clarity the facts and circumstances surrounding each building and any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to each building will be outlined individually. No alleged violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, were established by the evidence unless it is specifically noted below. Zummarraga Building The plans for the Zummarraga building were signed and sealed by Respondent on October 24, 1989. Dr. Zummarraga had contacted Rich Koehnemann of Koehnemann Construction Company to build an office building for him. Mr. Koehnemann sent the doctor to Jeff Robinson, a draftsman in the Bay County area, to work up a draft of the office plans the doctor desired. The doctor or Mr. Koehnemann gave Mr. Robinson a rough sketch of the office building. Mr. Robinson informed the doctor that a structural engineer would have to be involved since the County would require the plans to have the signature and seal of an architect or engineer in order to obtain a building permit. At that point, Respondent was retained to help develop a set of plans for Dr. Zummarraga. Mr. Carr was hired to draft plans for an office building. He was not hired by Dr. Zummarraga to design a building for a specific site. Therefore, no substantial site information, site work, grading or contouring details were provided on the plans for the Zummarraga project. By passing drafts of plans back and fort, a set of plans was devised by Mr. Robinson under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to the plans for the Zummarraga project. Later, after the structure's plans were finalized, the contractor determined that a detention pond would have to be designed for the site and a DER permit obtained for the pond. Respondent was retained to design a detention pond for the site and worked with DER to meet its extensive permitting requirements for such a pond. See Chapter 17-4, 17-25 and 17-512, Florida Administrative Code. That design was submitted to DER and a permit was issued for the detention pond. The original unsealed set of plans was amended for the building department. The specific details of the more rigid DER requirements, such as site work, grading and contouring, were not included on the plans filed with the building department and the owner did not contract with Respondent to include redundant detail on the building department's plans. Essentially, the building department's plans reflected the location of the detention pond and the area of the wetlands on the property which were subject to DER jurisdiction. Additionally, the plans contained some specifications which guided the contractor on pond requirements and in grading and contouring the site. These notes in conjunction with the DER permit requirements were sufficient to accomplish the building of the detention pond. Therefore, the desire of the owner and the avoidance of unnecessarily redundant detail between the DER permit and the building department's plans justified the lack of any extensive site work detail on the building department's set of plans for the Zummarraga project. The plans devised by Mr. Carr did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering work he performed. 2/ Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside of his field. In every instance, the plans of Dr. Zummarraga's office building were of sufficient detail to meet the building department's requirements for the issuance of a building permit, to allow the contractor to construct the project according to the Standard Building Code and to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the building department. Obviously, on these facts, the plans met the standard of practice in the community for the engineering services Respondent was hired to perform. Moreover, the lack of code related, electrical or mechanical details was justified under the facts and circumstances of the Zummarraga project and it was well within the professional judgment of the Respondent to omit such details given the standards of practice in the Bay County area. Raulerson/Liberty National Building The plans for the Raulerson/Liberty National building were signed and sealed by Respondent on July 31, 1989. Mr. Raulerson is an experienced developer in the Bay County area and acts as a general contractor on his own projects. Prior to hiring Respondent, Mr. Raulerson had been working with a local draftsman and Liberty National's architect to create a set of plans for the construction of Liberty National's office building in Bay County. Mr. Raulerson contacted Respondent on the advice of Bayne Collins, a local architect. Mr. Collins advised Mr. Raulerson that his plans were complete and all he needed was an engineer to check the wind loads. 3/ Mr. Raulerson gave Respondent the plans he had developed in conjunction with Liberty National's architect. Mr. Raulerson asked Mr. Carr to go through the plans and do a structural analysis to make sure that wind load requirements were met, that the building was structurally sound and that the building met the requirements for issuance of a building permit. Mr. Carr reviewed the plans and determined that they were an excellent set of plans for a very simple, sound and over-designed structure. He calculated the wind loads for the building and completed a structural analysis of the building. He also made one minor correction to the plans. Mr. Carr thought it ridiculous to put Mr. Raulerson to the expense of copying the Liberty National plans and essentially adopted the plans as his own. In this case, the fact that the plans were not drawn under Respondent's supervision is immaterial since the specific circumstances of the project did not call for such supervision in that the plans were drafted by experienced individuals. The plans were under Respondent's control at the point in time he was hired by Mr. Raulerson and the plans submitted to him for his review and approval, disapproval or amendment. Since copying the plans would be an unnecessary duplication of effort and Respondent did in fact exercise control over the plans by reviewing them before he affixed his seal to them, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to construction plans. The Raulerson/Liberty National plans did not contain any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. Anything in the plans which may be construed as "architectural work" was requested and specified by the owner to be in the plans. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly affixing his seal to plans depicting work outside his field or of practicing outside his field. The plans did contain a roofing plan which called for pre-engineered trusses. The detail on the plan simply read "pre-engineered trusses." The plans did not contain any requirements relating to who was to design the pre- engineered trusses or requirements for structural submittals on the trusses. In the Bay county area "pre-engineered trusses" means trusses from Fagans, the local truss manufacturer. It is common knowledge, that Fagan's has a licensed engineer on staff who designs all of its pre-engineered trusses from the plans submitted to him. The pre-engineered trusses all have pre-construction documentation available. Also, submittals for the trusses accompany the trusses at the time of their delivery. With such knowledge, it is unnecessary to specify any more information or requirements regarding the truss manufacture on the Liberty National plans. Similarly it was unnecessary to detail that submittals be given to the engineer since such submittals accompanied the trusses. The absence of any more detail was justified by the specific circumstances of the Liberty National project and well within the professional judgment of the Respondent given the nature of the pre-engineered truss market in the Bay County area and the fact that Respondent was the construction manager on the project. As indicated, Respondent also acted as the construction project manager and would visit the construction site about once a week. At the point in time Mr. Raulerson was going to order the trusses, he decided to change the pitch of the roof, Mr. Raulerson did not advise Mr. Carr of his decision. Mr. Carr discovered Mr. Raulerson's change when he visited the construction site. Fortunately, Respondent had the project file with him. With the project file information and the submittals from the truss manufacturer, Respondent checked the load conditions for the changed pitch. No structural concerns were presented due to the change in pitch of the roof. The Liberty National plans were not amended because Mr. Raulerson did not contract for them to be amended. The plans were not required to be amended under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not commit any violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, in regards to his actions outlined above. Bay Podiatry Center The plans for the Bay Podiatry Center were signed and sealed by Respondent. However, the date the plans were signed and sealed was not included on the plans. It was inadvertently omitted by Respondent. The absence of the date is a de-minimis violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statues, and does not justify the imposition of any formal penalties. However, Respondent should be given a letter of guidance for the violation. Respondent was not brought into the Bay Podiatry Center project until the final draft of the plans was to be done. Up until that time, Dr. Wilkerson, the owner of the project, had worked up preliminary drafts of the project in conjunction with his contractor and a local draftsman. They had developed a building with an attached carport. Mr. Carr did work directly with the draftsman on the final plan. Therefore, the plans were created under the direct supervision and control of Respondent. Since Respondent supervised and controlled the finalization of the project's plans at the crucial time and since the people involved in drafting the plans did not need more supervision and control, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. There was no clear and convincing evidence which demonstrated that Respondent performed any architectural work which was not incidental to the engineering services he performed. At the time Dr. Wilkerson desired to begin construction and obtain a building permit, he had not decided on a final roofing system. Therefore, the final plans called for the use of pre-engineered trusses and did not have a great amount of detail on a roof framing plan. There was some detail provided on the page of the plans detailing the wall section of the building. This page provided sufficient detail for a competent contractor to construct the building according to code. In fact, the building was so constructed and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the building upon its completion. Again the trusses would come from Fagans. Petitioner did in fact review submittals from Fagan's truss engineer for the pre-engineered trusses used on the Bay Podiatry Center. Included in those submittals was a roofing plan in which the trusses were numbered to fit the sequence shown in the roofing plan. Respondent made sure the trusses and roof system were structurally sound. However, the owner did not contract with Respondent to amend the building department's plans. Chapter 471, Florida Statutes does not require such an amendment. Given the truss market in the Bay County area, the knowledge of Respondent regarding that market, the fact that a decision regarding a roof line had not been made when the plans were sealed, and that it was appropriate to leave such a decision for later in the construction process, no further detail was required in specifying the roof system for this project. No clear and convincing evidence was presented that demonstrated Respondent was negligent in his specifications on the roof system. The only exception to the above was that Respondent did not specify the material of the trusses over the carport. Such information is not supplied by the Code and therefore must be supplied by the engineer. The oversight was caught by the contractor when he was preparing to order the trusses. The contractor contacted Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr determined what the appropriate truss material should be and informed the contractor. The inadequacy of the plans was resolved in less than ten minutes. The omission of such a detail is negligent on the part of Respondent and is a violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. However, on these facts, the omission of the detail is minor. Most of the light, plumbing and mechanical fixtures were prelocated by the owner prior to the time Respondent was hired. Respondent did not purport to draft plumbing, electrical or mechanical plans in detail in the final plan. Except in one respect, the detail was sufficient to guide the respective trades in the performance of their work and no more detail was required. The only exception was that Respondent approved a special detail of the hub drain/trap primer which was not in accordance to code. Since Respondent provided a special detail which did not meet the code requirements and which was not demonstrated to be justified by the circumstances of the Bay Podiatry project, he is guilty of negligence in the drawing of the Bay Podiatry plans in that aspect. Given the fact that this is a very small error in a larger project and that the drain was put in according to code during the construction of the building, Respondent's violation is a minor one. Finally, the draftsman, without instructions from Respondent, put some plumbing and mechanical notes in the plans which clearly did not relate to the project. Respondent did not catch the inclusion of the notes and sealed the plans with the superfluous notes in them. However, it was obvious that the notes did not relate to the project and the trades involved ignored them. The notes did not cause any problems during the construction and were not shown to be inimical to the public health and safety. Therefore, while the inclusion of the notes was sloppy work, there was no negligence shown on the part of Respondent. Eleventh Street Office Park The plans for the Eleventh Street Office Park were signed and sealed by Respondent on January 31, 1989 The Eleventh Street Office Park project demonstrates best the dynamism involved in an evolving construction project. Often, as with the Eleventh Street project, an owner is not sure of the best method or design (usually determined by lowest cost) to utilize prior to construction or whether he wants to go forward with the expense of construction of a building given certain designs. On the Eleventh Street project three plans were developed, beginning with a three story structure with structural steel and precast walls, and ending with a large, one story, cement block structure on a cement slab. All the plans were for a shell building and did not include any floor plan. Preliminary rough drawings were completed by a draftsman who was hired by the project's owner. Respondent reviewed these rough drafts and over the course of several weeks made numerous structural changes. After the plans were re-drawn to Respondent's satisfaction, he submitted them to the building department in order to obtain a building permit. There is no question that the plans for the Eleventh Street project were drawn under Respondent's direct supervision and control. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of improperly using his seal. The plans submitted to the building department were not intended to be complete. For instance, the owner had not decided where to locate the restrooms in the building. However, the owner, for unspecified reasons, wanted to proceed with obtaining a building permit. With that decision open, the detail for the plumbing aspects of the plan were not intended to be complete or to match as to specifics. Such limited detail was intended only to place the building department and the contractor on notice that some consideration had to be given to the upcoming plumbing. The same considerations applied to the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plans. All of the evidence concerning deficiencies in the electrical design of the Eleventh Street Office Park was based on Petitioner's expert's review of a single sheet of plans obtained from the building Department. This sheet is mysterious as to its origins and relationship to the Eleventh Street project. The sheet was not prepared by Respondent, did not bear his seal, lacked the fire department's approval which was present on other pages of the project's plans, and was a different size paper than those sealed by Respondent. There was no substantial evidence which demonstrated Respondent had prepared this sheet or that the sheet reflected the electrical plans used in the Eleventh Street project. The absence of extensive detail or the provision of extraneous notes on the electrical, mechanical and plumbing aspects of the plans were justified by the fact that the owner of the project had not made up his mind in regards to those details, such decisions could be determined later in the construction process, the Eleventh Street project was a shell building and there was sufficient detail for the licensed trades to perform their tasks when the time came and the decisions were made. The incompleteness of these plans in that regard was clearly justified by the specific circumstances of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. As with the Bay Podiatry project, the only exception to the above was that the hub drain/trap primer detail was not in accordance with the building code. For the reasons stated in regards to the Bay Podiatry project, the provision of the hub drain detail constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Again the violation is a minor one. Similarly, as with the other three projects, no substantial evidence was presented that Respondent performed any architectural services in relation to the Eleventh Street project which were not incidental to the engineering services he performed. There was a great deal of debate among the experts as to the adequacy of the structural aspects of the Eleventh Street Office Park and whether they met the standards of practice for engineers. Most of the debate centered on how much detail needed to be placed on the plans and whether the detail provided was sufficient for a contractor to build a safe building. The better evidence demonstrated that the amount of detail on the plans was sufficient to enable a contractor to build a safe building. The detail which was not contained on the plans was contained in the building code and did not need to be included on the plans. Such a practice comports with the standard of practice in the Bay County area and is a specific circumstance of a project which would enable a professional engineer to exercise his judgment and not include such detail. 4/ Moreover, although the calculations were not contained on the plans, Respondent did, in fact, determine the structural soundness of the Eleventh Street project. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. The only exception to the above is that Respondent was negligent in specifying the type of mortar to be used in the concrete walls. In essence Respondent specified three different types of mortars. These mortars significantly differed as to each mortar's respective strength. Use of an improper mortar in the concrete walls can effect the strength of the wall and cause them to be unsafe. This inconsistency in detail or specifications differs from the inconsistency in details or specifications where such details or specifications obviously do not apply to the project or where such details or specifications have no contrary reference in the plans. The latter two cases while showing sloppy work are not necessarily indicative of negligence and depend greatly on the surrounding facts and circumstances before a finding of negligence can be made. The inconsistency with the mortar is indicative of negligence since a contractor may very well use the wrong mortar on a project. In this case, the inconsistency did not become a problem and Respondent was present as the project manager to handle any problem which may have arisen. Therefore, the violation of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, is moderate to minor.
Recommendation That the Department enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of five violations of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, assessing a total fine of $750.00 and placing the Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, during which Respondent should be required to take and pass a course or courses on the proper methods of plan drafting for the four violations involving negligence; and issuing a letter of guidance for the violation involving the date. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On February 7, 14 and 21, 1989, respondent, School Board of Pinellas County (Board), published a legal advertisement in an area newspaper inviting prospective bidders to submit proposals for certain construction work to be performed on two elementary schools, Walsingham and Cross Bayou, located in Largo and Pinellas Park, Florida, respectively. The bidders were advised that their bids must be "prepared and submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications" and that such drawings and specifications could be obtained from the Board. Such bids were to be filed with the Board no later than 2:00 p.m. on March 6, 1989. The notice also provided that the bids would be opened the same day. Bids were timely filed by at least five contracting firms, including petitioner, Prelude Construction Company, Inc. (Prelude), and intervenors, Lincoln Construction Company (Lincoln) and Bandes Construction Company (Bandes). In filing these proposals, each bidder represented he had "thoroughly examined all of the contract documents." After the bids were opened and reviewed by Board personnel, Lincoln, Prelude and Bandes were ranked first, second and fourth, respectively, based upon the dollar amount of their proposals. 2/ Thereafter, the Board issued its notice of intended action on March 7, 1989, wherein it advised all parties of its intention to award the contract to Lincoln. In doing so, the Board concluded that, although a bid bond accompanying Lincoln's proposal was not dated March 5 or 6 as required by the specifications, the deviation was minor and could be waived. That action prompted Prelude to file its protest. Through testimony of Lincoln's vice-president, it was established that the Board staff intended to change its initial position and to recommend to the Board that Lincoln's bid proposal be rejected and the contract awarded to Bandes. This change was prompted by the Board staff's discovery on the day of hearing (April 3) that, with the exception of Bandes, all bidders had failed to list the, roofing subcontractor on their bid proposals. The Board staff accordingly concluded that all bidders except Bandes should be disqualified. The bid specification upon which the Board relies to award the contract to Bandes is found in Part One, paragraph 1.1 of section 07511 of the bid specifications. The requirement is a relatively new one and imposes the following requirement upon bidders: NOTE: The contractor is required to list the name of the roofing subcontractor on the form of proposal, Section 1C. Section 1C is entitled "Form of Proposal" and includes the following section on page 1C-3 to be filled in by the bidder: The following subcontractors will be contracted with on this project. Type of Subcontractor Name of Subcontractor (Trade Specialty) (Company/Firm) The column on the left side is intended to identify the subcontractor by specialty, such as plumbing or roofing, while the blank spaces in the right hand column are to be filled in by the bidders with the name of the subcontractor who will perform the specialty. The Board has not been consistent in requiring bidders to list the name of subcontractors on the bid documents. According to the uncontroverted testimony of Lincoln, the Board requires the listing of subcontractors on some projects but not on others. For example, on the specifications for the recently let contract for the prototype new media center at four elementary schools, the left hand column on the above form was filled in by the Board with five types of subcontractors who were required on the project, including roofing. This meant that the bidder was to fill in the blanks in the right hand column with the name of the subcontractor who he intended to use on each specialty. However, on other contracts, including the one under challenge, both columns in the Form for Proposal have been left blank, and Lincoln construed this to mean that the name of the subcontractor was not required. Indeed, Lincoln pointed out, without contradiction, that on a recent contract which left both columns blank, as was true in this case, it was awarded the contract even though it did not identify the roofing subcontractor on its proposal. Because of this prior agency practice, Lincoln assumed the same policy would be used again. However, Lincoln conceded it had failed to read the requirement in paragraph 1.1 of section 07511 before preparing its proposal. There was no evidence that Lincoln gained any substantial advantage over other bidders by this omission. Also relevant to this controversy is Paragraph 10A of the General Requirements. This item is found on page 1B-11 and reads as follows: Each bidder shall indicate the names of specific major Subcontractors if called for on the form of proposal. If listing of Subcontractors is required and the Bidder fails to list them, the bid may, at Owner's option, be disqualified. (Emphasis added) This authority to waive the requirement is reinforced by language in Paragraph 21 of the General Requirements which provides in part that "(t)he owner reserves the right to waive minor technicalities." According to the Board's outside architectural consultant, who was the author of a portion of the contract specifications including section 07511, the omission of the name of the roofing subcontractor is a "minor" technicality that can be waived. However, the consultant had no personal knowledge as to whether the provision had actually been waived by the Board on prior contracts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the contract in question to Bandes Construction Company. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The findings below are based on the undisputed facts set forth in Petitioner's Protest and supplements thereto, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and representations by the parties during the motion hearing. On October 7, 2009, Respondent electronically posted its final ranking of firms which had submitted proposals to provide mechanical engineering services for six HVAC projects for Respondent in 2010. Respondent's electronic posting of the final ranking of firms included the following language: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." On October 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the final rankings. On October 22, 2009, Petitioner filed its Protest. Although Petitioner's Protest was timely filed, Petitioner initially did not file a bond or other security. The Protest alleges that Petitioner was not required to file a bond, because Respondent did not include in its final ranking notice that a failure to post a bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings under Subsection 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Protest alleges that Respondent: (1) failed to provide Petitioner with notice of the estimated contract amounts within 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays and state holidays, of the filing of a notice of protest as required by Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) because Respondent had not provided that notice, Petitioner was unable to calculate the amount of the bond required and was, therefore, relieved of the obligation to file a bond. On October 30, 2009, Respondent, through counsel, wrote to Petitioner. In this correspondence, Respondent informed Petitioner that Section 287.042, Florida Statutes, did not apply to Respondent because it was not an "agency" for purposes of that law. Respondent further informed Petitioner that Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, allowed Respondent to require a bond in the amount of two percent of the lowest accepted bid or $25,000. Respondent also notified Petitioner that because it was protesting all six project awards, all awards must be included in the calculation of the bond amount required. Finally, Petitioner was allowed ten days within which to post a bond. On November 3, 2009, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a cashier's check in the amount of $3,143.70 and noted that the check was intended to serve as security for the Protest "as required by F.S. 287.042(2)(c)." In the letter which accompanied the check, Petitioner also noted that: (1) the amount of the check was determined by calculating one percent of the largest proposed contract award amount of $314,370.00; and (2) Petitioner was providing that amount "under duress," because Respondent had "just published the contract award amounts." The relief requested by Petitioner in the Protest is that: (1) it be awarded one of the six HVAC projects comprising the final ranking; and/or (2) alternatively, all six awards be rescinded and "start the entire process over." The final ranking which Petitioner protests included six separate projects, each of which had a separate construction budget. Those projects and their respective construction budgets are as follows: Northwest--$1,144,000; Tampa Palms--$2,649,081; Yates--$2,770,828; Ferrell--$2,550,758; Stewart--$2,805,437; and Erwin--$4,191,603. The proposed fees for each project were as follows: $97,240 (Northwest); $211,926 (Tampa Palms); $221,666 (Yates); $204,061 (Ferrell); $224,435 (Stewart); and $314,370 (Erwin).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Protest filed by Petitioner, RHC and Associates, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (“Respondent” or “FWC”) determination that Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC (“Petitioner” or “TCC”), submitted a nonresponsive reply to FWC’s Invitation to Negotiate (“ITN”) No. 770-0235 is contrary to the Commission’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether it was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. ITN No. 770-0235 and Background FWC is a state agency that seeks office space to be occupied by personnel from six of FWC’s divisions. FWC currently leases office space from TCC, which expires in October 2019. On July 19, 2017, FWC issued ITN No. 770-0235, seeking vendors that could provide 53,000 square feet of office space for lease. FWC anticipates occupying the space by November 1, 2019. Between August 15, 2017, and November 2, 2017, FWC issued four addenda to the ITN, which contained amendments, modifications, and explanations to the ITN. There were no bidders that challenged the terms, conditions, or specifications contained in the ITN or its amendments. TCC and NLH were two of the potential lessors that submitted replies in response to the ITN. FWC seeks to lease either a building that already exists or a non-existing building to be constructed in the future. The ITN describes the proposals requested as follows: Competitive proposals may be submitted for consideration under this Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for the lease of office space in either an existing building or a non- existing (build-to-suit/turnkey) building. NOTE: All buildings must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as stated in Attachment A, Agency Specifications, Section 6.D., page 32. OPTION 1 - an ‘existing’ building: To be considered an ‘existing’ building, the facility offered must be enclosed with a roof system and exterior walls must be in place at the time of the submittal of the Reply. OPTION 2 - a ‘non-existing’ building: Offeror agrees to construct a building as a ‘build-to-suit’ (turnkey) for lease to FWC. Each applicant that submitted a proposal in response to the ITN was required to meet the specification in Attachment A of the ITN. The ITN provides as follows: FWC is seeking detailed and competitive proposals to provide built-out office facilities and related infrastructure for the occupancy by FWC. As relates to any space that is required to be built-out pursuant to this Invitation to Negotiate in accordance with this Invitation to Negotiate, see Attachment ‘A’ which includes the FWC Specifications detailing the build-out requirements. The specifications in Attachment A provided the basic requirements for the potential leased space such that proposals offering existing or non-existing building may be compared and evaluated together. The ITN included certain provisions to clarify the rights contemplated by the ITN, and included the following disclaimer: This ITN is an invitation to negotiate and is for discussion purposes only. It is not an offer, contract or agreement of any kind. Neither FWC nor the Offeror/Lessor shall have any legal rights or obligations whatsoever between them and neither shall take any action or fail to take any action in reliance upon any part of these discussions until the proposed transaction and a definitive written lease agreement is approved in writing by FWC. This ITN shall not be considered an offer to lease. The terms of any transaction, if consummated, shall not be final nor binding on either party until a Lease Agreement is executed by all parties. This ITN may be modified or withdrawn by FWC at any time. The ITN also included a provision expressly reserving FWC’s “right to negotiate with all responsive and responsible Offerors, serially or concurrently, to determine the best-suited solution.” The term “Offeror” was defined by the ITN to mean “the individual submitting a Reply to this Invitation to Negotiate, such person being the owner of the proposed facility or an individual duly authorized to bind the owner of the facility.” This reservation of rights placed interested lessors on notice that only responsive lessors could be invited to negotiations. While TCC and NLH were two of the potential lessors that submitted replies in response to the ITN, the bidders submitted different proposals. TCC submitted a proposal for an existing building, and NLH submitted a proposal for a non- existing building. During an initial review of all replies, FWC determined TCC’s reply to be nonresponsive based on TCC’s response to ITN section IV.G (Tenant Improvements) and a statement titled “Additional Response” that TCC submitted with its reply. As a result, FWC did not evaluate or score TCC’s reply. After TCC’s reply was declared nonresponsive, there were no further negotiations with TCC regarding the ITN. NLH’s reply passed the initial responsiveness review and was then evaluated and scored by FWC. FWC ultimately issued an intended award of the contract to NLH after conducting negotiations. Tenant-Improvement Cap The ITN prohibited vendors from proposing conditional or contingent lease rates that included a tenant-improvement cap, or allowance. A tenant-improvement cap reflects the maximum amount the landlord is willing to spend to make improvements to leased space. Mr. Hakimi asserted that the tenant-improvement cap would be an incentive to FWC to enter a lease. However, the tenant-improvement cap would also place a limit on improvements. According to ITN section IV.E, any reply offering a lease rate with a tenant-improvement cap would be deemed nonresponsive: FULL SERVICE (GROSS) RENTAL RATE The Offeror shall provide FWC with a Full Service (gross) lease structure. Therefore, the lease rate must include base rent, taxes, all operating expenses (including, but not limited to, janitorial services and supplies, utilities, water, insurance, interior and exterior maintenance, recycling services, garbage disposal, pest control, security system installation and maintenance, and any amortization of required tenant improvements to the proposed space). There shall be no pass through of additional expenses . . . . Offerors must provide their best, firm lease rates. Lease rates that are contingent, involve a basic rate plus “cap” or “range” for such things as tenant improvements will be deemed nonresponsive. The ITN also provided, in section IV.G, that any current lessor must meet all ITN requirements, including those set forth in ITN Attachment A: TENANT IMPROVEMENTS The State requires a “turn-key” build-out by the Landlord. Therefore, Offeror shall assume all cost risks associated with delivery in accordance with the required specifications detailed in this ITN, including Attachment A (see pages 28-45). Additionally, replies for space which is currently under lease with, or occupancy by, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission does not exclude the Offeror from meeting the requirements specified in this ITN document. Offeror agrees to provide “turn-key” build-out/improvements in accordance with the specifications detailed in this ITN. (use an X to mark one of the following): YES or NO TCC responded “NO” to the statement “Offeror agrees to provide ‘turn-key’ build-out/improvements in accordance with the specifications detailed in this ITN.” Additional Response Not only did TCC include a barred tenant-improvement cap, but TCC also attached an addendum to its proposal, which provided the following: The reality is that as the current Landlord, it would be impossible to ask FFWCC to move out of its existing office space in order to meet the requested Agency Specifications in Attachment A. If this condition makes our response to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) “non-responsive”, we stand willing to continue further negotiations with FFWCC. There was no provision in the ITN for additional responses outside what was requested in the ITN. More importantly, the addendum indicated TCC could not comply with the ITN, unless certain conditions were met. Mr. Hakimi confirmed the effect of what was written in the addendum when he testified that TCC is unable to meet Attachment A’s specifications because it presently has a tenant in place (i.e., FWC) that prevents it from constructing the building improvements necessary to comply with ITN Attachment A. Proof of Ownership of Property The ITN also provided that to be responsive, each lessor was required to submit certain documentation demonstrating the lessor’s control of the property proposed for the leased space: Replies must completely and accurately respond to all requested information, including the following: (A) Control of Property (Applicable for Replies for Existing and/or Non- Existing Buildings). For a Reply to be responsive, it must be submitted by one of the entities listed below, and the proposal must include supporting documentation proving control of the property proposed. This requirement applies to: The real property (land); The proposed building(s) (or structure(s); The proposed parking area(s). Control of parking includes the area(s) of ingress and egress to both the real property and the building(s). The owner of record of the facility(s) and parking area(s) – Submit a copy of the deed(s) evidencing clear title to the property proposed. The authorized agent, broker or legal representative of the owner(s) – Submit a copy of the Special Power of Attorney authorizing submission of the proposal. The Special Power of Attorney form was attached to the ITN as Attachment K. TCC’s certification was executed by TCC president, Lyda Hakimi. However, TCC did not execute Attachment K or include an executed power of attorney to demonstrate that TCC has control of the property. The evidence offered at hearing of the property’s ownership contained in TCC’s reply was a deed showing DRA CRT Tallahassee Center, LLC to be the property owner. Respondent argued that although TCC owns DRA CRT Tallahassee Center, LLC, the two are different legal entities. Because these were two different legal entities, TCC was required to provide a copy of Attachment K to its response to be deemed responsive. Broker Commission The ITN required lessors to agree to execute a broker- commission agreement, which was attached to the ITN as Attachment J: Offeror understands FWC is utilizing the services of a Tenant Broker representative for this lease space requirement and the successful Offeror shall execute a Commission Agreement, in coordination with FWC’s Tenant Broker representative, within fifteen (15) business days of notification of Award. Offeror agrees and acknowledges that a Tenant Broker Commission Agreement is a requirement and the successful Offeror shall be required to execute a Commission Agreement as described above. (use an X to mark one of the following): YES or NO The ITN included a schedule for the commission rate based on the total aggregate gross base rent that could be paid ranging from 2.50 percent to 3.50 percent. TCC conditioned its reply by agreeing to pay a two-percent broker commission, which is inconsistent with the commission schedule. By offering a lower commission rate, TCC could save money. TCC would then have a competitive advantage over other bidders. TCC’S Bid was Nonresponsive Based upon the foregoing, TCC’s bid submission added a tenant-improvement cap, failed to comply with the broker commission rate, failed to provide supporting documents to demonstrate proof of property ownership, and added additional conditions regarding compliance with the ITN requirements. The information requested and terms of the ITN were required for TCC’s bid to be responsive. TCC did not file a challenge to the specifications or any of the requirements of the ITN. It is now too late for such a challenge. TCC’s inclusion of a tenant-improvement allowance limits the amount that would pay for improvements. The lower broker commission increases the profit advantage for TCC more than for other bidders, which would be an unfair advantage over other bidders. TCC’s failure to comply with the terms of the ITN and failure to provide the required attachment to show proof of ownership were not minor irregularities, which FWC could waive. Therefore, FWC properly determined that TCC’s bid submission was nonresponsive. Standing TCC submitted a bid proposal that did not conform to the requirements of the ITN and it seeks relief that includes setting aside FWC’s rejection of its proposal. Therefore, TCC has standing to bring this protest. If it is determined that TCC was nonresponsive, NLH has standing to the extent the procurement process could be deemed contrary to competition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order dismissing Tallahassee Corporate Center, LLC’s Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1989, the District Board of Trustees, Okaloosa-Walton Community College, issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for Phase I Construction of the OWCC-WUF Joint Use Campus. The total project was estimated to cost about $5,000,000.00. The funds for the project would come in large part from the Public Education Capital Outlay Funds appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget and to a limited extent from the college's renovation fund. Up to the time of hearing, the legislature had appropriated $3,000,000.00 for the project. The college's renovation fund contained approximately $70,000.00. The board hopes that the additional funding needed for the project (approximately $2,000,000.00) will be appropriated by the legislature this summer. However, until the additional funds are appropriated, the Board, by statute, is prohibited from contracting for projects in excess of the amount of money which has been appropriated for such projects. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. Michael Richardson, of Bullock-Tice Associates Architects, Inc., was the architectural project manager. Each bidder was asked to provide a base bid and a separate bid on each of ten alternatives. Eight bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. All eight bids were rejected. The bids were rejected because all eight bids for the base bid without the addition of any alternates exceeded the funds available for the project. The Board decided to rebid the project. The second ITB was issued on March 26, 1990. The second ITB was restructured in an effort to obtain a base bid within the amount of money which had been appropriated for the project. Alternates could then be added to the base bid until the funds ran out. Specifically, the project was revised to provide for a base bid and separate bids on six alternates. The base bid essentially provided for construction of a classroom (Building No. 3) and a utility plant. Alternates 1 and 2 provided for outside civil, electrical, and landscaping work related principally to the buildings covered by the base bid. Alternates 3 and 4 related principally to the construction of two additional buildings and landscaping related to those buildings. Alternates 1-4 added work to the project. Alternates 5 and 6 deleted certain work from the project. Paragraph 1A of the Instructions to Bidders required that: To receive full consideration, all bids must be executed and submitted in strict accordance with the "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS. Paragraphs 7C and 7D of the Instructions to Bidders required that: Unit Prices: Each bidder shall state in the schedule provided on the Form of Proposal the amount he proposes for each applicable Unit Price requested. Unit price amounts shall include all costs of material, labor, equipment, insurance, bonds, taxes, overhead and profit and shall be used for determining amounts to be paid for all additional work on the project. Credits for any work omitted shall be determined by Unit Price at the amount scheduled. The Owner reserves the right to reject any Unit Price if considered excessive or unreasonable, or to accept any and all such Unit Prices which may be considered fair and reasonable. Alternates: In order that the Owner may discern an alternative use or type of material, or an increase or decrease in the scope of the Project, such items will be defined as Alternates and will be specifically described by the Drawings and/or Specifications. Alternates will be listed in the Form of Proposal in such a manner that the bidder will be able to clearly indicate the sums that will be added to or deducted from the Base Bid. Alternates shall include all costs of materials, taxes, bonds, handling, overhead, and profits and the acceptance of any alternate shall be in strict accordance with applicable Specification Sections. At some point after the initial bid instructions were sent out, and prior to the bid opening, the project architect drafted and sent to bidders a document entitled "Clarification to All Bidders." This document stated: It is the intention of the Owner to award all add Alternates upon receipt of additional funding this Summer. Due to this circumstance, the determination of Low Bidder will most likely be based upon the Base Bid plus Alternate 1 through 4 and 5 & 6 if so desired. This procedure is in accordance with rules of the Florida State Board of Education for Educational Facilities. (emphasis supplied) No bidder challenged the clarification's inclusion in the specifications for the project. Bidders generally interpreted this "Clarification" to mean that the Board of Trustees intended to award a contract for the total project, and thus would make its determination of low bid based on the total sum of the bids for base bid and alternates 1-4. However, bidders were not uniform in their application of that language to developing their specific bids and were not uniform in their interpretation of whether the Board's method of award of the bid as set out in the clarification was guaranteed by the clarification's language. In other words, some bidders realized that the use of the words "most likely" in the clarification meant exactly what it said and was not a guarantee that the project would be awarded according to the method established in the clarification. Petitioner, on the other hand, at its peril ignored the words "most likely" and altered its normal method of calculating its bid. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the clarification's issuance and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the clarification. All bidders received the clarification and reacted to it in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. Six bids were received on the second ITB, including Jack Moore & Company, Inc. and Sharpe, Inc. The bids on the base bid and the various alternates were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID TOTAL SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 Under the method of determining low bidder set out in the clarification, Jack Moore & Company was the low bidder. However, the Petitioner's bid, as well as all other bidders' bids, exceeded the amount of money that the Board had on hand for construction of the project. Therefore, the Board of Trustees felt that it could not award the contract according to the method set out in the clarification and examined the bids to determine the amount of construction which could be accomplished for the amount of money it had on hand ($3,000,000.00 from the legislature and $70,000.00 from the renovation fund). By using only the $3,000,000.00 from the legislature, Opus South would have been the low bidder on the base bid. However, by adding approximately $25,000.00 from the renovation fund, the college had enough money to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Money for alternates 3 and 4 was not available. The Board decided to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Sharpe, Inc. was the low bidder on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board awarded the contract to Sharpe. Petitioner was approximately $100,000 over the amount bid by Sharpe on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board's reasoning was not arbitrary or capricious in the award of the bid to Sharpe. Since the language of the clarification was not binding on the Board, the method used by the Board was within the specifications. Finally, there was no substantial evidence of fraud or collusion on the part of the Board in its award of the bid to Sharpe and no evidence was submitted that Sharpe was not responsive to the ITB. In fact, all the bidders responded to the exact same specifications, thereby affording the Board an exact comparison between the various bids submitted to it for the project. The only difference in the bids was in how each individual bidder calculated its bid to arrive at it's price. Such differences occur in all bid situations and do not serve to lessen the exact comparison of the bids on the specifications. Therefore, Sharpe, having presented the lowest and best bid, should be awarded the contract on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Sharpe, Inc., submitted the lowest and best bid and awarding the bid on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2 to Sharpe, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 13th day of July, 1990.
