Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
The Issue This case considers whether Petitioner's response to Invitation to Bid, No. 94-014, as revised, issued by the Respondent, is responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. If Petitioner is found responsive, then the question is raised whether Petitioner has offered the lowest and best response to the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact On May 26, 1994, Respondent provided a memorandum to prospective vendors concerning Bid No. 94-014, as revised. This memorandum informed the prospective vendors that the new bid due date was June 6, 1994. The memorandum attached the bid instructions. Under general conditions to the invitation to bid the prospective vendors were reminded in Paragraph 7 that the Respondent could ". . . reject any or all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." Under the heading "Special Provisions" prospective vendors were informed that "The charge per 1,000 for individual items under Exhibit A shall be the rates for the contract with the successful bidder." The prospective bidders were instructed as follows: REQUIRED ITEMS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH BID: The bidder must complete all required items below and submit as part of the bid package. Any bid in which these items are not used or in which these items are improperly executed, may be considered non-responsive and the bid may be subject to rejection. Among the items to be submitted with the bid was Exhibit A. The bidders were informed about the process of EVALUATION/AWARD. There it was stated: Bids will be evaluated and awarded on an all or none basis to one bidder. Award will be based on the total costs of four (4) theoretical jobs (See Exhibit B-Bid Total) requiring varying services and on the bidder's qualifications to best serve the Department's needs. The prospective bidders were then reminded a second time that: "THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY AND ALL BIDS AND TO WAIVE ANY MINOR IRREGULARITIES IN BIDS RECEIVED." Within Exhibit A to the bid document was a category referred to as "Tabbing", calling for the charge per 1,000 for that service. Within Exhibit B under the fourth theoretical job was a requirement to quote the subtotal cost for 200,000 newsletter preparations to include "Tabbing." Three vendors submitted responses to the invitation to bid. Those responses were opened on June 6, 1994. The vendors who responded were Petitioner, Educational Clearinghouse, Inc. and Mail Masters of Tallahassee, Inc. In the subtotal for costs for 200,000 newsletter preparations, in activity four, concerning theoretical jobs, found within Petitioner's Exhibit B to the response to the invitation to bid, Petitioner made a mistake. It misplaced the decimal point and described the subtotal cost for 200,000 newsletter preparations as $73.80 instead of $7,380.00. Respondent characterized this as a typographical error or nominal mistake. In fact, this error constituted a minor irregularity which did not preclude the ability to understand Petitioner's response so that it might be compared to the responses by the competition. Petitioner made a second error. This error occurred when Petitioner failed to indicate the amount that it would charge per 1,000 for "Tabbing" within Exhibit A. Respondent did not consider this to be a minor irregularity and rejected Petitioner's bid as non-responsive for the failure to include a quotation for the charge per 1,000 for "Tabbing." This resulted in the intent to award the contract to Educational Clearinghouse, Inc. whose bid total for the four theoretical jobs under Exhibit B was $9,137.25 compared to Petitioner's bid total of $8,374.62. In preparing Exhibit B, activity four, Petitioner included a theoretical charge for "Tabbing" in the amount of $8.00 per 1,000. Petitioner contends that the $8.00 per 1,000 found within that entry may be correlated with the missing information concerning "Tabbing" in Exhibit A to its response to the invitation to bid. In the instructions to the vendors, Respondent has informed the vendors that the charge per thousand for individual items identified in Exhibit A constitutes the rate that the Respondent would expect to pay under a contract with the successful bidder. By contrast, the function of the information provided in Exhibit B is for purposes of awarding the contract based upon total costs of the four theoretical jobs and on the basis of the vendor's qualifications to best serve the Respondent's needs. Although not stated in the invitation to bid it can be inferred that similar references within Exhibits A and B, such as the reference to "Tabbing", calls for a comparable price to be set forth for the item in both Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Otherwise vendors would have the opportunity to quote low prices in completing Exhibit B as a means to win the cost comparison with their competitors for purposes of the award and then have the opportunity to charge higher costs per 1,000 as reflected in Exhibit A when establishing the charges for the contract with the Respondent following the competition contemplated in the comparison of the theoretical bid total under Exhibit B. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the Respondent to expect that the Petitioner would charge $8.00 per 1,000 for "Tabbing" under a contract between the Petitioner and Respondent based upon information that was set forth in the response to Exhibit B, activity four, "Tabbing." In summary, Petitioner's oversight in leaving out reference to the tabbing charge in Exhibit A does not affect the comparison of bid responses as contemplated by the instructions to the vendors, a function performed by comparing the respective Exhibits B. Otherwise, Respondent may gain the necessary understanding of Petitioner's charge per 1,000 for "Tabbing" as contemplated in instructions concerning Exhibit A as a means for entering into the contract. This understanding is achieved by transposing the $8.00 per 1,000 "Tabbing" quotation in Exhibit B to the "Tabbing" charge within Exhibit A as $8.00 per 1,000. With this adjustment, Modern Mailers, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder and best able to serve Respondent's needs pertaining to Invitation to Bid No. 94-014, as revised.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which finds that Petitioner is a "qualified" and "responsible" bidder who is the lowest and best responsive bidder to Invitation to Bid, No. 94-014, as revised and is entitled to the award of the contract contemplated by that invitation to bid. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 8th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the Parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are rejected to the extent that they are intended to establish an excuse for the Petitioner not providing information related to the cost for tabbing called for in Exhibit A in the invitation to bid. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 14 is rejected to the extent that it suggests that Petitioner may amend its response to the invitation to bid to specifically set forth the amount attributable to the tabbing charges per 1,000 in Exhibit A. Nonetheless one may infer that the cost per 1,000 for tabbing is the same as is set forth in Exhibit B. Paragraphs 15 through 17 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 18 constitutes legal argument. Respondent's Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found Paragraph 3 is rejected in fact and law. Paragraph 4 is rejected in the suggestion that the Petitioner does not have the ability to perform the contract. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel W. Dobbins, Esquire Callahan & Dobbins 433 North Magnolia Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Informational Copies: Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire Brooks and LeBoeuf, P.A. 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Joan Reeves, Vice President Educational Clearinghouse Post Office Box 3951 Tallahassee, FL 32315
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether the BOARD can reject all bids, with or without cause. The second issue is to determine if the BOARD is required to have cause, was there a sufficient basis for the rejection of all bids in Bid NO. 3996?
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 1987, the BOARD sent invitations to bid to a list of approved vendors in Bid NO. 3996. The purpose of the invitation was to obtain the lowest responsible bid on a purchase of one hundred and fifty typewriters. The bids were to be submitted prior to January 11, 1988 at 2:00 P.M.. They were opened by the BOARD on the same day. OFFICE did not receive an invitation to bid despite its request to be placed on the approved vendor's list in November of 1987. When OFFICE learned of the outstanding invitation to bid, its representative, Mr. Richard Foss, went to the BOARD's Purchasing Department and requested a bid package. The bid documents given to OFFICE mistakenly gave January 14, 1988 at 2:00 P.M. as the deadline for the bid submission. Because of the later date given by the BOARD to OFFICE, the company's bid was received after the opening of the bids. When the results of the bidding were made known at the public bid opening, NAPLES bid was the lowest received. On January 14, 1988, after 10:42 A.M., it was discovered by the BOARD that OFFICE's bid price was lower than the price submitted by NAPLES. At this time, NAPLES bid had not yet been accepted by the BOARD, and no formal announcement had been made awarding the contract to NAPLES. During the BOARD's Purchasing Department's bid analysis, a request was made to reject all bids in Bid NO. 3996. The reason given by Purchasing for the request for rejection was that the specifications were being revised. The bids were rejected on the same date. The written reason sent to the vendors on January 14, 1988 for the bid rejection was that one vendor had been given an incorrect opening date. Attached to the written notice to the vendors was a new bid invitation for Bid NO. 4013. The BOARD explained its mistake was unfair to the one vendor. A new bid opening date was given of February 1, 1988. On January 14, 1988, in addition to the required bid documents, OFFICE submitted a letter which listed additional offerings or incentives that OFFICE would give the BOARD if OFFICE was awarded the contract. These additional purchasing incentives were: wall charts and teacher/student manuals for each typing classroom in the county. OFFICE also informed the BOARD that one of the BOARD's own service personnel was already trained in the servicing of Swintec typewriters. The bid submitted by OFFICE did not meet either the weight or the print wheel specifications as set forth in Bid NO. 3996. The specifications as written in Bid NO. 3996 were not written to eliminate all other typewriters but the Brothers 511-11. Weight specifications required were below the Brother's minimum weight, and at least two other manufacturers provide protected drop-in cassette print wheels in electronic typewriters. The Invitation to Bid contained specific provisions which encouraged the bidding of typewriters other than the Brother 511-11, and set up procedures under which other typewriters, which substantially meet the specifications, could be reviewed on their merits. NAPLES was the lowest responsible bidder for the electronic typewriter contract in the prior school year. The BOARD had rejected all bids at that time because of the decision to consider a different brand of typewriter once bids were opened. A notice of protest was filed by NAPLES, and the BOARD agreed to honor NAPLES bid and award the company the contract. The BOARD revised its bid specifications from last year prior to its solicitations for bids in Bid NO. 3996. The protected drop-in cassette print wheel and the weight requirements were two new technical specifications. During the hearing, the BOARD was unable to determine whether the weight factor or the protected drop-in cassette print wheel requirement will continue to be included in future revisions of the specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the BOARD reject the bid submitted by OFFICE as it was nonconforming and sought an advantage not enjoyed by the other bidders. Reinstate the bids which were rejected in Bid NO. 3996, consider the bids, and make an award of the contract to NAPLES. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA D. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Emens, President Naples Business Equipment and Systems, Inc. 859 4th Avenue South Naples, Florida 33940 Harry A. Blair, Esquire 2138-40 Hoople Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Foss, Typewriter Sales Manager 8A-Del Prado Boulevard Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Karl Engel, Superintendent Lee County Public Schools The School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901
The Issue This case concerns a challenge to the validity of Rules 13A-1.001(12), 13A- 1.002(1)(b) and 13A-1.002(3) , Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT) put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) as RFP-DOT-88-0l. Through this RFP the agency sought to acquire a new barrier and ticket toll collection system which would automate the toll collection operations and retrieval of audit data, having in mind increased reliability and performance. The project is principally one which envisions the purchase of commodities. It has an associated service component. Section 287.062(1)(e), Florida Statutes together with Section 287.073(3), Florida Statutes, established the basic authority for the award of RFP-DOT-88-01. The agency received responses in March, 1989, from three companies. The offerors were Petitioner and Intervenor and one other concern. The other company was AGS Informations, Inc. (AGS). Following evaluation DOT determined on May 18, 1989 to reject the Intervenor's proposal as nonresponsive. This rejection was followed by the Intervenor's notice of protest on Nay 25, 1989. A formal written protest was made on June 6, 1989. On July 31, 1989, Intervenor filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal of the formal written protest. This was addressed by the DOT final order of August 2, 1989 which dismissed the formal written protest. On November 21, 1989, DOT posted its intent to award a contract to Petitioner. This statement of intent to award was met by a notice of protest filed by Intervenor on November 27, 1989, followed by a formal written protest on December 6, 1989. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration and through response to a motion to dismiss the Hearing Officer in that case, DOAH Case NO. 89-6926B1D, entered a recommended order of dismissal. On January 22, 1990 DOT entered a final order dismissing Intervenor's petition and stating its intent to award the contract to Petitioner. An amendment to the January 22, 1990 order was made on February 21, 1990 reminding all concerned that the contract award was subject to review and approval by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the State of Florida, Department of General Services to decide the propriety of the subject purchase which was an information technology resources purchase under Section 287.073, Florida Statutes. On February 21, 1990, DOT sent notice to the three offerors that it was rejecting all proposals submitted. As described in the notice of agency decision, DOT was operating on the basis that a further review of the proposals revealed that the proposals by AGS and Intervenor were nonresponsive. It went on to say that to have competitive offerors there must be two or more offers submitted by responsive and qualified offerors. In this instance DOT felt that it did not have two acceptable proposals and did not have a competitive offer. Because the commodities sought were available from more than one source, it had decided to withdraw its notice of intent to award which was contingent upon the approval of the Governor and Cabinet. On February 27, 1990, Petitioner gave a notice of protest of the DOT decision to reject all bids. This was followed by a formal written protest on March 9, 1990. Although the decision to reject all proposals was not opposed by Intervenor, the motion by the Intervenor to intervene in DOAH Case No. 90- 1583BID was granted allowing limited participation in support of the DOT decision to reject all proposals. That outcome tended to create the opportunity for Intervenor to participate in any re-advertisement for proposals. As revealed in the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 90-1583BID, DOT utilizes Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, in the procurement process. Intervenor participated in the final hearing in DOAH Case NO. 90- 1583BID. The DOT decision to reject all proposals in which reliance upon the rules under challenge are perceived to support that decision has an adverse impact on Petitioner. By that arrangement Petitioner loses the opportunity for the contract. Additionally, it is placed in a disadvantaged position in that the particulars of its method of responding to the RFP have been revealed and are now known to the competitors who might be expected to utilize that information in a setting where a re-advertisement takes place. Under the circumstances, Petitioner filed its challenge to the existing rule on March 28, 1990. Intervenor sought the opportunity to intervene in this case on April 4, 1990, and that opportunity was granted on April 6, 1990. Intervenor intends to participate in any re-advertisements of the RFP. In his testimony at hearing William Monroe, Director of the Division of Purchasing for Respondent, established that in governmental purchasing the terms "offers" and "proposals" are synonymous. This opinion is accepted. Mr. Monroe also established that Respondent believed that it was implementing Section 287.012(15), Florida Statutes, when promulgating Rule 13A- 1.001(12), Florida Administrative Code. Through the promulgation of Rules 13A- 1.002(1)(b), and 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, Respondent believed that it was implementing Section 287.062, Florida Statutes. Respondent interprets Section 287.062, Florida Statutes, to require an agency making a commodity purchase to use competitive sealed proposals in instances where invitations to bid are not used. Mr. Monroe in speaking for Respondent indicated that this interpretation gained support from the language set out in Section 287.001, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Monroe the circumstance in which less than two responsive and qualified offerors respond to an RFP is one in which the procuring agency must reject all proposals or seek the approval from Respondent to negotiate with the one responsive offeror or where no responsive offerors were received to negotiate with someone whom the agency has chosen. Likewise, a sole source purchase negotiation must be approved by Respondent. Mr. Monroe's testimony, in speaking for Respondent, indicates that Respondent interprets the terminology within Section 287.062(2), Florida Statutes, "no competitive" to modify the words "bids" and "proposals." Thus, it is incumbent upon an agency to receive authority to negotiate in those instances where it receives less than two proposals submitted by responsive and qualified offerors who are responding to a RFP in acquiring commodities.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Bid No. 88-030, and therefore entitled to the contract award.
Findings Of Fact The invitation to bid in Bid No. 88-030 contains specifications for two separate pieces of equipment which are to be used in the Respondent's print shop. These two items are: a) an offset duplicator with a "swing away," second color printing unit, and b) a camera/platemaker capable of processing silver masters. The Petitioner timely submitted bids on both items. On June 14, 1988, when the bids were opened, the Petitioner was the low bidder upon the equipment. The Petitioner's bids were disqualified by the Respondent, because the equipment offered did not meet the minimum specifications set forth in the bidding documents. A comparison of the minimum specifications for the duplicator and the manufacturer's specifications for the A.B. Dick #9850 duplicator that was bid by the Petitioner reveals the following differences: The specifications require the bidder to provide the Respondent with a duplicator that contains a 1 horsepower, D.C., drive motor. The A. B. Dick #9850 duplicator contains a 3/4 horsepower, A.C., drive motor. A 1/2 horsepower pump motor is required by the specifications. The literature attached to the Petitioner's bid does not reveal whether the A.B. Dick #9850 duplicator contains a pump motor. During the administrative hearing, Charles K. Hill testified that the A. B. Dick #9850 duplicator does have a pump motor. However, the size of the pump motor was not given. The specifications require a conveyor board with a jogging registration system. The A.B. Dick #9850 duplicator does not contain that type of paper feed system. Instead, the Petitioner's duplicator has a direct feed with a registration board. The paper travels only one-half of an inch in the duplicator so a conveyor board and joggers are not needed. Grippers accurately control the paper during the short travel distance. The Respondent specifically chose to require a conveyor board with a jogging registration system on a duplicator because the Respondent wants to have all of the controlling mechanisms it is possible to obtain on a duplicator within a certain price range. The conveyor board with a jogging registration system is a feature that is provided on duplicators in addition to a gripper margin adjustment and feeder bar system. The failure to provide this additional system is an omission as opposed to an alternate provision of a comparable system. The Petitioner submitted a bid upon a duplicator that did not conform in all material respects to the minimum bid specifications. The Petitioner' substituted a less expensive product with fewer features that ran on a different electrical current than the product sought in the invitation to bid. The comparison of the minimum specifications for the camera/platemaker and the A.B. Dick #148 camera manufacturer's specifications reveals the following differences: The specifications state that a reduction range of 60 percent and a magnification range of 125 percent are required. The A. B. Dick #148 camera has a reduction range of 64 percent and a magnification range of 105 percent. The specifications require a copy size of 20 1/2" x 33". The A. B. Dick #148 camera has a copy size of 23 1/2" x 26". The Petitioner submitted a bid upon a camera that did not conform in all material respects to the minimum bid specifications. The Respondent seeks a camera with a greater, and consequently more expensive, resizing range than the one bid upon by the Petitioner. The invitation to bid was liberal enough in its minimum bid specifications to allow competitive responsive bidding on comparable products from various vendors for the equipment and features sought by the Respondent. The bid posted by the Respondent from Standard Graphics, Inc., the apparent responsive low bidder, conforms in all material respects to the invitation to bid.
The Issue The issues are whether Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool (MPP), is the lowest qualified bidder on Contract No. R- 2119 or whether Suwannee Valley Medical Personnel Corporation (Suwannee) is entitled to the award of Contract No. R-2119 or is entitled to have all bids rejected and the contract relet for bids.
Findings Of Fact The ITB on Contract No. R-2119 was developed jointly between the Department's Central Office and the Region II contracting staff. The Region II staff sent a draft of the ITB to the Central Office, where it was reviewed by Gerald Ellsworth, the Department's Human Service Program Specialist. Mr. Ellsworth is responsible for reviewing the Department's contracts and plans, as well as for development of the Department's proposed invitations to bid and other related types of documents. Mr. Ellsworth has considerable experience in drafting and reviewing governmental contracts for purchasing of services at the state, local and federal government levels. The ITB was also reviewed by the Department's legal office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Correctional Medical Authority, with regard to both the specifications and the contract language in the ITB. The Department properly published the ITB on or about June 28, 1989. The ITB was published under cover of a formal State of Florida Invitation to Bid for Contractual Services, Form PUR: 7031 (Rev. 10/18/88), containing the State of Florida standard general conditions for bids for contractual services. Among those conditions were detailed requirements regarding the sealed nature of bids, requirements for the execution of bids, requirements regarding the opening of bids and conditions regarding prices, terms and payment, interpretations and disputes, conflict of interest, awards, governmental restrictions, default, legal requirements, advertising, assignment, liability, facilities, cancellation and public records. The same general conditions on the first page of the ITB specifically provided an exclusive mechanism for the bidders to resolve questions and disputes regarding the conditions and specifications of the ITB: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis added.) The body of the ITB stated that the Department was soliciting bids for registered and licensed practical nurse services in the Department's Region II, on all shifts, for the care and treatment of inmate patients, as further defined in the ITB's section entitled "Responsibilities of Successful Bidder; Scope of Work." The ITB also contained detailed requirements regarding Nurse Professional Qualifications, Quality Management Standards, Scheduling of Nurses, Records, Invoicing, Insurance, Legal Requirements, Conflict of Interest, Unsatisfactory Performance, Brokering of Contract, Subcontracts, Verbal Instructions, detailed procedural requirements regarding the submission, review and evaluation of the bids, a description of the institutions covered and a copy of the sample contract. One of the procedural requirements in the body of the ITB repeated that: All inquiries from Bidder's [sic] concerning this Invitation to Bid shall be submitted in writing to the office identified on the cover of this Invitation to Bid. Such inquiries shall be received by the office on or before the date indicated above in the Calendar of Events as the "Last Day for Written Inquiries" [July 10, 1989]. (Emphasis added.) The ITB contained a "Bid Price Sheet" which contained separate blanks for RN and LPN services, separate blanks for each service for weekdays and weekend/holidays, and separate blanks for each of these categories for each of the three geographic areas of Region II, in each of the three years of the contract. That Bid Price Sheet stated that prices quoted "shall be firm net prices regardless of travel involved. . . " The body of the ITB specified that bidders must submit "all costs in the format specified on the Price Quote Sheet provided." (Emphasis added.) Further, the "Proposal Evaluations" section of the ITB specified that the figures to be inserted in the blanks on p. 15 were to be "hourly rates" for each type of nursing service. The next paragraph of this section of the ITB, however, stated that "Total cost, and cost breakouts on the Price Quote Sheet shall be clearly stated." The undisputed testimony of Gerald Ellsworth established that the intent of these provisions of the ITB was to require the bidders to state the total cost (i.e., net firm price) for each hour of nursing services in a particular geographic area at a particular point in time. Even though the ITB set forth an estimate of the hours that would be required under the contract, this information was clearly only in the nature of an estimate, and it was never the intent of the ITB to require the bidders or the Committee to project or evaluate, respectively, the total cost of the contract (as opposed to the total cost of each hour of service) by multiplying the bidders' bid costs for each hour of service by the corresponding estimate of hours needed over the three- year life of the contract for each of those categories. The primary reason for this focus upon the cost of an hour of service, rather than the cost of the entire contract, is that the estimated hours needed, as indicated by the ITB, are only estimates. Actual demands for service and workloads are likely to vary considerably, both by type of nursing position and geographic area. These demands could also vary as a result of factors such as the vacancy levels in the Department's own staff of employee nurses or changes in administrative personnel at a given institution. The ITB called for a mix of both objective and subjective evaluation of materials submitted by the bidders. The cost data, submitted in response to p. 7, para. E; p. 12, para. F.2.e; and p. 15, para. 7 was entirely objective, as was the Committee's role in evaluating that data. On the other hand, the information required from bidders under p. 12, para. F.2.a ("Project understanding and statement of work and reference from clients"), and p. 12, para. F.2.b ("Nurse Professional Qualifications"), called for a mix of both subjective and objective information and evaluation. The former, referred to throughout the testimony as "Criterion A," required the bidder to submit "a narrative statement of work to be performed, and references from clients in accordance with the specifications appearing at p. 4, para. 2.A. The latter, referred to in the testimony as "Criterion B," required bidders to: submit professional qualifications, experi- ence, and CPR certification for Department reviewers which documents the Bidders [sic] capability to provide registered and licensed practical nurse personnel that meet the training specifications. as set forth at pp. 4-5, para. 2.B. Within Criterion B, for example, an entirely objective requirement is the proof of the bidders' nurses' CPR qualification. A subjective element of this same criterion would be the quantity and quality of documentation of available nurses. The ITB required the Committee to award points to the respective bidders based on a formula which takes into account each of these objective and subjective criteria. That Formula, at its first level, assigned a point value of 20 points for Criterion A (Project understanding and statement of work, and references from clients), 30 points for Criterion B (Nurse Professional Qualifications) and 50 points for Criterion C (Bid Cost). Specifically as to Criterion C (Bid Cost), this criterion was entirely objective and did not require any subjective analysis by the Committee. The ITB specified that the lowest bidder "shall" be awarded 50 points, based on the average of the three years' quotes for cost of hours of nursing services. The ITB specified that the remaining bidders "shall" be awarded points for bid cost based on the following formula: Points Awarded Equals 50 x (1-A/B) where A equals the difference between the respective bidders' average bid and the lowest average bid, and B equals the lowest bidder's average bid. Unlike Criterion C, the Committee members' evaluation of the bidders' responses to Criteria A and B was left to their judgment and discretion. While the ITB set forth factors that were to be taken into consideration by the Committee members under these criteria, there was no required method by which an evaluator was to assign points for Criteria A and B. Specifically, there was no requirement in the ITB that the evaluators rank the bidders under Criteria A and B. An evaluator was free, for example, to give all bidders full point credit under either criterion, or to assign them any variation of points. This type of point system for mixed weighing of subjective and objective criteria is not unusual in governmental purchasing contracting and competitive bidding and is, in fact, normal procedure. The bid criteria set forth in the ITB, as well as the system set forth therein for evaluation of those bids by a mix of subjective and objective criteria, is rational. Further, and specifically, the ITB's requirement that costs be quoted as a rate per hour of service, by geographic area and point in time, is rational. It would be irrational to evaluate bid cost under this ITB by multiplying each bidder's price quotes for individual hours of service, broken down by geographic area and point in time, by the corresponding estimates of hours needed, set forth at p. 3 of the ITB, and then comparing the resulting "total cost" of the contract under each bid, since the estimated hours were intended to be no more than estimates, and the Department recognizes that these hours are subject to significant variation over the term of the contract. This probable variation would make the latter calculation entirely meaningless and baselessly speculative. It was not the intent of the ITB to find the "lowest and best" bidder. Instead, the intent of this ITB was to find the lowest bidder who met the qualifications and specifications set forth in the ITB. This is not the same as "lowest and best." The Bidders and Their Bids Medical Personnel Pool MPP, the successful bidder on Contract No. R-2119, timely submitted its bid for that contract. MPP's bid showed that MPP is a nationally recognized health care provider, with over twenty years of experience in serving the health care needs of both home health clients and facility clients. Its franchise office in Gainesville, Florida, is one of four offices operated in the Region II area by Mr. Ed Bixby, a former vice president of MPP's parent company, Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Bixby personally has over fifteen years of experience in medical staffing. All MPP offices follow the same national corporate standards for quality assurance, office operation and general business practice. Further, MPP is a financially sound and viable business, with an ongoing corporate recruitment program that regularly attracts new employees. MPP's client service representatives are on-call and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet the Department's staffing needs. The agency has been managed since October 1987, by Mr. Duane Gorgas, who has seventeen years of experience in facility clinical laboratory medicine, and who is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a clinical laboratory supervisor. MPP demonstrated compliance with Criterion B of the ITB by showing that each of its nurses is carefully and personally screened and tested for nursing skills prior to being sent into the field. In addition, MPP personally verifies all nurses' licenses with the Department of Professional Regulation, as well as their CPR certifications. A minimum of one year's documented current clinical experience is required prior to a nurse's being sent into the field. Further, MPP is itself an approved provider of nursing and other professional continuing education programs (DPR Provider No. 27M0938) and provides continuing education directly to its employees on a regular basis. MPP's Gainesville franchise already provides RN's and LPN's to correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes throughout sixteen counties in north central Florida. A list of the prisons and county jails currently and historically staffed by MPP in both Regions II and III was included in the bid, and includes thirteen corrections facilities in those two regions. A broad range of references from these and other clients, both institutional and personal, was included as Attachment II to MPP's bid. Copies of the licenses of 48 experienced MPP nurses, qualified and available to provide the services called for under Contract No. R-2119, were attached to the bid as Attachment III. Suwannee Suwannee's bid was also timely submitted. Whereas Suwannee now protests that the Department's manner of determining bid costs as net cost per hourly unit of service is irrational, that contention is belied by Suwannee's own bid. In the first place, Suwannee did not quote cost as a multiplication of hourly rates times total estimated hours anywhere in its bid, even though its president, Mr. Fortner, now contends this is the only rational way to quote or determine bid cost under the ITB. Further, Mr. Fortner expressly conceded that the ITB did not call for any such calculation of "total cost" by multiplication of rates by estimated hours. Even so, Suwannee has waived any objection or question it may now have as to the method of determining bid cost. Mr. Fortner conceded that he was fully aware of the standards set forth at pp. 1 and 11 of the ITB, requiring that questions or objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB be submitted in writing in a timely manner prior to July 10, 1989. Mr. Fortner nevertheless conceded that he failed to submit any such questions or objections regarding the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, until the filing of his protest after the award of the bid to MPP, and long after July 10, 1989. Having failed to file any timely written objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, therefore, Suwannee has waived any objections to the Department's method of calculating bid costs by averaging each bidder's unit net price for an hour of service by geographic area and point in time, as opposed to Suwannee's after- the-fact preferred method of multiplying these rates by estimated hours to determine Suwannee's definition of "total cost." Suwannee's bid, as supported by its president's testimony, showed that Suwannee was only incorporated in late July 1988, less than a year before the ITB was published. Prior to that time its then-22-year-old president's business experience consisted of operating a video store. Mr. Fortner conceded he had no prior experience whatsoever in providing any sort of nursing or medical services. Prior to the bid letting, Suwannee's sole experience in attempting to staff a correctional facility was at Baker Correctional Institute. Mr. Fortner testified that his first client was Lake City Medical Center, yet no reference from that facility appears in his bid. On the other hand, MPP's bid contains a highly favorable reference from Lake City Medical Center's director of nursing, indicating a completely satisfactory contractual relationship with MPP since 1987. Whereas MPP directly provides continuing education to its nurses under its own provider number, Suwannee takes the position that continuing education requirements are the nurses' responsibilities, and that they must meet these requirements at their own expense. Further, while Mr. Fortner stated that he believes Suwannee tests its nurses, he admitted he did not know how, and Suwannee's bid was silent on this aspect of Criterion B of the ITB. Suwannee's bid was also silent on screening of new nurse applicants. Suwannee has only recently hired a full-time director of nursing. Whereas MPP submitted qualifications for 48 nurses to staff the estimated hours under contract, Suwannee proposed to staff the same number of estimated hours with only 31 nurses. Mr. Fortner testified that the number of licenses in Suwannee's bid constitutes the full complement of nurses he deems necessary to provide the number of hours of service estimated in the ITB. The Bid Evaluation Process Objective Evaluation of Criterion C Initially, because of a confusing misprint in the ITB regarding the mathematical formula for calculating points to be awarded to bidders, other than the lowest average cost bidder, under Criterion C (bid cost), some of the four Bid Evaluation Committee members calculated the ranking of bidders under that criterion differently. That calculation was corrected by Dr. Rechtine, the Committee chairperson, however, in consultation with officials of the Region II office. The correction did not alter the ultimate overall ranking of the bidders, although it made slight differences in the points awarded individual bidders by some members of the Committee, and in one case the second and third bidders under Criterion C were reversed on one evaluator's tally sheet. All four of the Committee members testified that they agreed with the corrected calculation of points to be awarded each of the bidders under Criterion C. At no time was any other part of any Committee member's points awarded altered or changed. Subjective Evaluation of Criteria A and B Steven Smith Committee member Steven Smith, Regional Health Services Administrator for Region II, responsible for assisting institutions in the region with health service issues, including contracting for health services, evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Mr. Smith thoroughly reviewed the entire bid document of each bidder and made judgments as to the merits of each bid. His evaluations were based on how the bidders presented their respective documents, including the presentation and content of the narratives. While he did not assign any greater weight to either MPP's or Suwannee's references, Mr. Smith felt that MPP better articulated its understanding of the nature of the work. Mr. Smith was particularly impressed with MPP's understanding of the Department's court-ordered duty to improve access for inmates' to nursing services, which Mr. Smith felt was indicative of MPP's understanding of the contract's service requirements. He was also impressed with MPP's documentation of its 24-hour coverage. In sum, Mr. Smith felt MPP's bid was much clearer than Suwannee's. Cynthia Vathauer Committee member Cynthia Vathauer is a Department accountant, in charge of the inmates' welfare fund, who has previously served as an evaluator of competitive bids. Ms. Vathauer evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Ms. Vathauer reviewed the ITB and next performed a detailed analysis of whether the bid components called for by the ITB under Criteria A and B were present in each bid. Her review of the bids under Criteria A and B consisted of listing all of the required components under each criterion and then checking off whether each bidder had adequately provided the required components, making notes where there was partial or questionable compliance and deducting points from the total allowable for each criterion which was missing or incomplete. Whereas Suwannee contends Ms. Vathauer made "no analysis" of the bids under Criteria A and B, simply because Ms. Vathauer stated that she did not read these components of the bids in detail for comparative content, this allegation is not supported by the weight of the competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Vathauer's detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the factors called for by the ITB, supported by her contemporaneous notes, shows that Ms. Vathauer made a rational and reasoned analysis of the bids under those criteria, fully supporting her allocation of points to the bidders under those criteria. She admitted candidly that she was not familiar with the clinical or operational aspects of health service provision. Thus, for example, rather than attempt to compare the relative quality of nurse evaluations (which, incidentally, was not required under the ITB), Ms. Vathauer based her judgment of compliance with this criterion on the presence or absence of valid copies of actual licenses. Dianne Rechtine, M.D. Dianne Rechtine, M.D., is the medical executive director at North Florida Reception Center and acting medical services director for Region II. Dr. Rechtine also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids under the standards of the ITB. Dr. Rechtine read the respective bids and, with respect to Criteria A and B, assigned points based on her evaluation of those bids. Her notes of how she allocated points under these criteria appear as Joint Exhibit No. 4D and show that Dr. Rechtine actually scored Suwannee higher than MPP under Criterion A and the same as MPP under Criterion B. Suwannee has not been heard to assert that Dr. Rechtine's analysis under these criteria was other than rational and reasoned. Thus, it is found that Dr. Rechtine's analysis and evaluation of the bids was in fact rational and reasoned. Peggy (Richardson) Patray Since Peggy (Richardson) Patray was not called to the witness stand, MPP offered into evidence, without objection, her deposition testimony, taken prior to MPP's intervention and without benefit of cross-examination by MPP or its counsel. Nevertheless, that deposition and Ms. Patray's own evaluation notes appearing as Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate that Ms. Patray, a registered nursing services consultant employed by the Department and previous nursing supervisor at New River Correctional Institute, carefully reviewed the ITB and analyzed and evaluated the bids under Criteria A, B and C prior to awarding points to the bidders. Ms. Patray looked at the types of facilities from which references were obtained and considered, for example, related jail-type experience to be a positive factor. Ms. Patray actually scored Suwannee superior to MPP under Criterion A for reasons related to the bidders' statements of understanding of work. She scored the two bidders evenly under Criterion B, even though she was favorably impressed by one (at the time of her deposition, she could not recall which) bidder's emphasis on pre-employment screening and in-service training, when contrasted with the other bidder's leaving of this responsibility to the individual nurses. Finally, Ms. Patray testified that she was favorably impressed with MPP's sources of references, as opposed to Suwannee's, and that there was not enough information in Suwannee's bid, in her opinion, regarding nurse professional qualifications. In sum, Ms. Patray's testimony and notes in Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate clearly that she also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids of the parties under the terms and conditions of the ITB. Suwannee's Allegations There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support Suwannee's allegations that political or media pressure adverse to Suwannee influenced the decision to award Contract No. R-2119 to MPP. Each Department witness who testified in this proceeding testified that no such political pressure was brought to bear upon them or even attempted. The competent, substantial and unrebutted evidence of record demonstrates clearly that no such pressure or influence occurred or was attempted. In the same vein, Suwannee has alleged that the Committee improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors or information outside of the ITB and the bid documents. The only evidence of record of Committee members having considered information outside of the ITB or the bids was the testimony of several of the Committee members that they either were aware of or considered allegations of past difficulties with MPP, not Suwannee. For example, Mr. Smith testified that he was aware of one past problem with MPP, but none with Suwannee. In any event, he did not consider anything outside of the bid documents in his review. Ms. Vathauer said nothing relating to this issue. Dr. Rechtine testified that she was aware of, and had considered, past problems with MPP, that she had received favorable input as to Suwannee and, to the extent that this knowledge affected her evaluation, she agreed that it did so to the advantage of Suwannee (scored 20 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B), and to the disadvantage of MPP (scored 12 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B). Finally, even Ms. Patray testified that she had received some negative reports on MPP, whereas she mentioned no such information regarding Suwannee. In sum, there is no evidence of record to support Suwannee's allegations that the Committee members improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors outside the bid documents. Any error which may have occurred in this regard was entirely harmless as to Suwannee, and if it had any effect at all, it worked to Suwannee's benefit. Results of the Bid Evaluation Process The result of the bid evaluation process was that MPP received 88 overall points under the formula set out in the ITB, Suwannee received 85.62, Quality Care received 73.05 and Upjohn received 58.87. MPP was also the low bidder on cost, i.e., Criterion C. The weight and preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that Contract No. R-2119 should have been awarded to MPP, as it was, and that there is an ample, rational, reasoned and logical basis in the record supporting the decision of the Department to award the contract to MPP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding Contract No. R-2119 to Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Office 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4566BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Suwannee Valley Medical personnel Corporation 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (page 5). Proposed findings of fact 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6, 17, and 19 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Corrections Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3); 3 (19, 25); 4 (page 5); 6 (11); 7 (12); 8 (16); 9 (46); 14 (44); and 15 (45) Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, and 10-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Medical Personnel Pool Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 16-50 (1-35) and 53-63 (36- 46) Proposed findings of fact 12-15 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 51 is included on page 5 of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 52 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Older COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Attorney at Law Haben & Culpepper 306 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Drucilla E Bell Perri M. King Attorneys at Law Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Thomas D. Watry Attorney at Law Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 March, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Close Construction, Inc. (Petitioner), (Close) was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the Request For Bid (RFB) Number 6000000262, whether the subject contract should be awarded to the Petitioner, and, concomitantly, whether the Respondent agency's decision to award the contract to the Intervener, Worth Contracting, Inc. (Worth) was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District is a public corporation authorized under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It issued a request for bids for the refurbishment and automation of certain facilities in Broward County, Florida. Close is a construction company duly authorized to do business in the state of Florida. It was one of the bidders on the procurement represented by the subject request for bids and is the Petitioner in this case. This dispute had its beginnings on June 5, 2009, when the Respondent issued RFB number 6000000262. The RFB solicited construction services for the refurbishment and automation of two facilities in Broward County. The procurement would involve the installation of new direct-drive electric pumps at the Respondent's G-123 Pump Station in Broward County, along with the construction of an equipment shelter and the replacement of a retaining wall with a poured concrete retaining wall, as well as refurbishment of "pump flap gates." The RFB also requested construction services for the replacement of gates at the Respondent's S-34 water-control structure in Broward County. Both facilities would thus be automated so that they can be remotely operated from the Respondent's headquarters in West Palm Beach. After issuance of the RFB, two addenda were supplied to vendors and were posted. The first addendum was posted on or about June 19, 2009, concerning a change in specifications for flap gates and is not the subject of this dispute. Addendum No. Two was electronically posted on or about June 30, 2009. It amended the technical specifications of the RFB by deleting Section 11212 regarding measurement of payment of electric motors/belt-driven axial flow pumps. That addendum also added a new measure and payment to Subpart 1.01 of the technical specifications to provide for an owner-directed allowance of $40,000.00 to provide for the potential need for certain electrical utility work to be done by FPL in order to complete the project. Addendum No. Two added an additional term to the RFB in providing that the $40,000.00 allowance price "Shall be added to the other costs to complete the bid." The second Addendum also stated, "The allowance price shall be used at the discretion of the District and, if not used, will be deducted from the final Contract Price." That addendum also directed bidders to replace the original Bid Form 00320-2, which had been enclosed with the RFB, with a new Bid Form, 00320R1-2. The new Bid Form is identical to the original form except that the schedule of bid prices contained in paragraph four, on page 003201-2, was altered to itemize the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance. The original form had contained a single line for the bidder's lump sum bid price, whereas the revised form provided for a lump sum bid amount to be itemized and a base bid amount, which required the bidder to enter on the form the amount of its bid, then add the discretionary cost amount and write the sum of those two numbers on a third line. In paragraph four of the new bid form there is re- printed language concerning the use of the discretionary allowance which appeared on the face of Addendum No. Two. Other than the change to paragraph four and the alteration of the page numbers to include an "R" in the page number, the revised bid form is identical to the original bid form. The other bid documents were not altered in any manner by Addendum No. Two. The deadline for bid submissions was Thursday, July 9, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. The Petitioner timely submitted its bid to the District. In submitting its bid however, the Petitioner used the original bid form which had been enclosed with the RFB. The bid form submitted was an exact copy of the bid form furnished by the District which Close had printed from the electronic copy of the RFB received from the District. The Petitioner did not substitute the revised bid form, attached to Addendum No. Two, for the original form in submitting its bid. The Petitioner's bid was deemed non-responsive by the District and was rejected on the basis that Close had failed to submit the bid on the revised form required by Addendum No. Two. Thereafter, the District, at its August 13, 2009, meeting, approved award of the bid to Worth. The intent to award was posted electronically on or about August 14, 2009. The persuasive evidence establishes that Close received both addenda to the bid documents. It was aware of the Addendum No. Two, and it accounted for all of the changes to the technical specifications made in both addenda in the preparation of its bid. The evidence shows that Close was aware of the $40,000.00, owner-directed cost allowance and that it incorporated it in the formulation of its total bid price. Thus, Close's final bid amount was $3,751,795.00. That number included the $40,000.00 cost allowance at issue, added to the bid documents by Addendum No. Two. The internal bid work sheets, prepared by personnel of Close, identified and itemized the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance as a component of the final bid price. The persuasive evidence thus establishes that Close's final bid amount did include the $40,000.00 cost allowance. Moreover, the written notes of witness Christopher Rossi, the estimator for Close, show the $40,000.00 amount as an "FPL Allowance." Both Mr. Rossi and Mr. Boromei, the Vice President for Close, who prepared the bid, explained that the $40,000.00 was understood by Close to be a cost allowance, that it would only be charged to the District to the extent that it was actually used, at the District's discretion. If it were not used, it was to be deducted from the overall contract price. Addendum Two specifically provides that the discretionary cost allowance was to be used only at the discretion of the District and that the unused portion would be deducted from the contract amount. When Close submitted its bid it mistakenly submitted it on the original bid form and failed to exchange the bid forms as directed in Item Two of Addendum No. 2. In paragraph one of both bid forms, however, the bidder is required to specifically fill out, acknowledge and identify all addenda. By doing so the bidder expressly agrees to build the project in conformance with all contract documents, including all addenda, for the price quoted in the bid. Close completed this paragraph, specifically identified both Addendum One and Addendum Two, and specifically agreed to strictly conform, in performance of the work to the plans, specifications and other contract documents, including Addendum Nos. One and Two. Paragraph one was not changed by the addition of Addendum No. Two and it is identical in both the original and the revised forms at issue. Paragraph one of the original and the revised bid forms constitutes an agreement by the bidder to perform and construct a project "in strict conformity with the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents. . . ." The addenda are part of the contract documents and are expressly referenced as such in this agreement. Both bid forms, the original and the revised, include paragraph eight, which clearly states that the bidder will post a bid bond to secure and guaranty that it will enter into a contract with the District, if its bid is selected. Paragraph eight was unchanged by Addendum No. Two and its terms are identical in both Bid forms at issue, including the form that Close signed and submitted as its bid. The persuasive evidence shows that in submitting its bid, whether on either form, Close committed itself to the identical terms as set forth in the identical contract documents agreed to by Worth and the other bidders. The evidence established that Close intended to bind itself to the terms of the RFB, and all terms of Addendum No. Two, including the discretionary cost allowance term. Close considered itself bound to enter into a contract for the price of its bid if selected by the District. It likewise considered that the price of its bid, would only include the cost allowance if the discretionary allowance was implemented by the District. Upon the opening of the bids, the firm of Cone and Graham, Inc., was identified as the lowest bidder. Cone and Graham's bid was in the amount of $2,690,000.00. Close was the second lowest bidder, with a bid of $3,751,795.00. The third lowest bidder was Worth Contracting, Inc., with a bid of $3,898,410.00. Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information and to even meet with some District staff following the opening of its bid. The additional information it was allowed to provide concerned technical specifications of the pumps proposed in its bid. Through this verification process conducted with the Agency, Cone and Graham ultimately convinced the District to permit them to withdraw its bid without forfeiting their bid bond. This left the Petitioner, Close, the lowest bidder, at $146,615.00 less than the bid submitted by Worth, the initially-awarded bidder. Close's bid, upon review, was rejected as non- responsive due to its failure to exchange the original Bid form with the revised Bid form, as indicated above, in spite of the fact that Close had also agreed to adhere to the entirety of Addendum No. Two on the face of the Bid form. Thus the recommended award to Worth for the above-referenced additional amount of bid price was adopted by the District, engendering this protest. James Reynolds, the Contracts Specialist for the District, conceded that it was apparent on the face of Close's bid that a mistake had been made in the use of the original form, rather than the revised form. He conceded there was an inconsistency between Close's clear acknowledgement of and agreement to the terms of the contract documents, which expressly included Addendum No. Two and Close's apparent mistaken use of the original Bid form. Under the express terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB, "The Bid shall be construed as though the addendum(a) have been received and acknowledged by the bidder." Mr. Reynolds admitted, however, that he did not apply the terms of Article 19.03 of the RFB in his review of Close's bid and did not construe the bid in the manner provided in the RFB to resolve the apparent inconsistency. He reasoned that Close had used the wrong bid form and looked no further. The District's Procurement Manual provides a procedure whereby a bidder may correct inadvertent mistakes in its bid. Under the terms of Chapter 5-5 of that manual, where the District knows or has reason to conclude, after unsealing of bids, that a mistake may have been made by a bidder, the District "shall request written verification of the bid." In such a circumstance the bidder "shall be permitted the opportunity to furnish information in support of the bid verification as long as it does not affect responsiveness, i.e., the bid substantially conforms to the requirements of the RFB as it relates to pricing, surety, insurance, specifications and any other matter unequivocally stated in the RFB as determinant of responsiveness." See Joint Exhibit 7,6 pages 61 and 62, in evidence. Mr. Reynolds admitted in his testimony that he did not follow the procedure set forth in the manual for verifying a bid because, in his view, that would be allowing an impermissible supplementation of Close's bid. Ms. Lavery, in her testimony, in essence agreed. The Procurement Manual expressly required the District, upon recognizing the mistake and an inconsistency apparent on the face of Close's bid, to verify that bid and to provide Close with the opportunity to furnish information in support of bid verification. Thus, by the express terms of the manual, a bidder must be given an opportunity to clarify mistakes. The Procurement Manual expressly permits a bidder under these circumstances to correct any "inadvertent, non- judgmental mistake" in its bid. Chapter 5 of the Manual provides that "a non-judgmental mistake" is a mistake not attributable to an error in judgment, such as mistakes in personal judgment or wrongful assumptions of contract obligations. Inadvertent technical errors, such as errors of form rather than substance, are considered non-judgmental errors." See Joint Exhibit 7, page 62, in evidence. It is patently apparent that Close's use of the original bid form, inadvertently, while also unequivocally acknowledging and agreeing to the entirety of Addendum No. Two, represented a non-judgmental mistake. Both of the District witnesses, however, testified that the policy regarding mistakes was not followed and Close was not given an opportunity under the District's policy to provide additional information to support verification of the bid. Although Close failed to substitute the revised Bid form for the original Bid form, as called for by Addendum No. Two, its bid was substantively responsive to the technical specifications and requirements of the RFB, and the irregularity is technical in nature. The parties stipulated that the use of the original form, rather than the revised bid form, was the sole basis for Close being determined to be non-responsive by the Agency. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.301, in Chapter 5 of the District's Procurement Manual, the District reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in a bid. A material irregularity is defined by the District's policy as one which is not minor in that it: (a) affects the price, quality, time or manner of performance of the service such that it would deprive the District of an assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to the specified requirements; (b) provides an advantage or benefit to a bidder which is not enjoyed by other bidders; or (c) undermines the necessary common standards of competition. See Joint Exhibit 7, page 58, in evidence. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the irregularity in Close's bid did not affect the price of the bid or truly deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be entered into and performed according to all the terms of the RFB, including addenda. The evidence established that Close actually included the $40,000.00 discretionary cost allowance in its final bid price. It merely did not show it as a separate itemization, because it did not use the revised form providing that itemization line. The fact that the discretionary allowance was itemized in the revised bid form, as part of the bid amount, does not equate to an effect on the contract price as a result of Close's using the original Bid form. Close's error, by mistakenly submitting its bid on the original bid form, did not alter the price of its bid. The evidence clearly established that the bid price for Close's bid would be the same regardless of which form it used. Moreover, the preponderant, persuasive evidence establishes that the use of the original Bid form by Close did not deprive the District of assurance that the contract would be performed in accordance with the all bid documents. Close's bid, secured by its bid bond, clearly acknowledged and agreed to the express terms of Addendum No. Two in their entirety, which included the terms under which the discretionary cost allowance could be applied. Close considered itself bound to the terms of the RFB and assured the Agency that it was so bound by the written acknowledgement and agreement it submitted to the Agency as part of its bid, concerning the elements of Addendum No. Two. The evidence demonstrated that Close understood that the $40,000.00 amount was a discretionary cost allowance and that Close would not be entitled to it unless the District decided to use it. Despite the opinion of Agency witnesses to the contrary, the error in Close's bid was a technical one and non- material because it did not confer a competitive advantage upon Close. Close's use of the wrong form did not alter the price of its bid. Its mistake in the use of the original bid form could only change the relative, competitive positions of Close and Worth if the amount of the discretionary cost allowance was greater or equal to the difference between those two bids, i.e., the $146,650.00 amount by which Worth's bid exceeded the bid of Close. 1/ The bid of Worth exceeds Close's bid by an amount far greater than the amount at issue in the discretionary cost allowance identified in Addendum No. Two and expressly itemized in the revised Bid form, i.e. $40,000.00. The District contends that Close gained some competitive economic advantage over other bidders by having the means by which it could optionally withdraw its bid, based upon alleged non-responsiveness, in not substituting the revised Bid form which would contain the itemization of the $40,000.00 cost allowance. It is difficult to see how it could gain a competitive advantage versus other bidders through some perceived ability to deem itself non-responsive, at its option, and withdraw its bid, thus denying itself the contract. The competitive bidding laws are designed to prevent a firm from gaining a competitive advantage in obtaining a contract versus the efforts of other bidders, not in depriving itself of the opportunity to get the work. Moreover, concerning the argument by the District that this may confer the advantage to Close of allowing it to withdraw its bid at its option and still obtain a refund of its bid bond; even if that occurred, it would not confer a competitive advantage vis-à-vis other bidders. It would merely involve a potential pecuniary advantage to Close's interest, versus that of the Agency itself, which obviously is not a bidder. Moreover, it should again be pointed out that Cone and Graham was allowed to provide additional information concerning its bid elements, and even to meet with the District staff, following the opening of the bids. It was then allowed to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond. If the District had inquired, by way of verification of Close's bid, as to whether the discretionary cost amount was included in it's bid, that inquiry does not equate to allowing Close to unlawfully supplement its bid. Indeed, if in response to such an inquiry, Close announced that the discretionary allowance was not included in its bid, its bid at that point would be materially non-responsive to the specifications. If Close was then allowed to supplement its bid by changing its price to add the allowance, such would indeed be an unfair competitive advantage and a violation of law on the part of Close and the Agency. The evidence does not show that such happened or was proposed by any party. If a verification inquiry had been made and Close announced that, indeed, its bid price did include the subject discretionary cost allowance, without further response to the specifications being added, then no competitive advantage would be afforded Close and no legal violation would occur. In fact, however, as pointed out above, the verification request, pursuant to the District's policy manual, was never made. This was despite the fact that the District's witness, Mr. Reynolds, acknowledged that the use of the original bid form was an apparent mistake on the face of the bid, when considered in conjunction with Close's express agreement to construct the project in strict conformance with all contract documents, and particularly with regard to Addenda Numbers One and Two. The non-judgmental mistake, involving use of the original bid form in lieu of the revised bid form, could have been easily clarified by a verification inquiry. That policy was not followed, based solely on the fact that the wrong bid form was used, even though the preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that in all material and substantive respects the bid was a conforming, responsive bid and included in its price the discretionary cost allowance. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the mistaken use of the original Bid form was a non- material irregularity under the District's policies and the terms of the RFB. The District's actions in failing to uniformly apply its own bid verification policy when, in fact, it had allowed verification to one of the other bidders, and when, according to its own witness, it perceived an apparent mistake, was clearly erroneous. It is true that Close may not supplement its bid by changing material terms, but it is permitted to verify whether, in light of the mistaken use of the original Bid form, its bid price, as submitted, included the $40,000.00 discretionary allowance or not. Providing such "yes or no" type of additional information in order to clarify, and only clarify, information already submitted in the bid, in response to an inquiry by the District does not constitute "supplementation" of the bid for purposes of Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2008). NCS Pearson, Inc. v. Dept of Education, 2005 WL 31776, at page 18 (DOAH, Feb. 8, 2005). Even without verification of the bid, the bid on its face agrees to compliance with all terms and specifications, including Addendum No. Two. It is thus determined that there is no material irregularity. The bid submitted by Close does not afford it any competitive advantage vis-à-vis the other bidders and it is responsive.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the South Florida Water Management District, awarding the subject contract for RFB 6000000262 to the Petitioner herein, Close Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 1985, Respondent, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), gave notice to thirty vendors that it would receive competitive sealed bids on Bid Number 84-67 for the following commodities: eight computer binder cabinets 36x18 5/8x71 Putty/Black, three hundred single point binder hooks, six hundred 10" steel reinforced binder posts. The bids were to be filed in Tallahassee, Florida, no later than 11:00 a.m., April 16, 1985. The Invitation to Bid included General Conditions, Special Conditions and technical specifications describing the dimensions and capacities of the desired equipment. Of special significance was the technical specification that the single point binder hooks be "[c]apable of supporting up to 6 inches of llx14 7/8 20 lb. computer paper." Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions provides as follows: 6. MANUFACTURERS' NAMES AND APPROVED EQUIVALENTS: Any manufacturers' names, trade names, brand names, information and/or catalog numbers listed in a specification are for information and not intended to limit competition. The bidder may offer any brand for which he is an authorized representative, which meets or exceeds the specification for any items(s) [sic]. If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer's name and number. Bidder shall submit with his bid, cuts, sketches and descriptive literature and or complete specifications. Reference to literature submitted with a previous bid will not satisfy this provision. The bidder shall also explain in detail the reason(s) why the proposed equivalent will meet the specifications and not be considered an exception thereto. The State of Florida reserves the right to determine acceptance of items(s) [sic] as an approved equivalent. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to bid an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form. The purchaser is to be notified of any proposed changes in (a) materials used, (b) manufacturing process, or (c) construction. However, changes shall not be binding upon the State unless evidenced by a Change Notice issued and signed by the purchaser. (Emphasis added.) Paragraph 7 of the General Conditions imposed the following duty upon all bidders: 7. INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Of the thirty vendors given an opportunity to submit bids, only two did so. They were Petitioner, Pro Tech Data (PTD or Petitioner), and Office Systems Consultants (OSC). Their bids were in the amounts of $4,645 and $5,244, respectively. After reviewing the bids, and consulting with both bidders, the director of the agency's Division of Criminal Justice Information Systems, Mark Scharein, determined that Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive for not meeting specifications and was accordingly rejected. The bid was then awarded to OSC, the second lowest bidder, on May 3, 1985. That precipitated the instant proceeding. In its bid response, PTD listed "Dennison Monarch #7830" as manufacturer and model number for the single point binder hooks. Petitioner also submitted a Dennison Monarch catalogue with its bid response. When FDLE examined the catalogue to ascertain the specifications of the hooks, it found no model number 7830. Indeed, the closest item matching this number was model number 7830-22 which referred to shelf supports, an item not solicited in the bid proposal. After consulting with PTD, it was determined that the use of model number 7830 was in error, and that Petitioner had intended to use model number 7802-30. Its request to amend the bid response was denied. Even if the bid proposal had contained the correct model number, the binder hooks in model number 7802-30 did not meet specifications. The product description of that model carries the following limitation: "Can accommodate a few sheets of paper or a stack of data 4" thick." In addition, at hearing PTD's representative conceded that the manufacturer did not recommend hanging six inches of paper from that model binder hook. This was inconsistent with FDLE's specific requirement that such hooks be "[c]apable of supporting up to 6 inches of . . . computer paper." OCS submitted product designations which conformed in all material respects to the specifications and conditions required by the bid proposal. Although PTD suggests that OCS's binder hooks do not support six inches of computer paper, .OCS's bid response reflects that they do, and there was no evidence to contradict this representation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Bid No. 84-67 be awarded to Office Systems Consultants, and that Petitioner's bid protest be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this l6th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, PFO, is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner's principal office is located in West Palm Beach, Florida. At all times material to the claims of this case, Petitioner had fewer than 25 full-time employees. At all times material to the claims of this case, Petitioner had a net worth of less than $2 million. On May 22, 1995, the Department provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry to a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. At that time the Department issued an intent to award the Palm Beach County (Intrastate) CSE contract to a third party. This dispute evolved into DOAH case no. 95-3138BID or "the bid case." The Department was not a "nominal party" in the bid case. A recommended order was entered in the bid case on September 5, 1995. Except for a minor point not relevant to the issues of this matter, the Department adopted the findings and conclusions of the recommended order and entered its final order on December 1, 1995. The final order in DOAH case no. 95-3138BID awarded the Palm Beach County (Intrastate) contract for CSE legal services to Petitioner. Such award was based upon the conclusions that the third party's proposal was nonresponsive and that aspects of the evaluation process were arbitrary. No appeal was timely filed against the final order. Petitioner is, therefore, a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner timely filed its request for attorneys' fees and costs in the instant case pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The total amount of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in the bid case was $63,495.25. Of that amount, at least $15,000 was reasonable and necessary for Petitioner to incur in the preparations for, and attendance at, the hearing in the bid case. The solicitation package for the bid case contained mandatory requirements with which all applicants were to comply. The final order in the bid case concluded that the successful applicant had failed to satisfy all mandatory requirements. Its bid was, therefore, nonresponsive to the solicitation. Additionally, the final order determined that the instructions regarding how the proposals were to be evaluated were unclear and that points were inappropriately assigned to the successful applicant. The overall conclusion of the final order found that the Department had acted arbitrarily in the intended award to this third party applicant. All of the material deficiencies relied on in the recommended order and the final order to reach the conclusion that the Department had acted arbitrarily were known to the Department at the time of its initial review and evaluation of the proposals. For example, the Department knew that the applicant had not identified two attorneys who would be expected to perform services under the contract, and had not included certificates of good standing from the Florida Bar for them. Additionally, the applicant had not provided references from three persons as specified in the solicitation package. This was evident upon the opening of the proposal. Nevertheless, the Department scored the nonresponsive proposal and awarded it sufficient points to be the apparent winner among the applicants. An award of attorneys fees' and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, is capped at $15,000. The agency has not disputed the reasonableness nor the amount of fees claimed in connection with the bid case. The agency has not offered evidence to specify each item of cost or fee in dispute. Discovery requested by the Department sought information for the period September 1995 through January 1996 which included runner logs of Petitioner's counsel, itemized bills regarding another party (not a party to the bid case nor this case), and the deposition of Don Pickett. None of the requested discovery addressed the issue of whether the Department's actions in the bid case were substantially justified. None of the requested discovery addressed facts which the Department had placed in issue by its response to the petition. None of the discovery addressed the issue of whether there are special circumstances which would make an award of reasonable fees and costs unjust. Moreover, the parties have stipulated that there are no special circumstances which would make an award of reasonable fees and costs unjust. No new information pertinent to the claim for fees and costs herein which was unknown to the Department as a result of the bid case proceeding was discovered from the deposition of Don Pickett. No new information pertinent to the reasonableness or amount of the fees claimed was discovered from the deposition of Don Pickett or the other discovery requested. The factual circumstances argued in Respondent's Proposed (sic) Recommended Order, ie. that the agency had relied on findings and conclusions from an unrelated DOAH case in connection with the review of the underlying bid case, were not set forth in the response filed by the agency in the instant case and have not been deemed credible in determining the issues of this case. The proposal submitted by the third party in the bid case was nonresponsive. The Department has stipulated that the award of a contract to a nonresponsive bidder is arbitrary.
