The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation's proposed award of a contract to Daniels Janitorial Service is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the specifications of the Invitation to Bid (ITB).
Findings Of Fact In April 2004, DOT issued ITB-DOT-04/05-5002-PDW (the ITB) seeking to contract for janitorial services at two state office buildings in DeLand, Florida. The ITB included a "bid blank," upon which vendors were directed to submit their cost proposals. The bid blank was titled "MONTHLY JANITORIAL SERVICES PER SCOPE OF SERVICES." The bid blank included three spaces where each bidder was to provide cost information. The three spaces were titled as follows: "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5000 - X 12 MONTHS," "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5001 - X 12 MONTHS," and "TOTAL YEARLY AMOUNT BOTH BUILDINGS." In response to the ITB, DOT received 18 bids. The bids were opened at 3:00 p.m. on April 29, 2004. The lowest bid was $5,185.76, submitted by Daniels Janitorial Service, including: $4,895.76 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5000 - X 12 MONTHS," $200.00 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5001 - X 12 MONTHS," and $5,186.76 identified as "TOTAL YEARLY AMOUNT BOTH BUILDINGS." The second lowest bid was $10,686.00, submitted by Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems, including: $9,971.00 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5000 - X 12 MONTHS," $715.00 for "MONTHLY CLEANING - BUILDING 5001 - X 12 MONTHS," and $10, 686.00 identified as "TOTAL YEARLY AMOUNT BOTH BUILDINGS." The third lowest bid was $67,777.77, submitted by the Petitioner. The remainder of the bids ranged between $69,600.00 to as much as $201,464.64. At the time of the opening, Diane Warnock, a DOT District Contract Specialist and Purchasing Agent in charge of the bid opening, observed that two of the bids (the Daniels Janitorial Service and the Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems bids) appeared to be very low in relation to the other bids. Ms. Warnock believed that the two lowest bids submitted were likely set forth on a monthly basis rather than annual amount, and that the bidders had failed to extend the monthly charges to an annual cost. Ms. Warnock contacted David Callaway, a DOT Procurement Analyst with statewide contract responsibilities, to discuss her observations. Mr. Callaway advised Ms. Warnock that she could contact the two low bidders and ascertain whether the bids submitted reflected a monthly or an annual cost. Ms. Warnock separately contacted each of the individuals responsible for submitting the low bids and inquired as to whether the bids reflected a monthly cost or an annual cost. Ms. Warnock learned that each vendor had submitted a monthly bid amount. Ms. Warnock multiplied the monthly amounts submitted by the two vendors by 12 to arrive at an annual cost. On the bid tabulation form, Ms. Warnock included the bid amount submitted by each bidder. For the two bidders who submitted monthly cost information, Ms. Warnock included the monthly costs submitted and the annual cost figures she had calculated. Based on annual costs, the lowest vendor was Daniels Janitorial Service with an annual bid amount of $62,229.12. Section 13.2 of the ITB provides as follows: 13.2 RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS Bids will not be considered if not received by the Department on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. All bids must be typed or printed in ink. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid in accordance with all requirements of this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non- responsive will not be considered. Bids may be rejected if found to be irregular or not in conformance with the requirements and instructions herein contained. A bid may be found to be irregular or non-responsive by reasons that include, but are not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, modifying the bid requirements, submitting conditional bids or incomplete bids, submitting indefinite or ambiguous bids, or executing forms or the bid sheet with improper and/or undated signatures. Section 13.4 of the ITB provides as follows: 13.4 WAIVERS The Department may waive minor informalities or irregularities in bids received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other bidders. Minor irregularities are defined as those that do not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and does not effect the price of the bid by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order awarding the contract for ITB-DOT-04/05- 5002-PDW to Daniels Janitorial Service. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Anthony Payne 1031 Eagles Forrest Drive Apopka, Florida 32712 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue for consideration herein is whether the Respondent's proposed award on BID No. HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc., should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the solicitation of bids for and award of contracts for the construction of state buildings in Florida. Both Greenhut and Dunn are qualified contractors who are certified to bid on state construction contracts in general and this procurement in particular. In December, 1991, the Department issued an advertisement for bids for the project in issue herein, the construction of the Kirkman Complex Addition Data Center in Tallahassee, Florida. According to the Advertisement for Bids, all bids "must be submitted in full accordance with the requirements of the Drawings, Specifications, Bidding Conditions and Contractual Conditions, which may be examined and obtained ..." from the Department's designated architect/engineer, Clemons, Rutherford and Associates, Inc. in Tallahassee. Section B-21 of the request for proposals (invitation to bid) reads, in pertinent part: The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the owner. Bids received on this project were originally scheduled to be opened and read aloud on January 15, 1992 with the tabulation and Bid Award Recommendation to be posted the following days at the location where the bids were opened. The proposal as originally issued called for the submittal of a Base Bid with four Alternates, 1a, 1b, 2, and 3. Alternate 1a was a deduct for merely extending the existing Johnson Controls System to incorporate the new work instead of providing a totally new and independent control system. Alternate 1b called for adding furniture and landscaping for certain of the rooms shown on the drawings; Alternate 2 called for adding a "shelled" fourth floor as described in the proposal; and Alternate 3, as originally issued, called for: Add a complete fourth floor as indicated in drawings including the finished interior partitions with full HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical Service. Include furniture and landscaping for rooms 414 and 419. (Includes items in Alternate No. 2) As a result of questions received from prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference which indicated some confusion as to the meaning and intent of the Department regarding Alternate No. 3, by letter to all prospective bidders, dated January 8, 1992 the Department's architect indicated: Alternate #3 shall be the fourth floor complete, as shown on drawings, which includes items in Alternate #2. Addendum #1 to the request for bids, dated January 10, 1992, clarified Item 1-3.6), PROPOSAL FORM, of the PROJECT MANUAL to ADD to "Alternate #3", "(Include items in Alternate #2)". Item #2-1 of Addendum #2, dated January 16, 1992, deleted the sentence changed by Item #1- 3.6, and revised the sentence to read as follows: This includes any items required in addition to Alternate #2 to complete the remainder of the work for the Fourth Floor. Information contained at the beginning of each Addendum calls the bidders' attention to the change and indicates that failure to incorporate it may result in disqualification. The due date for bids was extended at the instance of the Department. Both Petitioner and Intervenor submitted bids for this project as did several other concerns on January 23, 1992. Greenhut's base bid was $4,139,000 with a deduct of $63,600 for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b, 2, and 3 of $69,500, $239,000, and $209,000 respectively. Greenhut's total bid, therefore, through Alternate 3, was $4,592,900. Dunn's base bid was $4,079,000 with a zero deduct for Alternate 1a, and additions for Alternates 1b through 3 of $67,000, and $428,000. Dunn's total bid, therefore, was $4,574,000 for a difference of $18,900. Greenhut's bid was submitted on a form which provided for the base bid, the deduct for 1a, and the additions for 1b. 2 and 3 with the figure for 3 being those costs in addition to those identified in Dunn's bid was submitted on a prior form which provided for a base bid, a 1a deduction if any, (there was none), and additions for 1b, 2, and 3 with the figure for 3 including the figure listed for 2. An initial review of Dunn's bid form, then, showed a base bid of $4,079,000, no 1a deduction, a 1b addition of $67,000, a 2 addition of $311,000, and a 3 addition of $428,000. This letter figure included the $311,000 figure for Alternate 2, which should have been deducted from the bid during tabulation. When the bids were opened on January 23, 1992 by Mr. Everline, each figure on each bid was read off and listed on the bid tabulation form in the appropriate area. No attention was given at that time to the appropriateness or correctness of the figures listed on each bid form, nor was any attention paid to any other technical requirement of the procurement. This was merely a transfer of figures from the bid form to the tabulation form, and when this was done, Mr. Everline announced to all in attendance, including many contractor representatives, that the "apparent low bidder" was Greenhut. In arriving at that conclusion, Mr. Everline added all of Dunn's figures together without deducting the $311,000 listed for Alternate 2, a figure which was included in the $428,000 figure listed for Alternate 3. This resulted in an incorrectly large total bid for Dunn. Sometime later that day, a representative of Dunn contacted Mr. Everline to indicate that Dunn had inadvertently bid on the wrong form which precipitated its misleading presentation. Mr. Everline properly declined to discuss the matter and referred the Dunn representative to the Department's legal counsel. Sometime thereafter, when the bids had been tabulated and reviewed for responsiveness and legal qualification of bidders, Mr. Everline suggested to representatives of DHSMV that in order to forestall a protest, only so much of the project as extended through Alternate 2 be awarded. DHSMV officials, however, had sufficient funds available for the entire project, including some additional funds, if necessary, for cabling, and insisted they wanted the entire project awarded. The Department's legal counsel, upon review of the situation, concluded that the Dunn's actual bid intent was clear to include the amount listed for Alternate 2 within that listed for Alternate 3, and not to consider the two as additives to each other. It further concluded that Dunn's use of the improper form on which to submit its bid was immaterial and afforded it no improper competitive edge over other bidders. Therefore, it was concluded that Dunn was the low responsive bidder and, on February 4, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Award to Dunn. Thereafter, Greenhut filed its Petition For Hearing taken as a protest to the award. Both the Department and Dunn agreed that Greenhut had standing to protest the award and that the protest was timely filed. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of General Services enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Greenhut Construction Company, Inc., in regard to the proposed award of contact in bid number HSMV - 90022010 to Dunn Construction Company, Inc. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 21st day of April, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-1297 BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 9. Accepted. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Argument and not Finding of Fact except for 1st sentence which is accepted. & 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Irrelevant but accepted as true. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. FOR THE INTERVENOR: Accepted. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 19. Accepted. 20. & 21. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Emmanuel, Esquire 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Sylvan Strickland, Esquire Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire 315 S. Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Suite 307, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Susan Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Suite 309, knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Department of General Services should award state contracts for "walk-up convenience copiers" to Xerox Corporation in categories where Xerox was the only responsive bidder, or should reject Xerox's bid and solicit new bids on grounds that competitive bids were not received and there is no basis or excepting the award from competitive bid requirements; Whether the Department should disqualify Xerox's bid in one category for alleged material deviation from bid specifications where Xerox failed to initial a change in its bid price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DGS reject Xerox's single responsive bids and readvertise; and That Xerox's bid for category Group-I, Type 3, Class 12, monthly rental acquisition plan, be rejected as nonconforming. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it decided to award the contract under Bid Number 94-CO-6355, for Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service (the Contract), to the number two-ranked bidder, North American Intelecom, Inc. (NAI).
Findings Of Fact Background On or about August 12, 1994, the DOC issued Invitation to Bid Number 94-CO-5355, Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service. Michael H. Johnson, a General Services Specialist, prepared the ITB at the direction of Jim Morris, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of General Services. Johnson developed the evaluation criteria and point allocations in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The document was reviewed and approved by Morris, Jim Biddy, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of Finance and Accounting, and Max Denson of the DOC's Operations Office. Inmate pay telephone and long distance service requires more than just the installation of pay phones in correctional facilities. The service vendor must also provide a means of blocking inmate telephone calls and, when calls are authorized, preventing inmates from making harassing calls to members of the public. Additionally, the ITB includes a provision requiring some means for monitoring and automatically recording inmate telephone calls, and for deactivating the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney. A requirement is also included in the ITB that the system limit the length of inmate calls and generate monthly call detail reports. Other mandatory, no cost features to be provided under the Contract include a Personal Identification Number ("PIN") system capability, a three-way call detection and cutoff feature, a pilot site to test the call monitoring/recording system, on-site administrators to free facility staff from all tasks associated with the inmate phone system, and a semi-annual audit to ensure that the provider is meeting all technical and service requirements. The specifications in the ITB for provision of inmate pay telephone and long distance service are some of the most comprehensive in the country, requiring state-of-the-art hardware, software, and service in order to implement specified mandatory system features. Security concerns are prominent among reasons for having adequate service and support for the inmate pay telephone and long distance service. PIN-Driven System One of the primary features specified in the ITB is a PIN-driven system for blocking inmate calls. The PIN system requires each inmate to be assigned his or her own personal identification number for use with the telephone system. An inmate must key in his or her personal identification number before dialing an outgoing call. The system must automatically screen the telephone number dialed to ensure it is one which has received prior authorization for accessibility by the PIN. A PIN-driven system is labor-intensive and requires on-site administration to facilitate assignment of inmate PIN numbers and constant input and modification of each inmate's list of numbers for authorized outgoing calls. Project Staffing The DOC specifically requested the inmate phone system vendor to provide sufficient on-site administrators for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, support for proper administration of the PIN system. Noting that on-site administrators are to relieve DOC staff of all responsibilities relating to the inmate phone system, the DOC stated in the ITB that it did not want its staff to be involved with time-consuming service and maintenance problems. The DOC expressed a preference in the ITB for one on-site administrator being assigned to each major facility, except in those circumstances in which a single individual may cover several facilities in close geographic proximity to one another. Support services are important to maintain the proper functioning of the type of inmate phone system requested by the DOC. The ITB, taken as a whole, is a solicitation for an integrated telecommunications system, encompassing not only hardware, but systems software, service and project support. The ITB did not simply solicit manufacturers and models for various pieces of hardware; it contained a comprehensive description of functional requirements that had to be met. As a consequence, any determination that one bidder's "equipment" is identical to that offered by any other bidder must take into consideration proposed support and service, as well as proposed hardware and software applications. Bid Evaluation Procedure Specified in the ITB As established at final hearing by the unrebutted testimony of MCI's expert in telecommunications service bid response preparation, DOC's ITB differed from those in many other states. Unlike the instant ITB, many ITBs from other jurisdictions provide for a determination that bids meet specified minimum requirements and then dictate the award of a contract to the responsive bid with the lowest price. Conversely, DOC's ITB specified a detailed procedure to be followed in evaluating the bids, including evaluation criteria, points to be assigned to each criterion, and an evaluation committee to conduct the evaluation of bids. Johnson, the DOC employee responsible for the preparation of the ITB, understood that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder with the highest number of points allocated in accordance with the evaluation scheme described in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The DOC includes in its ITB both general and special conditions and specifications. The ITB, by its own terms, provides that special conditions and specifications shall have precedence over general conditions. The ITB contains numerous special conditions and specifications, including the bid evaluation procedures under Section 8.0. The bid evaluation criteria which are described by these special conditions and specifications identify the areas of the state's interest which must be addressed by the bids, as well as the weight to be assigned to each. Section 8.3 of the ITB emphasizes that any information gleaned from post bid demonstrations will not be used to change bid responses. The bid evaluation scheme specified in the ITB provided for points to be awarded to each bid using the following weighted criteria: CRITERIA POINTS CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS 15 REFERENCES 10 PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF 5 COMMISSION RATE 70 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 The points awarded for "commission rate" were to be determined by using a formula specified in the ITB which initially gave 70 points to the bidder proposing the highest commission rate, with all other bidders receiving a lesser number of points, depending on how close they came to the highest proposed commission rate. The points awarded for all of the other criteria were to be determined by a seven-member Evaluation Committee, members of which were selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger for their experience with management and actual operation of inmate phone systems, both from the institutional perspective and the regional office perspective. Each bid was required to be independently evaluated. The DOC issued two addenda to the ITB. The first addendum was issued August 23, 1994, and advised potential bidders of a change in location for the pre-bid conference scheduled for September 7, 1994. At the pre-bid conference, the DOC explained the award process to potential bidders. Johnson, the DOC representative, advised potential bidders at the pre- bid conference that the contract award would not be determined solely on the strength of the commission rate quote. On September 22, 1994, the DOC issued Addendum Number Two to the ITB which, among other things, changed the evaluation procedure by adding a new criterion and re-allocating the weight among the expanded criteria as follows: CRITERIA POINTS CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS 10 REFERENCES 10 PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF 5 TECHNOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS 10 COMMISSION RATE 65 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 The addition of "technological enhancements" was made at the request of Deputy Secretary Thurber, who wanted to be sure that the DOC had an opportunity to see what features above and beyond the minimum features specified in the original ITB were available for an inmate pay telephone system. When technological enhancements were added as an evaluation criterion, the weight to be given the commission rate in the evaluation scheme was lowered from 70 to 65 points. The DOC officials who reviewed and approved Addendum Number Two determined that the reduced weight for proposed commission rates was appropriate. At 65 percent of the available points, the reduced weight for the proposed commission is still higher than the 45 percent to 50 percent weight typically given by the DOC to the revenue side of a bid. Bidder Preparation MCI relied on the representation in the ITB and assurances of DOC's representative, Michael H. Johnson, at the bid conference that DOC's decision would not be made solely on the basis of cost. As a consequence of DOC representations, MCI prepared its bid to address the specifications in the ITB and thereby maximize its overall points under the ITB's evaluation scheme, as opposed to submission of a bid package concerned solely with scoring the highest possible points for "commission rates." Bid Opening and Initial Review On October 21, 1994, bids were submitted to DOC by MCI, NAI, AT&T, TEI, Robert Cefail & Associates (RC&A), 21st Century, RC&A/21st Century, and LDDS Metromedia. At the Bid Opening, Johnson again explained the award process to bidders on behalf of the DOC, and advised bidders that the bid tabulation was strictly for the purpose of documenting responses and that nothing was to be inferred from the proposed commission rates. Bidders were again advised that commissions would be only one aspect of the award. Johnson's understanding at the time of the Bid Opening was that the Contract would be awarded based on points awarded pursuant to the bid evaluation scheme specified in the Section 8.0 of the ITB. Johnson participated in an initial review of the bids, reading each of the proposals to determine whether the mandatory requirements were satisfied. Of eight bids received, five, including the bids submitted by MCI and NAI were determined by the DOC to satisfy the mandatory requirements. The Evaluation Committee As required in the ITB, the DOC formed an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the bids. Selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger, members of the Evaluation Committee were: Jim Biddy, Chief of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting; Jerry Pilcher, Chief of Regional Administrative Services for Region II; Kermit Kerley, Superintendent of the Hardee Correctional Institution; Stan Czerniak, Superintendent of the North Florida Reception Center; Charles Mask, Superintendent of the Corrections Mental Health Institution; Charles Dennard, Business Manager for the Polk Correctional Institution; and Robert Sandal, General Services Manager for Region I. Members of the Evaluation Committee were selected from the DOC's business managers and superintendents on the basis that their participation would provide an overall perspective with respect to management and actual operation of the inmate phone system. Evaluation Committee's Recommendation All five of the bids determined by the DOC to be responsive were thoroughly reviewed by Evaluation Committee in accordance with the bid evaluation procedures specified in the ITB, including Addendum Number Two, in an almost day-long session in the DOC's Central Office on January 5, 1995. The total points awarded by each Committee member for all of the four evaluation criteria were averaged to establish each bidder's total Evaluation Points. Every member of the Evaluation Committee scored MCI's bid as their number one or number two choice. NAI was ranked no higher than third by anyone on the Committee and was ranked fourth by five of the Committee's members. No member of the Committee gave NAI a higher score than MCI on any of the evaluation criteria. Comments on a majority of the evaluation forms of the seven members of the Evaluation Committee reflect a general concern for the adequacy of NAI's proposed project support. Specifically, Mr. Biddy noted that "[p]roposed project staff consisted of only 17 people [and that it was] questionable whether this would be sufficient for site administration as well as contract management." Similarly, Mr. Kerley noted on the NAI bid evaluation form that "17 staff may not be enough to support [the] system." Mr. Pilcher's comments indicated that "[p]roject support was not as I expected or not explained very well." Mr. Dennard indicated that NAI's bid provided "no breakdown of [the] 17 staff to support [the] contract [and] no mention of site administrators." The NAI bid indicates that a total of 17 personnel will be made available to support the Contract with more to be "added if the schedule so indicates." NAI's bid does not specifically identify the number of persons to be involved in on-site administration. However, NAI has committed only 17 people in support the Contract as a whole, ten of whom are expressly identified as performing tasks other than on-site administration. While NAI's bid indicates provision of additional personnel if required by the schedule, ambiguity about whether NAI would expand the number of on-site administrators for the entire term of the contract is evident. The "installation requirements" described in the ITB refer to time-limited activities necessary to initiate operation of the inmate telephone system, as opposed to the ongoing nature of the commitment necessary for on-site administration. In its bid response, NAI also agreed to cooperate with the DOC "to insure the proper distribution of on-site administrators." This offer does not suggest, however, that the number of on-site administrators committed in support of the Contract will be augmented by NAI. Such assurance relates to location and not number of on-site administrators. Testimony of NAI presented at final hearing that additional on-site administrators will be provided is not credited, inasmuch as such testimony constitutes an impermissible attempt by NAI to modify its bid after the bid opening. Based upon the substantial disparity in the proposed levels of customer service, the MCI and NAI bids cannot be considered to be identical. NAI's assertion at hearing that its bid included other system features which do not appear on the face of its written proposal constitutes a prohibited post-bid-opening modification. Such modifications included PCs, keyboards, printers and color monitors at each facility. These items are included on the face of the MCI bid. MCI offered 28 personnel in support of the Contract, including an express commitment for 20 on-site administrators. MCI's proposal to provide 20 on-site administrators is one of the highest number of on-site administrators offered by any bidder and a very costly aspect of MCI's bid since all employee salary and benefits must be covered for each on-site administrator dedicated to the project. The assignment of points for each bidder's proposed commission rate (Commission Points) was based on a scale which assigned 65 points to the bid with the highest commission rate quote. A lesser number of points was assigned to all other bids pursuant to a formula specified in Section 8.2 of the ITB, as amended by Addendum Number Two. The highest commission rate quoted by any bidder was proposed by NAI at 56 percent. NAI was accordingly assigned 65 Commission Points. NAI was also awarded 22.143 Evaluation Points, which, when combined with NAI's 65 Commission Points, produced a total of 87.143 points. MCI proposed a 53 percent commission rate and, in accordance with the formula set forth in the ITB, earned 61.51 Commission Points. MCI was also awarded 30 Evaluation Points which, when combined with MCI's 61.51 Commission Points, produced a total of 91.51 points. When the Evaluation Committee's other scores were combined with the scores for commission rates obtained by applying the formula in the ITB, MCI's point total was higher than that received by any of the other bidders. The DOC officials later involved in the decision to award the Contract to NAI indicated that they had no reason to question the work of the Evaluation Committee. After reviewing the bid evaluation forms produced by the Evaluation Committee, and based on his continuing understanding that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder receiving the highest number of points under the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, Michael H. Johnson prepared a memorandum for signature of his supervisor, Mr. Morris, to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. Dated January 31, 1995, the memorandum recommended award of the Contract to MCI. Morris signed the January 31, 1995 memorandum and forwarded the same to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. At prehearing deposition in this case on April 13, 1995, Kronenberger denied having received any recommendation from anyone regarding which company should be awarded the contract. Later at the final hearing following Johnson's testimony that he, Johnson, had been instructed to destroy the signed document by Morris (his supervisor), Kronenberger finally admitted that he had told Morris "we ought to pull that memo." These instructions were followed by Morris, who directed Mr. Johnson to destroy the January 31, 1995 memorandum recommending award of the Contract to MCI. Significantly, neither Morris, Kronenberger, nor Thurber--all DOC officials involved in the contract award decision--mentioned the existence of this document prior to Mr. Johnson's revelation on the witness stand that it had been destroyed. After-The-Fact Evaluation In a February 22, 1995 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Thurber, Kronenberger, after acknowledging that MCI received the highest number of points, formally recommended that the Contract be awarded to NAI. This memorandum was drafted by Morris at the direction of Kronenberger. Before making the recommendation to award the contract to NAI, Kronenberger had not read the ITB, the addenda to the ITB, or any portion of the bids. Morris was the only member of his staff with whom Kronenberger consulted. Kronenberger's decision was approved by Deputy Secretary William Thurber. Neither Kronenberger, Morris, nor Thurber read the bids at any time prior to the DOC's issuance of the notice of intended award to NAI. Kronenberger based his decision to recommend award of the Contract to NAI on his belief that NAI and MCI proposed to install "identical equipment," and that at least $1.1 million in additional revenue would be generated by the 3 percent higher commission rate offered by NAI over the three-year base term of the Contract. Although the February 22, 1995 Kronenberger memorandum states that the DOC could find no correlation between the proposed commission rates and equipment capabilities, the DOC officials who made the decision to award the Contract to NAI (Morris, Kronenberger and Thurber) performed no analysis of the proposals, did not complete a score sheet, did not talk with any of the members of the Evaluation Committee, and were unaware of the specific content of the bids and the proposed differences in staffing offered by the two bidders. In contrast to the assertion of the Kronenberger memorandum, the proof establishes a direct inverse correlation between the total average scores awarded by the Evaluation Committee to the top three bids and the commission rates offered in those bids. This inverse correlation proves that the bidders had to balance the cost of the hardware, software and support personnel aspects of their bids against the commission rate they could offer and that the cost of each hardware, software and support personnel aspect of a bid has a direct impact on the commission rate which could be offered. This balancing is precisely what is required by the ITB since all of these aspects of the bid were assigned specific weights in the specified evaluation scheme. Kronenberger's assumption, as set forth in his memorandum recommending award of the contract to NAI, that both NAI and MCI proposed to install identical "equipment" ignores the fundamental premise of the solicitation--that hardware, software and support were needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate phone system, as well as the fact that the vendors offered different approaches in responding to this requirement. System hardware proposed by MCI and NAI includes the Telequip System Automatic Call Processor ("ACP") 4000, a Dictaphone recording and monitoring system, and Philips & Brooks/Gladwin phone instruments. However, with regard to all aspects of the hardware offered, MCI's bid was more detailed and specific as compared with the NAI bid which generally identified system capabilities by referencing attached brochures. At best, NAI's bid is ambiguous as to whether it offered the same hardware component features. NAI's general references to the brochures in its bid failed to specify which features of a piece of equipment was being affirmatively offered. NAI's after-the-fact assertion at the final hearing regarding features to be provided cannot be credited since such constitutes an impermissible attempt to modify its bid after the bid opening. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip would permit operation of the attorney exception capability utilizing the Telequip ACP-4000 with the proposed Dictaphone recorder systems. Until MCI requested development of the necessary software, the attorney exception capability, which deactivates the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney, was not available with the Telequip ACP-4000 when used in conjunction with the Dictaphone recorder. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip was also necessary to provide an international call capability because the standard Telequip ACP-4000 ordinarily utilizes a debit system to process international calls, and "the debit system is inherently incompatible with the PIN system and the allowed calling list feature that are requirements in the . . . ITB." The MCI bid offers more technological enhancements at no cost to the DOC, than does the NAI bid. Further, the items identified on MCI's list of technological enhancements do not appear anywhere on the face of the NAI bid. NAI's omission of the enhancements listed in the MCI bid adds further credence to the finding that the DOC had no reasonable basis to conclude that it would be getting those enhancements under the NAI bid at the time it was submitted. Moreover, the DOC's own synopsis of technological enhancements shows that it was aware of differences in the bids. Differences in the hardware, software and services offered in the MCI and NAI bids preclude a determination that the two bids offered "identical equipment." Monetary Considerations Revenue figures used by the DOC to project a $1.1 million difference in commissions were drawn from a period of time in late 1994 and early 1995 when the DOC's own summary reports indicate that NAI's billing exceptions range from 41 percent to 49 percent of all calls. Billing exceptions are the number of calls which exceed AT&T rates or could not otherwise be reviewed in monthly call detail reports. NAI's customer overcollections for telephone calls from inmates in the correctional facilities presently served by NAI provide an additional basis for uncertainty regarding the reliability of the projected $1.1 million difference in commissions. While the overcollections have not yet been quantified, NAI has admitted to the Florida Public Service Commission overcollections from customers receiving telephone calls from inmates under its current contract with the DOC in the amount of $394,318. Notwithstanding the ongoing PSC inquiry and reports of extensive billing exceptions under its existing contract with NAI, the DOC has no apparent incentive to closely scrutinize overcollections inasmuch as the more revenues billed by NAI, the greater the amount of commissions received by the DOC. Thus, while there is a 3 percent difference in the proposed commission rates between the two bidders, it cannot be determined from this record with any degree of certainty how that difference will translate into actual dollars to the DOC. In any event, the revenues generated by the contract for inmate pay telephones are placed in the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund, which does not support essential correctional facilities or services. Notice of Award and Protest On March 2, 1995, the DOC issued an intent to award the Contract to NAI. On March 8, 1995, within 72 hours of receipt of DOC's notice of intent, MCI timely filed a Notice of Protest. On March 20, 1995, within ten days of filing its Notice of Protest, MCI timely filed a Formal Written Protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5) and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule 33-20.005, Florida Administrative Code. With its Formal Written Protest, MCI delivered to the DOC a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. On April 10, 1995, the DOC served its Motion to Dismiss MCI's protest, alleging that MCI has no right to a formal administrative hearing on the award of the Contract. On April 12, 1995, the undersigned Hearing Officer, after consideration of the parties' pleadings and oral argument, ruled that MCI is entitled to a formal administrative hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to determine whether the DOC's decision to award the contract to NAI was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest. MCI has requested reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Florida Statutes, for costs incurred in responding to the DOC's Motion to Dismiss. The Hearing Officer has ruled on the motion by order issued concurrently with this recommended order.
Conclusions The Department adopts the Conclusions of Law contained in its Proposed Order, except for paragraph 189. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are also adopted, to the extent they do not conflict with the Department's. The following additional Conclusions of Law are now adopted into this Final Order. Service and personnel support were clearly part of the ITB, and were scored accordingly. Although Mr. Kronenberger considered service and support by recognizing the work already performed by Intervenor under its existing contract, sufficient consideration was not given for the $394,318 overcharge which Intervenor admitted to at the hearing. Since this overcharge was admitted to the Public Service Commission and not the Department, oversight is understandable. However, at this time the overcharge cannot be ignored. Certainly the significant amount of this overcharge has an impact on service provided. Although the Department still believes the equipment bid by Petitioner and Intervenor are "identical," service can no longer be considered the same due to the overcharge. Therefore, the award of the contract pursuant to the ITB should be made to Petitioner, MCI Telecommunications Corporation. RULING ON INTERVENOR'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 46-50 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraph 51 are denied. Although the equipment are "identical," the Department does not, and did not at the hearing, maintain that the bids of Petitioner and Intervenor are identical in terms of support and service. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 70 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 71 of the Recommended Order is denied. The Hearing Officer is merely reciting the terms of the ITB, that service and support are also an important part of the bid. Mr. Kronenberger never denied the importance of service and support. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 73-77 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 79 and 81 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 80 of the Recommended Order is denied to the extent it rejects the finding of fact that Intervenor admitted to an overcharge of $394,318. Intervenor did admit this fact. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 82 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S FILINGS No response is provided to the Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Exceptions. There is no provision for filing such response under Chapter 120, and the Department is not required to respond to such pleadings. The Department has reviewed Petitioner's Request for Official Recognition and Enforcement of Ex Parte Communications Prohibitions. No Department employee who has testified or been deposed in this matter has discussed the merits of this action with the agency head. However, the Department does not agree with Petitioner's contention in its Request for Recognition that section 120.66, Florida Statutes, prohibits the agency head from conversing with the Department employees listed therein. This order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the agency and the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigence, the court will require a filing fee and the agency will require payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED this 17 Day of July, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR, SECRETARY Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (904) 488-2326 COPIES FURNISHED: Carloyn Raepple (via certified mail) Hopping Green Sams & Smith 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Hume Coleman (via certified mail) Holland & Knight 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven S. Ferst Department of Corrections Assistant General Counsel 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Mike Johnson Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed in the official records of the Department of Corrections on this 17th day of July, 1995. LORETTA L. LATSON, Agency Clerk
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which declines the award to NAI and takes into account the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding the future course of awarding the contract for hardware, software and support needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate telephone system. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made with regard to purposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1.-30. Adopted. 31.-32. Adopted in substance. 33.-49. Adopted. 50.-54. Adopted in substance. 55.-58. Adopted. 59-63. Adopted in substance. 64-70. Adopted. 71. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. 72.-82. Adopted. 83. Rejected, unnecessary. 84.-85. Adopted. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 88-92. Adopted. 93. Incorporated. 94.-96. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings: Adopted. Rejected, unnecessary. 3.-5. Adopted. Adopted, not verbatim. Adopted. Rejected, redundant. Adopted. 10.-12. Rejected, subordinate. 13.-17. Adopted. 18.-22. Rejected, argumentative and subordinate. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-25. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 26. Rejected, subordinate. 27.-35. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Rejected, argumentative, weight of the evidence. 44.-52. Rejected, redundant, argumentative, subordinate. 53.-54 Rejected, argumentative, subordinate to HO findings. 55.-58. Rejected,Relevancy, weight of the evidence. 59.-63. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected,Relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, stands for proposition that an agency is not bound by terms of ITB at all, argumentative. Rejected,Relevance. Rejected, argument. 70.-71. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 72.-76. Rejected, argument. 77.-78. Rejected, argument, weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected, subordinate, authority is to award within perimeters of legality and the ITB. Rejected, comment on testimony. 82.-83. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 84. Rejected, legal conclusion. 85.-89. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 90.-91. Rejected,Recitation of documents. 92.-95. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, recitation of documents. Rejected, relevance. 99.-107. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Intervenor's Proposed Findings: 1.-10. Accepted, though not verbatim. 11. Rejected, no record citation. 12.-14. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 15. Adopted, not verbatim. 16.-21. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 22. Rejected, no record citation. 23.-24. Rejected, subordinate. 25. Rejected, no record citation. 26.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Adopted by reference. Rejected, subordinate. 32.-40. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 41. Accepted except for last sentence which is rejected on basis of relevance. 42.-43. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Linda P. Armstrong, Esquire MCI Telecommunications Corporation 1133 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Steve Ferst, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Hume F. Coleman, Esquire Holland & Knight 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Sec. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esq. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
The Issue Whether Respondent's action to reject all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205, relating to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, as alleged in the Amended Petition.
Findings Of Fact On March 4, 2013, the ITB was issued by Respondent for work related to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School in Clearwater, Florida. According to the Special Conditions portions of the ITB, the "scope" of the project is to "[p]rovide labor and materials to remove and replace the auditorium sound system as per plans and specifications by Keane Acoustics, Inc." The ITB was assigned bid number 13-803-205 by Respondent. Bids for the contract were to be submitted to Respondent by 3:00 p.m., April 11, 2013. Bids for the project were timely received from two companies. The first company, Becker Communications, Inc., d/b/a BCI Integrated Solutions (BCI), submitted a bid in the amount of $118,143.27. Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of $108,000.00. There is a section of the ITB titled "special conditions." The special conditions provide in part that "[t]his is an ALL or NONE bid [and] [t]he entire contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications." On April 22, 2013, Respondent posted a notice advising of its intent to award the contract to BCI. Although Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive because the bid failed to include "proof of 5 years [of] experience with this type of work" as required by the special conditions of the ITB. Petitioner interpreted this provision as requiring five years of experience as a certain type of general contractor, which Petitioner had, whereas Respondent intended for the ITB to convey that five years of experience related to the removal and installation of audio equipment was the desired type of experience. Petitioner's failure to respond to the ITB in the manner contemplated by Respondent was a technical, nonmaterial irregularity.1/ Numbered paragraph six of the General Terms & Conditions of the ITB provides in part that Respondent "expressly reserves the right to reject any bid proposal if it determines that the . . . experience of the bidder, compared to work proposed, justifies such rejection." On April 24, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent a notice advising of its intent to protest the award of the contract to BCI. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner filed its formal protest challenging Respondent's intended action of awarding the contract to BCI. Petitioner's formal protest enumerated several grounds. Of particular concern to Respondent were Petitioner's assertions that the ITB was "inconsistent with Florida law since bidders [were] not required to submit a List of Subcontractors by the time of opening bid"2/ and that provisions of the ITB were ambiguous with respect to the type of experience required to qualify for bidding.3/ Prior to receiving Petitioner's protest, Respondent was unaware of the fact that its bid specifications governing the disclosure of subcontractors did not comply with Florida law. Upon consideration of Petitioner's grounds for protest, Respondent determined that the ITB, as alleged by Petitioner, failed to comply with section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (2012),4/ and that there was ambiguity in the language regarding the experience requirements for bidders.5/ Respondent refers to the problems with the ITB as "procedural errors." These procedural errors will be referred to herein as "irregularities" as this term is more in keeping with the nomenclature of this area of jurisprudence. Given the ITB's irregularities, Respondent decided to reject all bids. In explaining Respondent's rationale for rejecting all bids, Michael Hewett, Respondent's Director of Maintenance,6/ testified that "the [irregularities] were such that [they] potentially could give an unfair advantage to one bidder over another." As for the issue related to the requirements of section 255.0515, Mr. Hewett explained that neither of the two bidders submitted a listing of subcontractors. It would have been competitively disadvantageous to BCI if Petitioner were able to successfully argue that BCI should be disqualified for failing to provide a listing of subcontractors when Petitioner also failed to provide such listing. During the same approximate time that the ITB in the present case was issued, Respondent issued an ITB for nearly identical work to be performed at one of its other facilities (Palm Harbor). In all material respects, the Palm Harbor ITB was identical to the one at issue herein. Unlike the present case, BCI was the sole bidder for the Palm Harbor project and this distinguishing fact reasonably explains why Respondent did not reject BCI's bid for the Palm Harbor Project even though the ITB therein was plagued with the same irregularities found in the present case.7/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that the rejection of all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing Tamco Electric, Inc.'s instant protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the award of a bid for the sale of scrap metal to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition or the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 2011, the Department issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-Apalachee-8252. The ITB was a revenue- generating contract for the sale of scrap metal at Apalachee Correctional Institution in Sneads, Florida. Since the contract would generate revenue to the State, the Department’s purpose was to award the contract to the highest responsive bid and developed bid specifications and criteria to accomplish that goal. The specifications for the ITB stated in relevant part: Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material.[emphasis added]. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 1.10 Responsive Bid: A bid submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. * * * 4.3.1 Submission of Bids Each bid shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise delineation of the bidder’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this ITB, fancy bindings, colored displays, and promotional material are not desired. Emphasis in each bid must be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the review of bids, it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5), with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements. Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Material Deviations The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. As indicated, Section 5 of the specifications outlined the contents of the bid. Section 5 stated in relevant part: SECTION 5 - CONTENTS OF BID This section contains instructions that describe the required format for the submitted bid. Bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked “Bid - ITB#- Apalachee-8252”. . . . . [T]he following paragraphs contain instructions that describe the required format for bid responses. Responsiveness Requirements The following terms, conditions, or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to this ITB. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements may cause rejection of a bid. [emphasis added]. Bidder shall complete, sign and return the ITB Bidder Acknowledgement Form (page 1 & 2). The bidder must return either the original or a copy of both pages with an original signature on page one (1). The bidder shall complete, sign, date, and return (all) pricing pages, entitled Cost Information Sheet, which consists of page 28. By submitting a bid or bids under this ITB, each bidder warrants its agreement to the prices submitted. The Department objects to and shall not consider any additional terms or conditions submitted by a bidder, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a bidder’s response. In submitting its bid, a bidder agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect. Any qualifications, counter-offers, deviations, or challenges may render the bid un-responsive . . . . * * * 5.3 Certificate of Insurance Bidders shall return a fully executed Certificate of Insurance . . . . In this case, Section 5.1 contains two bid specifications essential to a bid's responsiveness. Those two requirements were submission of a signed and completed, original or copy, of the bidder acknowledgement form and submission of a completed Cost Information Sheet. The Cost Information Sheet is not at issue here. The bidder acknowledgement form is a double-sided Department of Management Services form containing general boilerplate contractual language. The back of the form is a continuation of standard contractual terms from the front. Oddly, signatures acknowledging these terms and the terms of the ITB are on the front page (page 1) of the form. By signing the front page of the bidder acknowledgement form the bidder agrees to abide by all conditions of the bid. The remainder of Section 5 of the ITB contains bid specifications that are not considered essential to determine the initial responsiveness of the bid at the bid opening, but are to be returned at some later point in time after the bid's are opened. However, the language of Section 5 effecting that intent is unclear. In particular, the bid specification contained in Section 5.3 requires the bidder to "return" an "executed" Certificate of Insurance. The Certificate of Insurance provides the Department with proof of a variety of required insurance coverage of the vendor. However, later in the ITB Section 7.14 clarifies that the Certificate of Insurance need only be supplied with the later-signed contract documents. Section 7.14 states, in relevant part: 7.14 Contractor's Insurance The contractor shall not commence any work in connection with this ITB . . . until he has obtained all of the . . . types of insurance and such insurance has been approved by the Department. The Department shall be furnished proof of coverage of insurance by Certificates of Insurance . . . accompanying the contract documents and shall name the Department as an additional named insured [emphasis added]. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that the Department has long interpreted these provisions to require a winning bidder to provide Certificates of Insurance at the time a contract is entered into and not as part of the essential requirements of the bid due at bid opening. While the Department could (and probably should) clarify this provision, its interpretation of its bid specifications is not unreasonable under these facts. In this case, five bids were timely submitted in response to the ITB, including those of K & M and Cumbaa. On March 8, 2011, the Department opened bids for the ITB. Cumbaa submitted the highest bid for the contract, at $22,197.48. K & M submitted the next highest bid at $20,001.00. At the bid opening, Cumbaa's bid included a Cost Information Sheet, a copy of the signed front page of the bidder acknowledgement form, and the Contact for Contract Administration form known as Attachment 1. However, the bid did not contain the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form or a Certificate of Insurance form at the time the bid was opened. K & M's bid contained the same documents as Cumbaa's bid, as well as the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form and a number of certificates of insurance for K & M. The evidence showed that Cumbaa did not include the Certificate of Insurance form in its sealed bid upon the advice of the Department that the form was not required at bid opening. However, Cumbaa had insurance coverage in place at the time of the bid opening and faxed its certificates of insurance to the Department on March 10, 2011. Given these facts and the Department's reasonable interpretation of its ITB, the omission of Cumbaa's certificate of insurance was neither required at the time of the bid opening, nor material to the award of the bid. The omission of the second page of the bidder's acknowledgement form was not noticed by anyone reviewing the bids until its omission was pointed out by K and M in this bid protest. Cumbaa faxed a copy of the back side of the document to the Department on April 11, 2011. Clearly, this lack of notice demonstrates the immateriality of the back side of the bidder's acknowledgement form. Additionally, since the signatures of both bidders were on the front page of the form submitted by them and those signatures bound the bidders to the terms of the ITB, there was no evidence that demonstrated why submission of a copy of the back side of the form was material to the award of this bid. Ultimately, the Department reviewed the bids for responsiveness and determined that Cumbaa was the highest responsive bid. On March 11, 2011, the Department posted its intent to award the bid to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. As indicated, there was no evidence that the omission of these two documents from the Cumbaa bid were material deviations from the bid specifications since neither omission impacted the ultimate contract requirements and did not materially impact the integrity of the bid process. Indeed, the insurance certification was not required for responsiveness under Section 5.1 of the bid under a long-standing and reasonable interpretation of that requirement by the Department. For these reasons, this bid protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order dismissing the Protest of K & M Pine Straw. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 1st day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eldridge K and M Pine Straw 20583 John G Bryant Road Blountstown, Florida 32424 Edith McKay, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Edwin G. Buss, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact On May 19, 1983, Respondent mailed official Invitations to Bid (IFB) forms to 18 different firms, including Petitioner, soliciting bids for Class VI printing in accordance with the specifications and conditions attached to the letter, signed by R. E. Read, Jr. This letter contained the comment, "As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularities in bids received." This letter also advised prospective bidders who had questions regarding the IFB to call Larry Amison, the individual who had drafted the accompanying specifications. The notice of IFB, published in the Tallahassee Democrat on Thursday, May 19, 1983, also contained a notice of reservation of the right to reject all bids. Only five IFB forms were returned. Three of the five were returned without bids for various reasons, such as "Not Competitive," "Unable to meet specified delivery date" and "Cannot schedule job of this proportion at this time." This type of explanation, in government procurement circles, need not be taken at face value, but is often used to signal the recipient's thanks for the invitation to bid and a desire to be invited to bid again at some time in the future. The other two forms received were bids: one from Zenith Communications Group, and one from Petitioner. This procurement was somewhat unusual in that the IFB stipulated the amount of money the agency had to spend and requested a hid as to the most product it could get for that money. There were two publications involved: "A" and "B." An alternative was given on delivery date options: one within 30 working days of receipt of approved proofs, and one within 45. Zenith offered to provide 7,180 copies of Book "A" and 7,155 copies of Book "B" (14,335 total books) for a total price of $53,400 1/ within 30 working days. Petitioner offered to provide 9,473 copies of Book "A" and 4,950 copies of Book "B" (15,423 total books) for a total price of $53,344.64 within 45 days. The bids were opened on June 1, 1983, and published from June 1 through June 10, 1983. They were brought to the Director for consideration upon opening. It is his responsibility to evaluate the bids and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Agriculture on the successful low bidder. Since there was only one bid on each delivery date, the Director felt there were not two comparative bids. As a result, he forwarded the bid package to Ms. Grace Harrison, a purchasing agent with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and an individual very familiar with the procurement of printing services. After a review of the entire bid package, Ms. Harrison's studied opinion was that there were two valid bids and Douglas was the low bidder, and it is so found. Ms. Harrison also felt it was unusual not to receive any more responses than were received on a procurement of this magnitude. This same opinion is held by Mr. Amison, who drafted the specifications. Others have differing opinions, however. Whether it was unusual or not, however, is immaterial. There were two valid bids, and only two are required for an award. However, even in the case of two bids, the agency reserved the right to reject any and all bids. As a result, on or about June 6, 1983, the Director decided, based on his understanding of state policy on the matter and in light of the size of the procurement, to seek more bids through rebidding. In this case, the Director felt more bids were available because of the responses of the nonbidders which referred to the response times being so short. Therefore, he directed a rebid, and this information was communicated to all bidders, including Petitioner. On June 7, 1983, Petitioner wrote to the Director, disagreeing with his decision and notifying him of its protest. On the following day, the Director notified Petitioner the rebidding was being delayed, giving Petitioner 10 days to file a formal notice of protest. This was done in a timely manner. The phrase regarding the agency's right to reject bids is contained in every State IFB. Its purpose is to permit state agencies to reject bids where it becomes apparent there is a valid and legitimate benefit to be gained by the agency in doing so. One such situation is when, in the bona fide opinion of the agency, there are insufficient bids. While there is a difference of opinion as to whether only two bids are unusual in a procurement of this nature, there is no dispute that it would have been beneficial to the agency to have received more than two, since more bids would increase competition. To rebid the contract at this juncture would undoubtedly increase competition to the potential benefit of the Respondent. However, Petitioner claims it would also work to its detriment because other potential bidders would have access to the details of the two present bids and would thereby gain an advantage. This may be the result of rebidding.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Douglas Printing Company, Inc., be awarded Contract DOF- ADM-79. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 287.042(2), Florida Statutes, the Department of Management Services (DMS), lets various Invitations to Bid (ITB) for the benefit of state agencies, cities, counties and other local government agencies so that these entities may purchase a variety of goods and services. On August 24, 1993, DMS issued Invitation To Bid #28-070-700-P. The bid was one of 225 Invitations to Bid issued by DMS in 1993. The bid was for the purchase of medium and heavy trucks. The bid which is the subject of this case involves truck #150. The truck #150 bid has thirteen pages with forty- seven options plus base truck bid blanks. General Condition 1 of the Invitation to Bid requires that "all corrections made by bidder to his price must be initialed." Other documents provided by the Department to interested bidders as part of the bid package reiterate the requirement that all price changes must be initialed. These documents include the "Checklist," a document entitled "Common Problems That Result in Bid Being Rejected" and the document entitled "Medium and Heavy Trucks Index." The requirement in General Condition I of the Invitation to Bid, that all price changes must be initialed, contains no printed exceptions with respect to "nonpreselected" options. The purpose of the requirements of General Condition 1 of the Invitation to Bid is to protect both the State of Florida as well as competing vendors. The reason for the requirement that all price changes or alterations be initialed by the vendor is to protect both the State of Florida against a successful bidder later inserting higher option prices and charging the state agencies those prices, and the vendor against the State later inserting lower prices and attempting to hold the vendor to those prices. General Condition 13 of the bid document states: LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: Applicable provisions of Federal, State and Local law and all ordinances, rules, and regulations shall govern development, submittal and evaluation of all bids received in response hereto and shall govern any and all claims and disputes which may arise between persons(s) submitting a bid response hereto and the State of Florida, by and through its officers, employees and authorized representatives, or any other person, natural or otherwise; and lack of knowledge by any bidder shall not constitute a cognizable defense against the legal effect thereof. . . (Emphasis added.) General Condition 13 incorporates Rule 60A-1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, which permits the State to waive minor irregularities in the conformance of a bid proposal to the formal bid requirements. The lowest bidder is determined by two factors. The first factor is the price for the base truck. The base truck is the minimum truck which can be ordered in this contract with no options. It is basically a chassis with an engine. The second factor involves additions to the truck called preselected options or predetermined options. All of the other options for the particular vehicle are deemed nonpreselected options. Preselected options are generally the most frequently ordered additions to the base truck along with some other less frequently ordered options. The preselected options can vary from bid to bid; however, DMS always determines the preselected options before opening the bids. The price of any option cannot exceed retail price. There is, therefore, a ceiling for the prices of preselected and nonpreselected options. The preselected options are not announced until after the bid is posted to prevent dishonestly low prices on preselected options and to promote competitive prices throughout the contract document. The bidders therefore do not know which options are preselected when they are composing their bids. There is nothing to be gained by a bidder loading a particular option with a high markup, because the bidder cannot guarantee that the option will not be preselected. The bid evaluation price is the base truck price plus the price of the combined chosen preselected options. DMS received numerous bids on the ITB, including a bid from Petitioner and Intervenor. Atlantic Ford bid a combined price of $38,737.00, and was the apparent low bidder; Duval Ford bid a combined price of $39,944.00 and was the apparent second low bidder. Upon receipt of the bids from the bidders, the bids were held in a locked room until the bid opening. After the bid opening, the purchasing specialist assigned to this bid reviewed each bid for conformity to the general non-technical specifications. Only the Bureau of Procurement is responsible for the nontechnical review although other Bureaus or Divisions may review and have input into the review process. However, these other Divisions' input is not binding. In the nontechnical review the purchasing specialist reviewed each bid's signatures, whether or not the bid was signed in ink, and numerous other requirements. The purchasing specialist also reviewed the bids to determine if all base bid blanks and price blanks for preselected options were filled in and that no corrections were made to those prices without a bidder's initials acknowledging the change. The bids which failed to meet the general conditions of the bid for base bid items and preselected options were rejected as nonresponsive bids. After the initial nontechnical review, the bids were sent to the Division of Motor Vehicles and Watercraft for a technical evaluation. However, since each bid document contains bids for several trucks, there may be a mixture of responsive and nonresponsive bids for various trucks in the same document and the Division of Motor Vehicles and Watercraft may receive responsive and nonresponsive bids for technical review. John Bevins of the Division of Motor Vehicles and Watercraft reviewed the technical parts of the bid. This information included manufacturer's codes for options and base truck features as well as the manufacturer's retail price which no bidder can exceed. After John Bevins completed his review, he filled out a bid rejection recommendation form. John Bevins chose to include nontechnical items in his recommendation, although this was beyond the scope of his review. Mr. Bevins indicated on his bid evaluation form that Atlantic Ford failed to initial a typewritten correction on option 8206 of truck 150. Mr. Bevins returned the reviewed bids to the purchasing specialist along with his recommendation that Atlantic Ford's bid was not responsive since it failed to initial the typewritten correction on option 8206. The purchasing specialist discussed the failure of Atlantic Ford to initial the typewritten correction on option 8206 with H. P. Barker, Jr., the Bureau Chief of Procurement. H. P. Barker, Jr. has the final authority within the Bureau of Procurement to decide if a bid is responsive. He is the customary agency decision-maker on these matters. After careful consideration and discussion, H. P. Barker, Jr., determined that the failure of Atlantic Ford to initial the typewritten correction on a credit is a minor irregularity according to the Department's purchasing rules, since option 8206 was a nonpreselected option and did not effect the total bid price for determining the lowest bidder. Barker's decision was based on the State's interest in obtaining trucks at the lowest price, thereby obtaining the most goods per contracting dollar. Duval Ford conceded that the typewritten correction was faint and does not appear on photocopies of the bid. Barker testified that DMS accepts photocopies of bids. If Atlantic Ford had submitted a photocopy of its bid, as it could have legally done, then the typewritten correction would probably not have been noted by the Department or the other bidders. Barker also testified that bids are not rejected if nonpreselected option blanks are not filled in. Dealers can choose not to offer all nonpreselected options. Finally, in this case option 8206 was a credit. Even if a purchaser under the contract orders option 8206, it will pay six dollars ($6.00) less for the overall truck from Atlantic Ford than if the truck was ordered from Duval Ford. Duval Ford offered evidence from 1991, that DMS had rejected a bid of another dealer for failure to initial a price change on a nonpreselected option. However, Nelson Easom, Duval Ford's manager had not been able to discover any similar rejections in the subsequent two years. Barker testified that the policy regarding noninitialed nonpreselected options changed three years ago. DMS then decided to treat them as minor irregularities. The policy change was based on the public policy to award the lowest bid whenever possible and to prevent minor deviations in bids from causing the state to pay higher prices for goods and services. Moreover, the evidence did not show any abuse of the bid process which would occur should price changes not be initialed. The alleged "protection" afforded to bidders by requiring every change to be initialed is at best tenuous since any fraudulent price changes could easily be recognized by the party against whom the change was made. Given these facts, this case over initials appears to be much ado about nothing, and the failure of Atlantic Ford to initial its price change on a nonpreselected option is a minor irregularity and waiveable by DMS. DMS therefore did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner by waiving the irregularity and awarding the bid to Atlantic Ford.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order in this case dismissing Petitioner's formal protest and awarding the contract for the Project to Atlantic Ford. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6790BID The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19, of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. Paragraphs 15 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact was legal argument. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 17, 18, 21 and 24 of the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 11 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. 9. The facts contained in paragraphs 22 and 23 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Cook Howell, III Howell, O'Neal & Johnson Suite 1100 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cindy Horne Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Kerri L. Barsh Attorney at Law Greenberg Traurig et al. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Paul A. Rowell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Management Services 312 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 William H. Lindner Secretary Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 22nd day of December, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
