The Issue This case concerns a challenge to the validity of Rules 13A-1.001(12), 13A- 1.002(1)(b) and 13A-1.002(3) , Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT) put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) as RFP-DOT-88-0l. Through this RFP the agency sought to acquire a new barrier and ticket toll collection system which would automate the toll collection operations and retrieval of audit data, having in mind increased reliability and performance. The project is principally one which envisions the purchase of commodities. It has an associated service component. Section 287.062(1)(e), Florida Statutes together with Section 287.073(3), Florida Statutes, established the basic authority for the award of RFP-DOT-88-01. The agency received responses in March, 1989, from three companies. The offerors were Petitioner and Intervenor and one other concern. The other company was AGS Informations, Inc. (AGS). Following evaluation DOT determined on May 18, 1989 to reject the Intervenor's proposal as nonresponsive. This rejection was followed by the Intervenor's notice of protest on Nay 25, 1989. A formal written protest was made on June 6, 1989. On July 31, 1989, Intervenor filed a notice of voluntarily dismissal of the formal written protest. This was addressed by the DOT final order of August 2, 1989 which dismissed the formal written protest. On November 21, 1989, DOT posted its intent to award a contract to Petitioner. This statement of intent to award was met by a notice of protest filed by Intervenor on November 27, 1989, followed by a formal written protest on December 6, 1989. The case was sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration and through response to a motion to dismiss the Hearing Officer in that case, DOAH Case NO. 89-6926B1D, entered a recommended order of dismissal. On January 22, 1990 DOT entered a final order dismissing Intervenor's petition and stating its intent to award the contract to Petitioner. An amendment to the January 22, 1990 order was made on February 21, 1990 reminding all concerned that the contract award was subject to review and approval by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the State of Florida, Department of General Services to decide the propriety of the subject purchase which was an information technology resources purchase under Section 287.073, Florida Statutes. On February 21, 1990, DOT sent notice to the three offerors that it was rejecting all proposals submitted. As described in the notice of agency decision, DOT was operating on the basis that a further review of the proposals revealed that the proposals by AGS and Intervenor were nonresponsive. It went on to say that to have competitive offerors there must be two or more offers submitted by responsive and qualified offerors. In this instance DOT felt that it did not have two acceptable proposals and did not have a competitive offer. Because the commodities sought were available from more than one source, it had decided to withdraw its notice of intent to award which was contingent upon the approval of the Governor and Cabinet. On February 27, 1990, Petitioner gave a notice of protest of the DOT decision to reject all bids. This was followed by a formal written protest on March 9, 1990. Although the decision to reject all proposals was not opposed by Intervenor, the motion by the Intervenor to intervene in DOAH Case No. 90- 1583BID was granted allowing limited participation in support of the DOT decision to reject all proposals. That outcome tended to create the opportunity for Intervenor to participate in any re-advertisement for proposals. As revealed in the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 90-1583BID, DOT utilizes Chapter 13A, Florida Administrative Code, in the procurement process. Intervenor participated in the final hearing in DOAH Case NO. 90- 1583BID. The DOT decision to reject all proposals in which reliance upon the rules under challenge are perceived to support that decision has an adverse impact on Petitioner. By that arrangement Petitioner loses the opportunity for the contract. Additionally, it is placed in a disadvantaged position in that the particulars of its method of responding to the RFP have been revealed and are now known to the competitors who might be expected to utilize that information in a setting where a re-advertisement takes place. Under the circumstances, Petitioner filed its challenge to the existing rule on March 28, 1990. Intervenor sought the opportunity to intervene in this case on April 4, 1990, and that opportunity was granted on April 6, 1990. Intervenor intends to participate in any re-advertisements of the RFP. In his testimony at hearing William Monroe, Director of the Division of Purchasing for Respondent, established that in governmental purchasing the terms "offers" and "proposals" are synonymous. This opinion is accepted. Mr. Monroe also established that Respondent believed that it was implementing Section 287.012(15), Florida Statutes, when promulgating Rule 13A- 1.001(12), Florida Administrative Code. Through the promulgation of Rules 13A- 1.002(1)(b), and 13A-1.002(3), Florida Administrative Code, Respondent believed that it was implementing Section 287.062, Florida Statutes. Respondent interprets Section 287.062, Florida Statutes, to require an agency making a commodity purchase to use competitive sealed proposals in instances where invitations to bid are not used. Mr. Monroe in speaking for Respondent indicated that this interpretation gained support from the language set out in Section 287.001, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Monroe the circumstance in which less than two responsive and qualified offerors respond to an RFP is one in which the procuring agency must reject all proposals or seek the approval from Respondent to negotiate with the one responsive offeror or where no responsive offerors were received to negotiate with someone whom the agency has chosen. Likewise, a sole source purchase negotiation must be approved by Respondent. Mr. Monroe's testimony, in speaking for Respondent, indicates that Respondent interprets the terminology within Section 287.062(2), Florida Statutes, "no competitive" to modify the words "bids" and "proposals." Thus, it is incumbent upon an agency to receive authority to negotiate in those instances where it receives less than two proposals submitted by responsive and qualified offerors who are responding to a RFP in acquiring commodities.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation can reject all bids on State Project No. 37906-9007?
Findings Of Fact In response to an invitation to bid, petitioner C & S Chemical Company (C&S) submitted a bid, No. 9059-86, offering to undertake complete maintenance operations to ensure Rest Area facilities located on State Road 93 (1-75) in Suwannee and Hamilton Counties are maintained in a safe, attractive, clean and sanitary manner." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Invitations to bid were mailed in October of last year, (T.9), and bids were to have been opened on December 2, 1987. C&S's bid price was $14,860.76 monthly or $178,329.12 for the year. By letter dated December 9, 1986, however, the Department of Transportation (DOT) advised C&S that all bids had been rejected, stating that the "Department reserved the right to reject any/or all bids when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Department. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. C&S mailed notice of protest the same day it received the Department's advice that all bids had been rejected. C&S's formal written protest took the form of a letter, dated December 18, 1986, in which C&S inquired: [H]ow can the Department of Transportation offend and deprive legitimate contractors of this work by negotiating a Contract with a non-profit organization after the bid prices have been made public knowledge? Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. In this letter, C&S took the position that DOT should not reject all bids: We feel that if the non-profit organizations are going to get Department of Transportation contracts, they should either bid compet[i]tively with private enterprises, or that certain contracts should be set aside for them well advance of the bidding process. At hearing, Mr. Sperring narrowed or clarified the grounds of the protest when he stated, "I have no objection to the concept of the nonprofit organizations as long as they are set aside," (T.12) before bids are invited. The parties agree that, after bids were solicited, DOT decided to award the contract for Project No. 37906-9007 to intervenor Florida Association of Rehabilitative Facilities, Inc. (FARF), even though FARF never bid on the project. By agreement dated August 21, 1985, the Commission for Purchase for the Blind and other Severely Handicapped designated FARF "the central nonprofit agency of the Commission . . . [and its] sole agent." Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2. The day before, DOT Secretary Thomas E. Drawdy had signed a policy statement proclaiming DOT's intention "to procure commodities or services from qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped when feasible unless otherwise restricted by budgetary constraints." Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1.
Findings Of Fact In July 1988, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) seeking proposals to lease approximately 26,000 square feet of space for offices and client services in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. The ITB was the second issued, following the Department's determination that the first ITB did not result in an acceptable bid. Page 15 of the 16 page bid submittal form is entitled "Evaluation Criteria" and contains a list of weighted factors which are to be used in the evaluation of bids. In the second ITB, paragraph 3(b) of the criteria stated, "[P]rovisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other." (emphasis supplied) At approximately the same time as the Department's issuance of the second ITB, several meetings occurred related to concerns generated by the response to the first ITB. One meeting took place between Nelson P. Davis (the unsuccessful bidder in ITB #1) and Department representatives, including James Peters, HRS's District One Manager for Administrative Services. Davis currently leases to the Department, two adjacent buildings sited at 417 Racetrack Road, Ft. Walton Beach which comprise approximately 4,000 square feet less than the Department is now seeking. Davis' bid in response to the first ITB included utilization of a third building to meet the Department's space needs. 1/ During the meeting which included Peters, Davis, and others, it became apparent that there was confusion over the meaning of the word "location" in paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria. Peters understood the word to mean "building" while Davis understood the word to mean an area which could be the site of more than one building. Following the Davis-Peters meeting, other meetings occurred at which Department officials considered the issue. While some representatives of the Department believed that the word "location" was synonymous with "building," others believed the use of "location" to be ambiguous. To clarify the Department's preference related to number of buildings, an amended page 15 of the bid submittal form was issued on July 2, 1988. The amended form, entitled "Evaluation Criteria" states in paragraph 3(b), "[P]rovisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building... Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other." (emphasis supplied.) The amendment was issued at the direction of James Peters and was approved by Charlene Schembera, the District I Administrator. The amendment to page 15, paragraph 3(b), is a reasonable effort by the Department to clarify their intent in previous use of the word "location." The assertion by Davis that the change was made at the instigation of James Peters in order to prohibit Davis from successfully submitting a responsive bid of three buildings is not supported by the evidence. While James Peters has expressed on at least one occasion a desire to avoid entering into further business arrangements with Davis, he has stated that his personal opinion would not influence his participation in the bid solicitation process. The evidence did not indicate that his participation in the decision to issue an amended paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria was based on his negative personal opinion regarding Davis, nor did the evidence indicate that any other person involved in the process had negative opinions about Davis. Further, although some Department officials testified that a bid which contained more than two buildings would be deemed non-responsive and disqualified from consideration by operation of the amended paragraph 3(b), such a position probably is not tenable, but is not at issue in this proceeding in that the Department has not yet acted on bids submitted in response to the second ITB. The Department has valid reasons for attempting to concentrate its personnel and client services in a single building, or in as few buildings as is possible, 2/ however the Invitation to Bid does not restrict bidders in such a manner. The sole expression of the preference for a single building, or for not more than two buildings, is expressed in paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria on page 15. The amendment to page 15 of the bid submittal form does not appear to bar the submission by Davis or by any other bidder of a responsive proposal containing more than two buildings. Page 15 is clearly entitled "Evaluation Criteria." The criteria are nine weighted "award factors" upon which "all bids will be evaluated." Paragraph 3(b), as one factor for consideration in the evaluation process, expresses a preference for a single building containing the required aggregate square footage. The paragraph further advises that proposals will be considered but fewer points awarded for proposals containing not more than two buildings closely located. The weighting factor for paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria is five percent of total possible points. The clear indication of the amended paragraph is that proposals which contain more than two buildings will receive no points under 3(b). The Department's position would disqualify as non-responsive a bid of three buildings based solely on an evaluation factor worth five percent of the total available points. On the other hand, a bid containing two buildings, separated by not more than 100 yards, would apparently be responsive and would be evaluated, even if the two buildings were divided by a major highway or other substantial obstacle. The Department's proposed position is not logical, but is not raised herein since it has not yet been applied in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing Case No. 88-4392BID. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 9, 1983, the State of Florida, Department of General Services, Division of Construction and Property Management, Bureau of Property Management ("DGS"), received a certification of need from the Department of Corrections ("DOC") requesting authority for DOC to advertise for competitive bids from private persons interested in providing leased office space needed to house DOC's Bureau of Industries. The Bureau of Industries was then located in leased space with leases which were scheduled to expire June 30, 1983. The Bureau of Industries has been located in DOC's central office area since its creation in 1957. The DOC central office includes the Secretary and Deputy Secretary; the Assistant Secretaries for Operations, Programs, Management, and Budget. All these officials, together with subsidiary bureaus, staff, and other subordinates are located in two adjacent buildings of the Winewood Office Complex on Blair Stone Road in Tallahassee. The prison industry program is under the supervision of the industries administrator who reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Operations. DOC sought approval from DGS to enter into a lease for privately owned office space because of its perceived need to locate within walking distance of its central office. Programs administered by the Bureau of Industries work closely with other DOC personnel and functions located in the central office in the Winewood Office Complex. Moving any distance from the central office would create problems for the DOC mailing system and would require extra time spent traveling to and from the central office. Personnel in the Bureau of Industries utilize central office files, and confer often with staff located in the central office. Locating outside the general area of the central office would require additional expenses with regard to availability of vehicles, pick up of mail and supplies, and duplication of support services. Accordingly, DGS and DOC determined, and the record in this cause establishes, that it would not be in the state's best interest to require DOC to locate its Bureau of Industries program either in state-owned buildings in the Capitol Center, or in any area beyond walking distance of the central office location. On March 21 and 31, 1983, respectively, DOC published an advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat inviting all interested persons to submit sealed bids at or before 2:00 p.m. on April 19, 1983, in accordance with the Invitation to Bid and Specifications prepared by DOC for the office space needed to house the Bureau of Industries. A portion of the bid specifications required that office space to be leased be located within a circle drawn on a city map of the City of Tallahassee, Florida, which could roughly be described as the southeastern portion of the city, in the vicinity of the Winewood Office Complex. There were four possible bidders in the area within the circle on the map attached to the bid specifications. Of these four possible bidders, two within the area actually submitted bids--Blairstone Center Partners and Washington Square, Ltd. One of the general provisions of the bid specifications provided as follows: The Department of Corrections reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive any minor informality or technicality in bids received and to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and best. . . At or before 11:00 a.m. on April 19, 1983, DOC received sealed bids from Petitioner and Intervenors in response to the aforesaid advertisement, and at 11:00 a.m. on April 19, 1983, DOC opened, tabulated, and published each of the bids. The bid submitted by Petitioner was not responsive to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid and Specifications because the property offered by Petitioner in its response was outside the area indicated on the map annexed to the Invitation to Bid. The bid submitted by Intervenor, Blairstone Center Partners, failed to offer the full services specified in paragraph six of DOC's Bid Submittal Form; failed to offer the exclusive parking specified in the paragraph seven of the Bid Submittal Form; failed to supply the photographs specified in paragraph ten of Respondent's Bid Submittal Form; and failed to supply the information specified in paragraphs one through eight of the Bid Submittal Form. Accordingly, the record in this cause fully establishes that the bids submitted by Petitioner and by Intervenors Blairstone Center Partners, failed to comply with the requirements of the Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form, and that the deficiencies in the bids of Petitioner and Intervenor, Blairstone Center Partners, were so material as to require their rejection. The Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form required that bidders offer for lease 2,683 square feet, plus or minus three percent. The bid submitted by Intervenor, Washington Square, Ltd., offered 2,797 square feet, which is approximately 34 square feet more than allowed in the Invitation to Bid. After this fact was discovered upon opening the bid, DOC personnel contacted a representative of Washington Square, Ltd., and advised the net square footage offered in the bid submitted by Washington Square, Ltd., exceeded the net square footage of space that DOC was authorized to lease and pay for under the Invitation to Bid. Washington Square, Ltd., subsequently agreed to modify its proposal by relieving DOC from any obligation to pay for the extra 34 square feet, and reducing the annual rental for the first year from $26,012.10 to $25,695.90, and for the second year from $27,576.60 to $27,243.18. The record in this cause does not establish any misconduct or collusion between Washington Square, Ltd., and DOC personnel obtaining this modification, nor does the record in this cause establish that any actual or prospective bidders suffered any competitive disadvantage as a result of this modification. The effect of Washington Square, Ltd.'s modification of its proposal rendered that proposal the only bid which was responsive to the Invitation to Bid. On August 18, 1983, Washington Square, Ltd., executed a deed to the property which was the subject matter of its bid to Ben Grace. Washington Square also executed an assignment of the proposed bid award to Grace.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Corporate Interiors, Inc. (Petitioner) is the lowest responsive bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Petitioner) for stacking polypropylene and upholstered chairs for the New District Administration Building.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for stacking polypropylene and upholstered chairs for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received four bids, two of which were determined to be responsive. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and Petitioner was determined to have submitted the lowest bid. However, the Petitioner's bid did not include an amount for sales tax, and on that basis alone, the Respondent indicated its intent to award this contract to another responsible bidders. There is no dispute that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System. Nevertheless, Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The Respondent admitted at hearing that under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, it should hake waived the Petitioner's failure to include sales tax in the bib amount since this is inapplicable to this acquisition. The Respondent, in effect, concedes error in its previous notice of intent to award this contract to another bidder, and does not contest the Petitioner's claim that it submitted the lowest responsive bid for stacking chairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order awarding the contract for stacking chairs for the New District Administration Building to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX DOAH CASE NO. 90-2982 BID Petitioner filed a letter, but no proposed findings of fact upon which a ruling could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4-6. Adopted in part in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in part in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
The Issue Whether the Respondent's proposed award of a contract pursuant to an Invitation to Bid for the management of the citrus groves at Lake Louisa State Park to Intervenor is fraudulent, dishonest, arbitrary or illegal. Whether Respondent improperly notified Petitioner of the intent to award the contract. Whether the Respondent violated the terms of the Invitation to Bid (ITB) by doing any of the following: Determining that the bids were within five (5) percent of each other. Requesting additional information. Using 80 points to be awarded for percentage of return. Considering grove equipment in the evaluation. Assigning ten (10) points to the category "equipment." Not considering financial stability of the bidders. Not assigning points to either bidder for financial stability. Computing the points assigned to each bidder incorrectly. Computing years of experience for both bidders incorrectly. Failing to use a committee of three, one of whom was an accountant. Whether the Respondent was obligated to accept the bidder who would provide the most revenue, considering all the other factors. Whether a partnership existed between the Petitioners, and if so, how many years of experience to award to it. Whether Petitioners, as a partnership, have standing to bring this protest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which operates and manages state parks under its jurisdiction, pursuant to chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks (“Division”). Kenneth Walker and R. E. Oswalt (Petitioner, Walker/Oswalt) are general partners for various ad hoc business ventures. Earl Drawdy (Intervenor) is an individual. The Invitation to Bid (ITB) Lake Louisa State Park contains approximately 300 acres of citrus groves, of which, 167 acres are active trees (“Lake Louisa Groves” f/k/a “Dixie Lake Groves”). The groves had been abandoned for about a year prior to the state’s purchase of the land. In 1994, Earl Drawdy bid and was awarded a one-year contract to care for and harvest the groves. The contract was extended for one year and Drawdy maintained the groves until this bid protest. In preparing the Invitation to Bid (“ITB”), the goal of the Department was to obtain a 10-year contract with a third party who would care for and rehabilitate Lake Louisa Groves. The bid specification language was assembled mainly from the prior contract. A new scope of work was added and the draft agreement for the ITB was prepared. On January 3, 1996, Draft Specifications for a 10-year extension option for the Dixie Lake Groves in Lake Louisa State Park (Draft Specifications) were sent to interested bidders including, but not limited to, Kenneth Walker. The Respondent’s legal department subsequently prepared and approved the final specifications. The final specifications are entitled “Specifications for the Management of the Lake Louisa Orange Groves at Lake Louisa State Park” (“the ITB”). The ITB was posted at the Division’s District 3 office, located in Apopka at the Wekiva Springs State Park from April 24 through May 1, 1996, and sent to prospective bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor. The original deadline stated in the ITB to file sealed bids was May 5, 1996. On May 3, 1996, the Department notified all interested bidders, including Petitioner and Intervenor, by letters sent by Federal Express, that the deadline to bid had been extended to May 10, 1996. By May 10, two bids had been received, one from petitioner and one from Intervenor. Both bids were timely. The bids were opened on May 13 and evaluated on May 15, 1996. On May 15, 1996, the Respondent notified Petitioner and Intervenor by facsimile that it required additional information from them, giving them a deadline to respond of May 31, 1996. The Respondent requested a resume and an equipment list from Intervenor, and it requested an equipment list and a letter of intent that a partnership would be formed from Petitioner. Both Intervenor and Petitioner responded timely to the request. The ITB provided in pertinent part: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids shall be evaluated by a committee composed of at least three representatives of the Department. At least one of the three members will be an accountant who will evaluate the financial statements for compliance with this bid request. Evaluation will be based on the percent of return, past performance, experience, and financial stability. Up to ninety (90) percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten (10) percent will be based on experience and financial stability. In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within 5 percent of each other), the evaluation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid or give oral presentations in a final evaluation process. The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for operation of the grove. * * * The Department also reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in bids, providing such action is in the best interest of the State. Minor irregularities are defined as those that have no adverse effect on the State’s interest and will not affect the outcome of the selection process by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other Proposers. The Florida Park Service also reserves the right to reject all bids. The bid specifications allow a committee of more than three persons so long as one of them is an accountant. Pursuant to the provisions of the ITB, a committee was formed to evaluate the bids, consisting of Rosi Mulholland, district biologist; Cheryl Sweeney, district accountant; Norman Edwards, operations consultant manager; and Carla Ridge, administrative assistant. The committee consisted of four persons, one of whom was an accountant. Cheryl Sweeney was qualified to serve as the committee accountant by virtue of her position and experience. Bids were opened on May 13, 1996, by Ms. Ridge and Ms. Mulholland. Intervenor’s bid called for sharing 36 percent of gross proceeds of fruit sales with Respondent. Petitioner’s bid called for sharing 38 percent of the gross with Respondent. Between May 13 and May 15, Ms. Mulholland, Ms. Ridge and Mr. Edwards met and discussed the bids. Those members of the committee agreed that, based on the fact that the bids were nearly equal, the committee should request additional information from the bidders. Ms. Sweeney concurred with that decision after the fact. On June 3, Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge met and prepared a proposed point score for the two bidders. Later that afternoon, the full committee met for at least an hour to evaluate the bid information and proposed point score. The committee reviewed, discussed, and concurred on the point evaluation which had been prepared by Ms. Mulholland and Ms. Ridge. The committee evaluated the following criteria: percentage of return, past performance, experience, financial stability, and equipment. Requesting Additional Information The ITB states: In cases where proposers submit bids that are determined equal or very nearly equal (within 5 percent of each other), the valuation committee at its option may request proposers to submit additional clarification of information contained in the bid. Ms. Ridge subtracted 36 percent from 38 percent and got 2 percent, which she interpreted to be “within 5 percent of each other.” The rest of the committee concurred, and determined that the bids were equal or very nearly equal, and that additional information should be requested. This determination was proper under the bid specifications. Dividing 2 by 38, with a result of 5.26 percent, as Petitioner calculated, rounds to 5 percent. A 5.26 percent difference on a scale of 100 percent is very nearly equal and within 5 percent of each other. More information was needed about the intended formation of a limited partnership. Petitioner would have had to submit more information on that issue in any case. Equipment The bid specifications provide: Up to 90 percent of the points will be awarded based on the percentage of return for the Department, and the other ten percent will be based on experience and financial stability. The committee concluded, after having all the information before it, that the percentage of return should receive 80 points, so that points could be given for equipment. The committee determined that since the language said “up to 90 percent” the committee could reduce the points allotted for that category. The language “up to 90 percent” necessarily implies that some figure less than 90 percent could be used. The committee had not firmly fixed the 90 percent figure, and the bid specifications language put the bidders on notice that a figure less than 90 percent may be used. The committee’s use of 80 percent of the points for this category was proper and reasonable under this clause. The committee considered equipment in its evaluation of the bids. This category was added to the bid specifications by letter of May 15, 1996 to all bidders. Although the letter was not specifically labeled an addendum, the Respondent’s intent was to add “equipment” to the categories to be evaluated. Addenda are allowed under the bid specifications. Petitioner received notice that equipment would be considered, and submitted a list of equipment owned by or available to them. The committee members determined that certain types of equipment were necessary to perform the contract. For such a contract, it was appropriate for the committee to consider the equipment each bidder has to perform the necessary tasks. Without the proper equipment, a bidder could not perform the contract, no matter what the bid amount. The committee determined that 10 percent of the points should be assigned to the category “equipment” because equipment was necessary to perform the contract. Additionally, the grove was old stock and not irrigated and would require specialized care. The committee very strongly felt that equipment was an important and meaningful category. Assignment of ten percent of the points for equipment was not unreasonable or excessive. The committee considered and evaluated, through different members, the financial stability of the bidders. After receiving all the information, the committee determined that the ten percent of the points to be allotted to “experience and financial stability” should be allotted to experience alone. The committee determined that financial stability included the partnership issue, which was never resolved by them. The committee determined that the unresolved partnership issues would have a negative impact on the financial stability, points awarded on the basis of financial stability would have favored Intervenor. The committee considered past performance of Intervenor as a part of his experience. The committee did not give extra points to Intervenor for his past experience. The consideration of past performance was proper. Intervenor Drawdy was awarded 33 years of experience. This was based on Intervenor’s letter in his bid package in which he stated that he began in the citrus industry in 1963. 1963 was subtracted from 1996, which resulted in 33 years. Based on this, Intervenor was awarded a full 10 points. Notwithstanding the questions the committee had about the partnership’s experience, the committee decided to give Petitioners points for experience in the citrus business of each individual partner. Walker was awarded 0 points. Oswalt was awarded 29 years of experience. This determination was based on Oswalt’s biographical profile submitted with the bid, in which he stated that he began citrus management in 1967. 1967 was subtracted from 1996, with a result of 29 years. A ratio of 29 to 33 was applied, with a result of 9 points given to Petitioners. The committee’s calculation of the experience of Petitioners and Intervenor was flawed, but was not fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. The tabulation of points computed by the committee was posted at the District 3 office on June 3, 1996, in the same location the original bid was posted. This was in accordance with the bid specifications. Petitioners were notified by telephone, and a copy of the tabulation was sent to them via facsimile. Petitioner had actual notice on the date the bids were posted that the Respondent intended to award the contract to Intervenor. No written notice was required by the bid specifications. Notice was properly given to Petitioner by the Respondent. The point system was qualified by the Respondent, which stated: The committee and the Florida Park Service have no obligation except to select the bid which they consider best suited for the operation of the grove. The committee also determined that Intervenor was best suited to care for the grove, based on all the information available to it on June 3. The committee believed that it could make such a determination in the ultimate decision. Petitioner filed a timely notice of intent to protest the award on June 5, 1996, by facsimile. Petitioner filed a timely written petition for formal hearing on June 13, 1996 by certified mail. The Respondent notified Intervenor by letter on or about June 13, 1996, that a bid protest had been filed. Intervenor has not been awarded the contract. Attempts to resolve the bid protest informally were made at a meeting on July 19, 1996, and by letters and phone calls made between July 1 and August 20. There was no resolution. Standing/Formation of Partnership Petitioners intended to form a limited partnership to care for the Lake Louisa Groves, if they were awarded the bid. An unwritten general partnership was formed for this purpose at the time the bid was submitted. The Petitioners had previously formed partnerships in the past and have shared profits and losses. For each different venture, a new oral partnership was made. Most of the committee members did not know whether the bid was responsive or not on the issue of the limited partnership, and so made the request for additional information. Petitioner Walker signed the bid proposal on behalf of the partners. The bid was not a responsive bid since the entity which submitted the bid did not intend to perform the contract if it was the successful bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the protest of the Petitioners be dismissed and the contract for the Lake Louisa Groves be awarded to the Intervenor, Earl Drawdy. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan B. Brantley, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Edward P. Jordan, II, P.A. 13543 East highway 50 Clermont, Florida 34711 Kim Booker, Esquire 2752-A Enterprise Road Orange City, Florida 32763 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an invitation to bid on March 13, 1992. Bid number SB 92-244I involved the disassembly and removal of an existing walk-in freezer and the furnishing and installation of a new walk-in freezer at Coral Sunset Elementary School. The invitations to bid provided in paragraph Y of the Special Conditions: Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in Florida Statutes 120.53 3.(b) shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (sic) Bid specifications were included in the invitations to bid issued on March 13, 1992. Twenty-three bids were solicited. There were five responses. One of the responses was submitted by Choice Restaurant Equipment, Inc. ("Choice"). Choice is a vendor for equipment manufactured by Petitioner, Nor-Lake, Inc. ("Nor-Lake"). Nor-Lake is an out-of-state corporation with manufacturer's representatives in numerous states including Florida. 4, Petitioner, CHD Marketing Group ("CHD"), is the manufacturer's representative for Nor-Lake in Florida. CHD represents no other manufacturer of the product included in the bid response. Choice is a sales agent for CHD and other manufacturer's representatives in Florida. Choice sells the products of a variety of manufacturers but is the exclusive sales agent for CHD pursuant to a verbal agency agreement. Choice timely submitted a bid for bid number SB 92-244I on April 8, 1992, prior to the bid deadline of 2:00 p.m. on the same day. The successful bidder submitted its bid by Federal Express at 4:51 p.m on April 8, 1992. Respondent's Department of Purchasing and Stores (the "Department") had stated on March 13, 1992, when the invitations to bid were issued, that bid responses must be received by the Department no later than 2:00 p.m. on April 8, 1992, at the Department's address at 3980 RCA Boulevard/Suite 8044, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, 33410-4276. Prior to April 8, 1992, the Department relocated to a new facility at 3326 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. The new address was posted at the old location and Department representatives were present at the old address to accept walk-in bids. Federal Express first attempted to deliver the successful bid at the Department's old address at 10:30 a.m. on April 8, 1992. Federal Express delivered the successful bid to the Department's new address at 4:51 p.m. At 2:00 p.m. on the same day, The Department announced that all bids were in and opened the bids that had been delivered. The successful bid and one other bid were delivered on April 8, 1992, after the public opening conducted at 2:00 p.m. on the same day. Bids were tabulated on April 9, 1992. Bid tabulations were posted on April 13, 1992, and the successful bid was announced. The successful bid was for $8,174.00. Three bids were lower than the successful bid. Choice's bid was for $7,742.56. The other two lower bids were for $8,020.00 and $6,620.00. All three lower bids were rejected as non- responsive. Choice's bid was rejected because it did not meet bid specifications for 22 gauge steel, thermostatically controlled door heaters, and reinforced steel door panels. CHD filed a Notice of Protest on April 14, 1992, and a Formal Written Protest on April 24, 1992. CHD's protest alleges that: Choice's bid was lower than that of the successful bidder; the successful bid was not timely made; the bids were not opened publicly in violation of bidding procedure requirements; and the bid specifications were arbitrary and capricious, favored one bidder, and that Choice's bid was responsive. Neither a notice of protest nor a formal written protest was submitted by Choice or Nor-Lake. Neither Choice nor Nor-Lake attended the informal protest conference conducted on April 30, 1992. On May 7, 1992, Respondent's Office of General Counsel issued its written notice of proposed agency action. The written notice recommended that the bid be awarded to the successful bidder and that CHD's protest be dismissed for lack of standing. CHD requested a formal hearing on May 14, 1992, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer on May 15, 1992. The bid submitted by Choice was prepared by CHD but signed by the president of Choice. Neither Nor-Lake nor CHD signed a bid or were otherwise bidders of record for bid number SB 92-244I. Neither Choice, CHD, nor Nor-Lake, filed a notice of protest concerning the bid specifications within 72 hours after Choice received the notice of the project plans and specifications on March 13, 1992. The sole basis upon which CHD claims it is substantially affected is the adverse economic impact caused to it by the proposed agency action. The proposed agency action will result in lost sales from this and future transactions. CHD will lose commissions from this and future transactions. The dealer relationship between CHD and Choice will be damaged because Choice will not want to sell a freezer that is not acceptable to Respondent. The marketing strategy developed between CHD and Nor-Lake will be damaged because it is conditioned upon the award of public contracts.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Bid No. 88-030, and therefore entitled to the contract award.
Findings Of Fact The invitation to bid in Bid No. 88-030 contains specifications for two separate pieces of equipment which are to be used in the Respondent's print shop. These two items are: a) an offset duplicator with a "swing away," second color printing unit, and b) a camera/platemaker capable of processing silver masters. The Petitioner timely submitted bids on both items. On June 14, 1988, when the bids were opened, the Petitioner was the low bidder upon the equipment. The Petitioner's bids were disqualified by the Respondent, because the equipment offered did not meet the minimum specifications set forth in the bidding documents. A comparison of the minimum specifications for the duplicator and the manufacturer's specifications for the A.B. Dick #9850 duplicator that was bid by the Petitioner reveals the following differences: The specifications require the bidder to provide the Respondent with a duplicator that contains a 1 horsepower, D.C., drive motor. The A. B. Dick #9850 duplicator contains a 3/4 horsepower, A.C., drive motor. A 1/2 horsepower pump motor is required by the specifications. The literature attached to the Petitioner's bid does not reveal whether the A.B. Dick #9850 duplicator contains a pump motor. During the administrative hearing, Charles K. Hill testified that the A. B. Dick #9850 duplicator does have a pump motor. However, the size of the pump motor was not given. The specifications require a conveyor board with a jogging registration system. The A.B. Dick #9850 duplicator does not contain that type of paper feed system. Instead, the Petitioner's duplicator has a direct feed with a registration board. The paper travels only one-half of an inch in the duplicator so a conveyor board and joggers are not needed. Grippers accurately control the paper during the short travel distance. The Respondent specifically chose to require a conveyor board with a jogging registration system on a duplicator because the Respondent wants to have all of the controlling mechanisms it is possible to obtain on a duplicator within a certain price range. The conveyor board with a jogging registration system is a feature that is provided on duplicators in addition to a gripper margin adjustment and feeder bar system. The failure to provide this additional system is an omission as opposed to an alternate provision of a comparable system. The Petitioner submitted a bid upon a duplicator that did not conform in all material respects to the minimum bid specifications. The Petitioner' substituted a less expensive product with fewer features that ran on a different electrical current than the product sought in the invitation to bid. The comparison of the minimum specifications for the camera/platemaker and the A.B. Dick #148 camera manufacturer's specifications reveals the following differences: The specifications state that a reduction range of 60 percent and a magnification range of 125 percent are required. The A. B. Dick #148 camera has a reduction range of 64 percent and a magnification range of 105 percent. The specifications require a copy size of 20 1/2" x 33". The A. B. Dick #148 camera has a copy size of 23 1/2" x 26". The Petitioner submitted a bid upon a camera that did not conform in all material respects to the minimum bid specifications. The Respondent seeks a camera with a greater, and consequently more expensive, resizing range than the one bid upon by the Petitioner. The invitation to bid was liberal enough in its minimum bid specifications to allow competitive responsive bidding on comparable products from various vendors for the equipment and features sought by the Respondent. The bid posted by the Respondent from Standard Graphics, Inc., the apparent responsive low bidder, conforms in all material respects to the invitation to bid.
The Issue Whether Respondent has reason to reject the bids submitted by Petitioner to provide landscape maintenance services at two schools (item number 3 and item number 43 of the Invitation To Bid numbered SB 96C-56Z) based on Petitioner's performance of similar contracts in prior years.
Findings Of Fact On June 15, 1995, Respondent issued its Invitation To Bid number SB 96C-56Z (ITB) for landscape maintenance services to be rendered at various schools in the Palm Beach County district school system. Item 3 of the ITB was for landscape maintenance services at Bears Lake Middle School and item number 43 was for landscape maintenance services at Santaluces High School. The contracts for the various schools are awarded for a term of one year through the bid process, with the contract for the subject ITB to be for a term beginning July 21, 1995, and ending July 20, 1996. Similar ITBs for similar services have been issued by Respondent for each prior year that is pertinent to this proceeding. After the bids were opened, it appeared that Petitioner was the low bidder for items 3 and 43. Respondent rejected the bids of Petitioner for these two items and asserted, based on Petitioner's prior performance of similar contracts, that it would not be in the best interest of the School District to award items 3 and 43 to Petitioner. Petitioner thereafter timely protested the bid process for items 3 and 43, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and this proceeding followed. The award of contracts by the Respondent for items 3 and 43 has been halted pending resolution of this proceeding. Petitioner has been in the landscape business for approximately ten years. For a number of years, Petitioner has been awarded contracts following an invitation to bid similar to the one at issue in this proceeding. The number of schools awarded to Petitioner has varied from "a few" to 22 in one year. Petitioner was awarded contracts for several schools for the 1994 contract term that the instant bid process is to replace. Petitioner was unable to perform the work at all the schools that it was awarded and surrendered its rights to some of those schools. Petitioner retained its contract for several other schools. The work Petitioner performed on the schools it retained was not acceptable to the Respondent. The record is replete with notices to the Petitioner stating its work was not acceptable and describing the noted deficiencies. Several of these letters threaten to terminate contracts that had been awarded to the Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that its problems with the Respondent are the product of unreasonable inspections of its work by Joe Lawson and Tom Williams, who were hired after Petitioner started working on schools. Petitioner has filed complaints against with the Respondent against Mr. Lawson and Mr. Williams on two separate occasions which purport to document the Petitioner's mistreatment by these two employees. Petitioner's assertions pertaining to these two inspectors are not based on persuasive, competent evidence and are, consequently, rejected. Petitioner also argues that it has received no more notices of complaints than other providers when the number of schools are considered. This is contrary to the more believable testimony, which established that Petitioner received more complaints. Lee Ziomek is a buyer employed by Respondent who has extensive experience in public procurement. Steve Zwirz is a landscape site technician whose duties include technical writing, supervising contracts, and supervising personnel. Joe Lawson is Mr. Zwirz's supervisor. Following the opening of bids, Mr. Ziomek, Mr. Zwirz, and Mr. Lawson met to review Petitioner's past performance. As a result of this meeting, it was decided to recommend that Petitioner had not performed its past contracts in an acceptable manner and that it was not in the best interest of the School District to award these two contracts to the Petitioner. The numerous notices of deficiencies that had been documented by Respondent provided a reasonable basis to conclude that awarding these bids to the Petitioner was not in the best interests of the School District. The first page of the ITB form used by Respondent contains the following: AWARDS: In the best interest of the School Board, the Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that sustains the rejection of Petitioner's bids as to items 3 and 43 of ITB SB 96C-56Z and dismisses Petitioner's bid protest. Respondent's evaluation committee should resume the award process for items 3 and 43 of ITB SB 96C-56Z. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 23rd day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Steven Reynolds, Esquire 2628 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Cynthia S. Prettyman, General Counsel Palm Beach County School District 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813
The Issue The following issues were raised in the challenge of the award of the bid: Did Harris/3M fail to comply with Special Condition 28 of the Invitation to Bid, which required each bidder to provide references from two customers having similar equipment? Did the Department request a demonstration of the bid equipment under Special Condition 15? If such a demonstration was requested, did Harris/3M comply with the request? Were the machines bid by Harris/3M available under terms of General Condition 4(d)? Did the machines bid by Harris/3M comply with General Condition 4(f) requiring that the equipment bid carry the Underwriter's Laboratory listing? In response to Harris/3M's Motion for Directed Verdict on issue number 5, the Hearing Officer granted the motion on a finding that no evidence had been presented on this issue by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's compliance with the specifications was not at issue.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 15, 1986, the Department issued and advertised its Invitation to Bid 3162-86 related to the acquisition of 15 microfilm reader/printers for use in searching, reading and printing motor vehicle documents which had been microfilmed by the Department of Highway Safety. Microfilm reader/printers are essentially units of hardware into which cartridges of microfilm are inserted and the microfilm is passed through a camera which reflects the images of the microfilm onto a screen from which information can be read and copies printed. The Invitation to Bid required that the equipment must have a "controller," a device for automatically locating specific microfilm documents by the use of coded information or "blips" on the film. On or about January 5, 1987, responses to the Department's bid were submitted by Petitioner OSC and Intervenor, Harris/3M, together with bids from other bidders whose bids are not an issue in these proceedings. All bids were opened on January 5, 1987. The equipment bid by Harris/3M was the Model MFB1100 Reader/Printer with a "page search" kit or controller. Special Condition 28 of the Invitation to Bid states: "28. REFERENCES The bidder shall supply with his bid the names, addresses and telephone numbers of two references for whom the bidder has previously provided similar equipment being bid. If the bidder is unable to provide satisfactory references to the Department, the Department may, at its discretion, reject the bidder's bid if it determines that a responsive offer in full compliance with the bid speci- fications and conditions was not submitted. Failure to supply the references as required may result in rejection of the bid." (e.s.) Harris/3M provided two references in satisfaction of Special Condition Both of the references had versions of the Model MFB1100; however, neither of the references had the "controller" or page search kit, which was called for in the Invitation to Bid. Special Condition 28 was drafted by Merelyn Grubbs. According to Ms. Grubbs, the purpose of this requirement was to assure the Department that the bidder was responsible. "Similar" equipment is sufficient to assess the bidder's responsibility based upon machines made by the same manufacturer which performed essentially the same function. The MFB1100 without a page search kit is a "similar" machine. The two references provided were sufficient. Special Condition 15 states: DEMONSTRATIONS After opening of bid and prior to award of bid, the apparent low responsive bidder may be required to demonstrate to the Division of Administrative Services the equipment he proposes to furnish. If requested, a "working model" of the equipment bid and to be supplied in compliance with these specifications must be demonstrated in Tallahassee, Florida, within seven (7) calendar days from receipt of notification. If apparent low responsive bidder cannot successfully execute the demonstration, the Department shall revert to the next low responsive bidder and request demon- stration, continuing through the list of responsive bidders until a successful demonstration is achieved, the list of responsive bidders is exhausted or it is in the State's best interest to terminate the bid process. Demonstrations to be furnished at no expense to the Department." On January 7, 1987, Mr. Ray Boetch, the supervisor of the division within the Department of Highway Safety where the reader/printers would ultimately be used, wrote a memorandum to Merelyn Grubbs requesting that a demonstration be made on the Harris/3M Model MFB1100 Reader/Printer prior to the awarding of the bid. Mr. Boetch also discussed the matter with Ms. Grubbs indicating his primary concern was verifying the quality of the prints produced by the machine and whether it could print half pages. Ms. Grubbs spoke with Nick Vuillemot of Harris/3M about a demonstration of the equipment in Tallahassee. In these discussions, Harris/3M offered to fly representatives of the Department to St. Paul, Minnesota, the home office of the manufacturer, for a demonstration of the equipment. This was because Harris/3M had only two prototypes of the equipment and it was more economical for Harris/3M to fly Department personnel to Minnesota for purposes of the demonstration than to disassemble, ship to Tallahassee and reassemble the prototype for a demonstration. The Department declined to accept Harris/3M's offer. The Department accepted instead a demonstration of a Model MFB1100 without the controller or page search kit at the Division of Elections in Tallahassee, Florida. The MFB1100 without controller does not meet the specifications in the Invitation to Bid. The "controller" or page search kit is of modular construction in the MFB1100, which can be ordered with or without the controller or page search kit. However, the bid specifically calls for a reader/printer with a page search device. Following the demonstration of the MFB1100 without page search capability, the Department officially posted its bid tabulations on January 12, 1987, designating Harris/3M as the low and responsive bidder and OSC was the next low and responsive bidder. Item 4 (d). Conditions and Packaging of the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be new, current standard production model available at the time of bid. (e.s.) Item 18. Delivery Schedule of the special conditions required delivery of the items bid within 30 days of the bid award or, in the alternative, a substitute item acceptable to the Department at no cost to the Department. The bid submitted by Harris/3M certified that delivery of all 15 units would be delivered within 30 days after receipt of a purchase order. Although the Harris/3M Model MFB1100 Reader/ Printer without page search had been on the market for a number of months prior to the issuance of the Invitation to Bid, the Model MFB1100 with page search had not been authorized for sale by the manufacturer until late November 1986. At the time demonstration was requested, only two prototypes existed of the MFB1100 with page search capability. As of the date of the hearing on February 11, 1987, no Model MFB1100 Reader/Printers with page search capability had been installed in any customer location within the United States. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to support its claim that the MFB1100 Reader/Printer with page search did not have a UL listing.
