Findings Of Fact At some time prior to August 2, 1984, DOT issued bid blanks for a mini- contract for State Project No: 76020-3515, for work consisting of cleaning and guniting a concrete box culvert located on State Road 19, in Putnam County, Florida, approximately one mile south of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The bid package, signed by C. A. Benedict, District Engineer, for the DOT, specifically reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The bid package broke the work down into three item numbers. The first was mobilization and called for one pricing unit. The second item called for maintenance of traffic at the work site and called for one pricing unit as well. The third area called for restoration of spalled areas (gunite) and called for approximately 437 cubic feet to be priced. In this regard, the plans furnished with the bid package and the bid package itself, in at least three separate locations, called for the bid as to the last item to be priced and paid for on a unit price basis. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid of seven bidders. It was determined to be faulty, however, in that though it properly priced the first two items, it failed to submit a unit price for the third item per unit, submitting instead a total price for the third item based on the entire cubic footage. Petitioner's bid indicated 437 cubic feet priced at a total of $17,832.00. Simple arithmetic permits a division which results in a unit price for each of the 437 cubic feet of $40,805. This last unit price, however, is not reflected on the bid submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's bid is the only bid of the seven submitted which did not contain a unit price for each of the units in the third item. EDS has been in business since 1980. It performed one previous contract for DOT and is familiar with DOT's rules regarding bidding. It had ample opportunity to examine the plans and the bid blank before submitting its bid and admits that the unit price, though required, was omitted. Petitioner contends, however, that the omission is not a material variance and can be waived by Respondent. Respondent contends, on the other hand, that the failure to list the unit price in the third item is material. This determination is based on the fact that since the bid package calls for payment on a unit basis, the odd one- half cent per unit does not permit even money payment and requires rounding off. Even with this being true, the maximum difference would be one- half cent to be rounded off either upwards or downwards. At some point after opening, at least one of the unsuccessful bidders found out that Petitioner's bid failed to technically conform to the terms of the bid blank and at this point the second lowest bidder, Vann's Sandblasting, whose bid was $4,000.00 higher than that of Petitioner, and who had done several contracts for Respondent in the past, indicated that if petitioner's bid were not rejected, he would file a protest. The one-half cent variance, itself, is not material. Considering all factors, however, the failure to state the unit price may, under certain circumstances, be.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Petitioner, EXPLOSIVE AND DIVING SERVICES, INC., be awarded the contract for State project No 76020-3515. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gail S. Wood, President Explosive and Diving Services, Inc. Post Office Box 200 Clarksville, Florida 32430 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL 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 7th day of September, 1993.
The Issue Whether Respondent's rejection of all bids for Lease No. 540:0920 was improper.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent published an invitation to bid seeking to lease approximately 9,907 net square feet of office space in Broward County (the Lease). There was no evidence of any irregularities in the preparation or the issuance of the invitation. The Petitioner, whose responsive bid was rejected by Respondent, timely and properly brought its protest and has standing to protest the Respondent's rejection of all bids for the Lease. Lynn Mobley was the statewide lease manager of the Respondent and had the responsibility to generally oversee the preparation of the bid package and the bid opening procedures. Barbara Lollie was a staff member under the supervision of Ms. Mobley and was in charge of the preparation of the request for bid proposals. Ms. Mobley's supervisor was a Ms. Barron. Five bids in response to the invitation to bid were duly received by Respondent. An evaluation committee chaired by Don Walker, Respondent's area administrator, was appointed to inspect the proposed properties and to evaluate the bids. The evaluation committee ranked the bids in the following order of preference: 1/ 1. In-Rel ($499,141.80) 2. Taft ($519,090.30) 3. Donlon ($541,119.90) 4. Procacci ($618,373.30) 5. Stirlingwood ($761,906.30) Thereafter the responses to the invitation were forwarded to Ms. Mobley's office for evaluation. Ms. Mobley's staff determined that the top two bids, those of In-Rel and Taft, were non-responsive. 2/ Ms. Mobley, who did not actively participate in the evaluation of the proposals, then advised Mr. Walker of that determination and advised him of two alternatives: to award the bid to the lowest responsive bidder or to reject all bids and re-advertise. The evaluation committee chaired by Mr. Walker had wanted to lease the property to either In-Rel or Taft. Mr. Walker told Ms. Mobley that he wanted to reject all bids and to re-advertise. Pursuant to the request for bids promulgated by the Respondent and Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bid proposals for the Lease. The request for proposal of bids specifically stated: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the State, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. Following the telephone conversation between Mr. Walker and Ms. Mobley, Ms. Mobley sent a letter dated March 23, 1992, to all bidders which notified each bidder that all bids had been rejected. That letter did not state the reasons for the rejection of all bids. Mr. Walker sent a memo on March 20, 1992, to Ms. Lollie recommending the rejection of all bids. Although this memo predated the rejection letter and was subsequently made available to Ms. Mobley, the memo was received by Ms. Mobley's office after the rejection letter had been sent. The memo gave no explication of Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting to reject all bids. The Department of General Services (DGS) published lease rate guidelines for Broward County to inform the Respondent of maximum acceptable lease rates. The purpose of these DGS guidelines was to advise the Respondent that proposed lease rates above the guidelines would be summarily rejected. At the time of obtaining bid proposals, the DGS lease rate guidelines were the only established guidelines which could be consulted by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent calculate a pre-bid estimate of what the Respondent felt was an acceptable range of lease rates in order to be used in determining whether lease rates were too high. The Petitioner's bid, along with the other responsive bidders, were within the DGS lease rate guidelines. Mr. Walker made the request for re-bid after he learned that the bids of Taft and In-Rel were non-responsive. Mr. Walker's decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was based only on the information that the two top choices of the evaluation committee had been found to be non-responsive and on his desire to reopen the bid process in the hope of attracting more bidders. 3/ Mr. Walker wanted to modify the specifications of the invitation to bid in two regards. First, he wanted to amend the specifications to permit the leased premises to be in more than one building. Second, he wanted the geographical boundaries in which the leased premises could be located to be expanded to hopefully attract additional bidders. Mr. Walker believed that a re-bid would provide a wider range of buildings at comparable prices from which to choose and would give him an opportunity to make changes to the bid specifications. His decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was not based on a lease bid analysis or on lease rate guidelines. The recommendation was not dictated by budgetary considerations, but by his desire to shop the bid. It was Mr. Walker's understanding that at the end of his telephone conversation with Ms. Mobley that the decision to reject all bids had been made and that all bids would be rejected. Ms. Mobley made the decision to reject all bids pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Walker after obtaining input from Ms. Lollie and Ms. Barron. Although Ms. Mobley had Ms. Lollie's analysis of the five bids, that analysis made no comparison of the rates contained in the bids with existing lease rates or the DGS guidelines. Ms. Mobley did not consult the DGS lease rate guidelines, although she was generally familiar with those guidelines, and she was unaware of any budgetary constraints that would dictate the rejection of all bids. When Ms. Mobley decided to reject all bids, she did not compare the bid proposals to the existing lease rates paid by the Respondent for leased office space in Broward County. The decision to reject all bids was not made on the advice of an attorney. Although Ms. Mobley testified that all bids on the Lease were rejected solely for price considerations, the evidence presented established that the decision to reject all bids was not based on price, price guidelines, or the Respondent's budgeting constraints. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Mobley rejected all bids because that was the action recommended by Mr. Walker. Respondent's invitation to bid did not contain any lease rate guidelines that would notify prospective bidders of a lease rate ceiling. There was no significant difference in the lease rates between the Taft and In-Rel bids that were favored but non-responsive and the third lowest bidder, the Donlon bid, which was responsive but rejected. Mr. Walker conceded that the Donlon bid was not rejected because of price considerations. Mr. Walker was of the opinion that the Donlon bid was at an acceptable price. He did not testify that the Petitioner's bid was at an unacceptable price and he did not testify as to what, other than the DGS guidelines, would be the maximum acceptable price. The DGS Lease Guidelines applicable to the bid for the Lease were as follows: A full service Lease (including electricity) -- $17.84 a square foot. 4/ Lease without electricity -- $15.18 a square foot. The present rate for the existing lease which was to be replaced by the Lease was $16.60 a square foot; this rate did not include electricity. If electricity was factored in at $2.50 a square foot, which was a factor regularly used by DGS, the present lease rate would be approximately $18.00 a square foot. The three responsive bids to the invitation were lower than the present lease after factoring in electricity. Ms. Goodman was of the opinion that Respondent's budget with respect to the Lease would be based on lease rates already in existence and consequently, that the responsive bids received and rejected were within the budget guidelines. Respondent offered no evidence to controvert that opinion. There was no evidence that the decision to reject all bids was based on economic considerations. All lease rates submitted by the rejected bidders were under the ceiling set by the DGS lease guidelines of $17.84. The Respondent acted arbitrarily when it rejected all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent accept and evaluate the responsive bids submitted for the Lease and determine the proper recipient for an award of the Lease. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1992, 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 29th day of June, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., and Corporate Interiors, Inc., (Petitioners) is the lowest responsible bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Respondent) for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building, or in the alternative, whether all bids should be rejected as urged by The Harter Group (Intervenor).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received three bids, including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor, and one no bid. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and neither Petitioners nor Intervenor were determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. However, the Petitioners' bid was lower than that of the bidder to whom the Respondent proposes to award this contract. Petitioners' bid was $932,502.39, Intervenor's bid was highest at $1,101,509.90, and the bid of lowest responsible bidder, Haworth, Inc., was $1,072,286.50. The first reason given by Respondent for its determination that Petitioners' bid was not responsive to the bid specifications is that it did not include an amount for sales tax. Intervenor also did not include sales tax in its bid, but Haworth, Inc., which was determined by Respondent to be the lowest responsible bidder, did include sales tax. However, there was no dispute at hearing that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System, and that Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The second reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it omitted a required page from the approved form which was to be used to list those items in the bid proposal that were not in strict compliance with the Respondent's specifications. Petitioners admit that the required page numbered 00310-7 was not included in their bid, but maintain that it was not necessary to include this exact page since all items in their bid do meet specifications, and since a statement to this effect was included elsewhere in the bid. The lowest responsible bidder, as determined by the Respondent, did include this required page with a statement thereon that "all items comply". Intervenor also included this page listing 11 items in its bid which differed from the specifications. The purpose of this required page is to allow the Respondent to have a uniform, clearly identifiable place in each bid proposal where it can look to determine if the items in that bid meet specifications, without having to check every page of each bid. The third reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it included numerous pages of unit costs which were not called for in the specifications, without any explanation as to their meaning or the purpose for which they were included in the bid. Section 4.1.1 of the bid specifications, found at page 00100-11, makes it clear that no bid form other than that which is set forth in the specifications will be accepted, and specifically states that bidders are not even to retype the form on their letterhead, but are to simply fill-in a copy made from the form in the specifications. The Petitioners admit that their bid includes additional, unexplained information that was not called for in the specifications. A final reason given by Respondent at hearing for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it was accompanied by a bid bond, required by Section 4.2.4 of the specifications, in the name of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., while the public entity crime affidavit, required by Section 2.1.5, was subscribed to by Corporate Interiors, Inc. Petitioners' bid did not include a resolution or other evidence of authority that Corporate Interiors, Inc., had authority to submit a public entity crime affidavit on behalf of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., or that the affidavit submitted was valid as to Kimball. Thus, while Petitioners maintain that their bid was jointly filed on behalf of the manufacturer, Kimball, and the vendor, Corporate Interiors, their bid includes a bond from the manufacturer only, and a crime affidavit from the vendor only. Section 1.8 of the specifications, found at page 00100-2, specifies that the bidder is the person or entity that submits a bid. Petitioners urge that theirs is a joint bid, but they have failed to submit a joint bond or affidavit. Section 5.2.1 of the specifications allows the Respondent to reject any bid which fails to include a required security, or other required data. The bid which was determined by the Respondent to be the lowest responsible bid contains no technical flaws, errors or omissions, and the proposal meets all specifications for this project. The Respondent properly posted notice of its intent to award this contract to Haworth, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. Under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, the Respondent has the right to waive "any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and to accept the Bid or Bids which, in (its) judgment, is in (its) own best interest." Respondent chose not to waive any of the irregularities in the Petitioners' bid. This decision was made, in part, because of Respondent's previous experience with Petitioners in their installation of similar systems for Respondent at the Walter Pownall Service Centers in which there had been problems involving service during installation, coordination of the installation work, and verification that invoices received from Corporate Interiors did not exceed the bid base price, and that all items being paid had actually been received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' and Intervenor's protests of its intent to award a contract for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building to Haworth, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 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 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2863BID Petitioner and Intervenor filed letters, but no proposed findings of fact upon which rulings could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. 3. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 4. Adopted in Finding 6. 5. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 6. Adopted in Finding 6. 7. Adopted in Findings 6, 8. 8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. 10-12. Adopted in Finding 6. 13. Adopted in Finding 4. 14. Adopted in Finding 3. 15. Adopted in Finding 5. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 7. 18. Adopted in Finding 1. 19. Adopted in Finding 8. 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 Sue Olinger 1284 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, a tool company, should be required to repay funds that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workforce and Employment Opportunity (the "Department") alleges were erroneously paid under a North American Free Trade Agreement- Transitional Adjustment Assistance ("NAFTA" or "NAFTA-TAA") job training program for equipment that Respondent provided to two NAFTA-TAA trainees.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department administers NAFTA-TAA, a job training program established under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and funded by the federal government. The program provides vocational training for employees adversely affected by trade agreements made by the United States with Canada and Latin America. Once a business is certified as "NAFTA eligible" based upon diminished employment opportunities attributable to international trade, the affected employees are referred to the Department for evaluation by a local NAFTA coordinator. In consultation with the Department's local NAFTA coordinator, a participant chooses from training programs taught at various public and private educational institutions and vocational training facilities. The student is provided a training allowance that includes the cost of tuition, books and fees. The Department arranges to pay training costs directly, and to pay vendors for the required books, tools and supplies. In this case, the Department alleges that two students participating in the NAFTA program purchased tools from Respondent that were not required for their training as automotive technicians. The Department alleges that, by providing tools not required for training and obtaining reimbursement therefor from the Department, Respondent acted in violation of the "rules and practices" of the NAFTA program. The Department offered no evidence that it has promulgated rules related to its administration of the NAFTA- TAA program, and offered no evidence of a Florida statute or of federal statutes, rules or policies governing the Department's administration of the program. The Department produced no documentation to indicate that it has developed official written policies regarding its administration of the NAFTA-TAA program. Henry Broomfield, the Department's statewide TAA coordinator, testified as to the actual operation of the program. Mr. Broomfield stated that the program pays for tuition, books and supplies for up to 104 weeks. He testified that the participating schools are required to present a list of the books, tools and supplies that the student will need during training, and that reimbursement is limited to the items on that list. Mr. Broomfield testified that the list is limited to items required for training, and does not include tools that students may need in the field after they complete their training. The student and the Department's local TAA coordinator are provided with copies of the list. Charles Thackrah, an instructor at P-Tech, testified as to the development of the approved book, tool and supply list at his institution. The list was developed over time by Mr. Thackrah and his fellow instructors, and includes the minimum basic hand tools required to complete the objectives of the program. The list was not developed specifically for the NAFTA program, but is the minimum tool list for all students enrolled in the automotive service technology course. Mr. Thackrah stated that P-Tech does not require the purchase of tools outside the list. Mr. Broomfield testified that when a student needs particular items on the list, the student must contact the local TAA coordinator, who authorizes the purchase from a third party vendor. When the student receives the tools, the third party vendor sends the bill to the local TAA coordinator, who then forwards the invoice to the state office for final approval. Mr. Broomfield testified that a request for an unlisted tool must be made in writing by the student's instructor. The student brings the written request to the local TAA coordinator, who forwards it to Mr. Broomfield's office for final approval. The instructor must verify that the requested tool is necessary for training. The evidence established that, aside from one incident in which a student obtained approval for a special pair of welding shoes, neither of the students in question followed the approval procedure for unlisted tools set forth by Mr. Broomfield. On February 13, 1998, Howard Spangler of Largo was enrolled in the NAFTA-TAA program by the Department's local coordinator for the Clearwater area, Margaret Brewer. Mr. Spangler was enrolled for training as an automotive technician. Also on that date, Mr. Spangler received a letter approving his request for training. The letter stated that his training would be provided by P-Tech "at a cost not to exceed $4,400.00." The letter stated that this amount "includes tuition, books, supplies and fees." Also on February 13, 1998, Ms. Brewer provided Mr. Spangler with an "Applicant Acknowledgement Form" stating that $2,400 would be allotted for "books, equipment, supplies and/or tools. This is the total amount allowed for the entire length of your training, be it a one-week, or a two-year course." The form stated that "books, special equipment, tools and uniforms will be limited to those items required by the school for every student." The form also stated that when the amount allotted for training materials has been exhausted, any additional costs must be borne by the student. Mr. Spangler signed the form, acknowledging that its contents had been "fully discussed" with him. The evidence established that Mr. Spangler obtained from Respondent tools that were not on the approved list at a total price of $4,336.92, and that the Department paid Respondent for those purchases. Mr. Spangler testified that he was aware of the limits set forth in the letter and acknowledgement form, and of the approved list of tools, but also testified that Ms. Brewer told him that he could purchase items not on the list with his instructor's approval. He stated that Ms. Brewer never told him that her approval was required for purchases of tools not on the list. Mr. Spangler testified that he approached Ms. Brewer about a pair of special shoes for his welding course. Although the welding shoes were on the approved list, Mr. Spangler wanted Ms. Brewer's approval for his purchase because he paid more for them than the price shown on the list. Mr. Spangler testified that during this conversation he also asked Ms. Brewer about purchasing tools not on the list, and that Ms. Brewer told him that he needed only his instructor's signature to obtain tools he would need in the field. Mr. Spangler understood the $4,400 limit on tuition, books, supplies and fees. Notwithstanding the limit, he purchased over $4,000 in tools alone from Respondent. He stated that he relied on Ms. Brewer's advice in making these purchases. Mr. Spangler testified that it would be difficult to hold a job in the field with only the tools included on the approved list, and that Ms. Brewer clearly imparted the understanding to him that he would be allowed to purchase whatever he needed for the field, if his instructor approved. Ms. Brewer testified that she always told the students that the state would not pay for tools outside of those on the list. She told the student that if he needed something special that the instructor believed was necessary to complete the course, then the student would have to bring her a letter from the instructor. She would then send the letter to Mr. Broomfield in Tallahassee for approval. Ms. Brewer recalled Mr. Spangler approaching her about approval for the welding shoes, but did not recall telling him that he could get approval for items outside the approved list. She testified that she would not have approved purchases of items not on the list without writing a letter of explanation to Mr. Broomfield and obtaining his final approval. The facts that Mr. Spangler approached Ms. Brewer for approval of the welding shoes, and that Ms. Brewer submitted this request to Tallahassee for final approval, tend to support Ms. Brewer's testimony as to what transpired between her and Mr. Spangler regarding the necessity of Department approval for items not on the approved list. Ms. Brewer testified that, as far as she knew, she had no independent authority to approve purchases outside the list. She stated that it was her understanding that the NAFTA program dealt strictly with the tools needed to complete the coursework, not with tools that students might need in the field after completing the courses. Ms. Brewer had no direct contact with the vendors, but relied on the students to convey the information regarding the NAFTA program to the vendors and to their instructors. Mr. Thackrah was Mr. Spangler's instructor, and testified that he did not tell Mr. Spangler that the NAFTA program would pay for tools that he would need in the field after completing his coursework. Mr. Thackrah stated that he did not have the responsibility to track the various programs that provided funding to his students, and that he did not know what the NAFTA program would provide. Mr. Thackrah testified that he was provided no written guidelines as what the NAFTA program would or would not pay for. He stated that anything he knew about the NAFTA program was conveyed to him by his students, who told him that NAFTA would cover anything they would need in the field. Mr. Thackrah recalled helping the students put together lists of tools they would need in the field. He assumed that NAFTA would pay for these tools, based on his students' explanation of the program. Mr. Thackrah testified that he might have passed along this understanding of the NAFTA program information to Keith Williams, Respondent's employee in charge of the P-Tech account. Mr. Thackrah did not believe he told Mr. Williams that the students were allowed to buy anything they wanted, but that Mr. Williams may have heard that from the students. Mr. Williams testified that he had an informal meeting with instructors at P-Tech, and that they told him that the NAFTA students were entitled to any tools that they would need in the field to perform an automotive technician's job. The instructors gave him no dollar limit on those purchases, and told him that the students needed only the instructors' approval to purchase the tools. Mr. Williams testified that these students must have "thought it was Christmas." Mr. Williams recalled that Mr. Thackrah was "probably" the person who gave him the information about NAFTA reimbursements. Mr. Williams testified that he took the P- Tech instructors at their word, because he had been dealing with them over the course of five years and never had a problem with reimbursements. On September 1, 1998, Robert Dennison of Pinellas Park was enrolled in the NAFTA-TAA program by the Department's local coordinator for the St. Petersburg area, Sylvia Wells- Moore. Mr. Dennison was enrolled for training as an automotive technician. Also on that date, Mr. Dennison received a letter approving his request for training. The letter stated that his training would be provided by P-Tech "at a cost not to exceed $3,950." The letter stated that this amount "includes tuition, books, supplies and fees." Also on September 1, 1998, Ms. Wells-Moore provided Mr. Dennison with an "Applicant Acknowledgement Form" stating that $450 would be allotted for "books, equipment, supplies and/or tools. This is the total amount allowed for the entire length of your training, be it a one-week, or a two year course." The form stated that "books, special equipment, tools and uniforms will be limited to those items required by the school for every student." The form also stated that when the amount allotted for training materials has been exhausted, any additional costs must be borne by the student. Mr. Dennison signed the form, acknowledging that its contents had been "fully discussed" with him. The evidence established that Mr. Dennison obtained from Respondent tools that were not on the approved list at a total price of $8,046.79, and that the Department paid Respondent for those purchases. Mr. Dennison testified that he looked at the list of approved tools and concluded that no one could do a mechanic's job with those tools. He asked Ms. Wells-Moore if other tools would be provided, and she said they would. Mr. Dennison did not recall whether Ms. Wells-Moore told him that he would need her approval for purchases outside the list. He testified that, as he understood the NAFTA program, he believed all the tools he purchased were authorized. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that her practice was to tell students that all their tools and supplies had to come from the approved list. She stated that students were required to come to the Department and obtain a voucher before making any purchases. The student would then take the voucher to the merchant and obtain the approved tools. The merchant is then responsible for sending the invoice to the Department of Labor for reimbursement. Documents entered into evidence at the hearing indicate that Ms. Wells-Moore provided written instructions to Jason Hoch, a salesman working for Respondent on the P-Tech account. These instructions were consistent with her description of the vouchering process. She sent these instructions by facsimile transmission on October 2, 1998, prior to the purchase of any of the unlisted tools by either Mr. Spangler or Mr. Dennison. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that she never told Mr. Dennison that he could purchase items that he would need in the field after completing his coursework. She stated that she was not authorized to approve such purchases. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that if a student approached her about a tool not on the list, her first step would be to contact the instructor to ask whether the student really needed the tool to complete the coursework. She recalled such a conversation with one of Mr. Dennison's instructors, and the instructor telling her that the unlisted tools in question were not required for the course. Richard Knight was Mr. Dennison's instructor at P- Tech. Mr. Knight provided Mr. Dennison with a copy of the approved list and told him that these were the minimum tools. Mr. Knight testified that he had no direct knowledge of the NAFTA program and was unaware of any authority he had to approve the purchase of tools not on the list. He never told Mr. Dennison that NAFTA would provide tools for use in the field. Mr. Knight stated that he never "approved" any tool purchases, but he did recall signing a list of tools that Mr. Dennison brought to him. He understood that his signature was to verify that these were tools that the student would find useful in the field. Mr. Knight never received any written guidelines from the Department as to allowable purchases under the NAFTA program. He recalled a former student in the NAFTA program who said that NAFTA would pay the students for anything they needed in the field. Mr. Knight testified that both Mr. Dennison and Mr. Spangler appeared to assume that NAFTA would pay for tools they would need in the field. Mr. Knight also conceded that he may have relayed the students' understanding to the Respondent's salespeople. Mr. Broomfield testified that he became aware of problems when a representative of Respondent called to complain that some of its invoices were not being paid. Mr. Broomfield could find no record of the invoices at issue. He investigated and discovered that Respondent was bypassing the local TAA coordinators and sending its invoices directly to Tallahassee, some to the wrong division within the Department. Mr. Broomfield testified that this explained why so many unauthorized purchases were reimbursed by the Department. When an invoice arrives at the Tallahassee office, it is assumed that the local TAA coordinator has investigated and approved the purchase. Under ordinary circumstances, the Tallahassee office does not conduct an item-by-item review; it merely processes the invoices and writes the checks. In summary, the evidence established that Mr. Spangler and Mr. Dennison purchased tools not on the approved P-Tech list valued at a total of $12,383.71. The evidence established that these students were provided written notice of the firm limits on the allotted costs for their training. The evidence established that Ms. Wells-Moore gave Respondent written notice of the proper procedure for processing its invoices, prior to any of the unauthorized purchases. The evidence established that Respondent bypassed this procedure, and was reimbursed for purchases that had not been approved at the local level. The evidence established that the Department was remiss in its administration of the NAFTA program. It has promulgated no written rules or policies setting forth the reimbursement limits of the NAFTA program. It provided no written guidelines to either the schools or the vendors regarding allowable purchases. Ms. Brewer frankly stated that she relied on the students to inform their schools and vendors as to the purchasing limits. Whether Messrs. Spangler and Dennison honestly believed their purchases were allowed, or whether they were manipulating the system, they might not have obtained the unauthorized items had the Department directly informed P-Tech of its reimbursement practices. The evidence supports the finding that Respondent at the least was aware that the NAFTA program appeared to be unusually liberal, and that Respondent should have made further inquiry. Mr. Williams likened the program to "Christmas" for its participants. He testified that the instructors explained that the students were entitled to tools they would need in the field. However, the instructors credibly testified that, if they told Mr. Williams such a thing, they were merely relaying what the students told them. At best, Respondent was content to rely on the information provided by the students rather than contacting the Department to seek confirmation. The fact that Respondent bypassed the local TAA coordinators, and offered no explanation for this breach of the billing procedure, supports an inference that Respondent's failure to inquire was not entirely innocent. The evidence established that Respondent knew or should have known that the purchases in question were not covered by the NAFTA program, absent prior approval from the local TAA coordinators and the central office in Tallahassee. The Department's failure to establish a system of informing schools and vendors of the program's requirements was sufficiently obviated in this case by Ms. Wells-Moore's contacts with Respondent's representative. Ms. Wells-Moore directly placed Respondent on notice of the Department's reimbursement practices, prior to the purchases by Messrs. Spangler and Dennison. At the hearing, Respondent asserted a claim that the Department still owes Respondent $14,119.59 for tools provided to Messrs. Spangler and Dennison. Given the findings of fact above, it is unnecessary to address this claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department enter a final order providing that Respondent is indebted to the Department for NAFTA-TAA program overpayments in the amount of $12,383.71, and that Respondent shall repay the aforesaid amount within six months following entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Corbett, Credit Manager Nestor Sales Company, Inc. 7337 Bryan Dairy Road Largo, Florida 34647 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary B. Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast The Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Findings Of Fact The Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid by which sought to lease approximately 21,000 net useable square feet of office space to be located in Tampa, Florida. This Invitation to Bid is referred to as Lease Number 590:1946. Three bids were received in response to the Invitation to Bid, and they were opened on July 29, 1988. Bids were received from the Petitioner, Structures, Inc., and a third bidder that has not filed a protest, and is therefore not relevant to this proceeding. All bidders were initially determined to be responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner and Structures, Inc., submitted bids involving the same office space and real property. Petitioners' bid for this space was lower that the bid filed by Structures, Inc., when compared on a present value rental cost analysis. Despite Petitioners' lower bid, Respondent awarded this lease to Structures, Inc., due to the receipt of a letter dated August 2, 1988, from Intervenor, the owner of the subject property, stating that, "Mr. Hartley (Petitioner) has no right to propose this property to the Department as Mr. Hartley and I have no agreements with respect to my leasing the property to him." On the basis of this letter, the Respondent concluded that Petitioners had no legal interest in the subject property and therefore did not have the requisite control over the property to submit this bid. The Petitioners' bid was determined to be nonresponsive. Petitioners did not present competent substantial evidence to discredit or refute Intervenor's contention that they lacked any legal interest in this property. It is undisputed that Intervenor owns the property, and Intervenor was present at the hearing to confirm that the letter of August 2, 1988, was, in fact, his letter. The Petitioner, James C. Hartley, was not present at the hearing. The only evidence presented by Petitioners of any alleged interest in this property is a copy of a telecopy letter dated June 29, 1988, filed with its bid, which purports to express the intention of Intervenor and Petitioner Hartley to enter into a lease for certain property described on an Exhibit A, which was not presented in evidence. Thus, there is no indication on the face of this document that the telecopy letter relates to the subject property. However, even if the letter does relate to the property owned by Intervenor, the agreement specifically states that Intervenor's obligation to enter into a lease with Petitioner is expressly conditioned upon Intervenor's approval, In his sole discretion, of any sublease with the Respondent. If for any reason the Intervenor disapproved of the Petitioners' bid and lease with the Respondent, according to this agreement, he could simply refuse to enter into any lease of the subject property with Petitioners, and thus, Petitioners would have no interest or control over the property, and could not then sublease it to the Respondent. Finally, there is no recital of consideration in the purported agreement set forth in the telecopy letter. Based upon a complete review of the evidence presented, it is found that Petitioners did not have a valid, legal interest in the subject property which would be sufficient to allow them to file this bid and propose this lease to the Respondent. As such, Petitioners' bid was unresponsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' protest Lease Number 590:1946. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of November, 1988. DONALD D. CONN 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 3rd day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4645BID Rulings on Petitioners' and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioners and Intervenor did not timely file a Proposed Recommended Order containing proposed findings of fact. Rulings on the Respondent' Proposed Finding of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 3-5. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 6-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 2, and as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. McFarland, Esquire 520 Second Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Robert L. Rocke, Esquire Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 Jack Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards facility 4000 West Buffalo Fifth Floor, Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, ADI and Youngquist Brothers were licensed well drilling contractors and qualified to bid on Bid Request No. 9237 issued by Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD" or "District"), Respondent. On July 23, 1992 the District mailed packets for bid requests to ADI, Youngquist Brothers, Inc., and others. On August 12, 1992 a mandatory pre-bid meeting for Bid Request No. 9237 was conducted at the District office. Representatives of ADI and Youngquist attended the pre-bid meeting. Responses to Bid Request No. 9237 were opened by the District on August 26, 1992. ADI's bid was for $159.50 per hour, and Youngquist's bid was for $200.00 per hour. Greg McQuown, District Manager of the Geohydrologic Data Section prepared the technical portions of this bid request and, following the bid opening, visited the facilities of both ADI and Youngquist as provided in Section 2.1.1.19 of the bid specifications to observe the equipment they proposed to use. Request for Bid No. 9237 requested bidders to submit an hourly rate for furnishing an experienced crew, the drilling rig and all equipment, materials, fuel and services necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the drilling rig to be used in drilling numerous monitoring wells as directed by the District. Although the bid is for one year, it is renewable for two additional years. Drilling contracts on an hourly basis are not frequently used in water well drilling contracts, but for this project, this type contract appeared preferable to the District due to the wide variations in well depths and drilling conditions. Speed of drilling is a very significant element in an hourly rate drilling contract. Section 1.17 of the general conditions of Request for Bid No. 9237 provides in pertinent part: If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer name and number. * * * The bidder shall explain in detail the reason(s) hoe (sic) the proposed equivalent will meet the specifications and not be considered an exception thereto. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to quote an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form. Section 1.11 of the general specifications provides: 1.11 BID DATA. Bidders shall furnish complete and detailed Bid Data as specified on the Request for Bid Form. Bids furnished without data, or incomplete submissions may be rejected at the discretion of the District. Exceptions to the requirements, if any, shall be noted in complete detail. Failure by the bidder to detail each exception to a bid specification or a requirement results in the bidder being required to meet each specification or requirement exactly as stated. Section 2.2.2.3 under Contractor Equipment and Services (exhibit 2) lists the following equipment: API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, no hard banding, square shoulders acceptable, 1,400 feet. API 4 3/4 inch steel drill collars 10,000 lbs. (approximately 200 feet). API 7 to 7 1/2 inch steel drill collars, 13, 500 lbs. (approximately 100 feet) are acceptable equivalent. Rig equipped with hydraulic torque equipment for drill collars and drill pipe. The drilling contemplated by this Bid Request is reverse air drilling in which an air hose is inserted inside the drill pipe and air from this hose facilitates a removal of the material through which the drill bit penetrates. ADI's Bid Proposal (exhibit 4) under Equipment List provides in pertinent part: Drill stem 4 1/2" flush joint 2 1/8 ID Collars 2 @ 3 1/2" X 20' 1 @ 6" X 20' -2 @ 7 3/4" X 30' * * * Above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools. The inside diameter (ID) of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe is 2 11/16 inches. This size pipe will allow use of a 3/4 inch air hose and still provide adequate area for the drilled material to be excavated from the hole being drilled. Further, this Bid Request proposed the use of 6 inch PVC casing to be provided by the District. Thus, the drill pipe and drilling equipment needed to pass through this size casing. The function of the drill collar is to provide weight on the drill bit to insure a straight hole as well as increase the speed of drilling. All else being equal (especially speed of rotation of drill bit) the greater the weight the faster the drilling. Standard API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe has an outside diameter of 4 3/4 inches and is the largest standard drill pipe that can be used in the 6 inch casing here proposed. Not only does the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed for use by ADI have a smaller ID than API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe specified, but also this is not a constant ID but constricts to this 2 1/8 inch ID where pipe sections are connected. This constriction can increase the turbulence in the pipe and slow the removal of the drilled material. The cross section area of a 2 1/8 inch ID pipe is 5/8 the area of a 2 11/16 inch ID pipe. Accordingly, drilling with the API 3 1/2 inch pipe can be much faster than with a drill pipe with a 2 1/8 inch ID due solely to the greater volume flowing through the 3 1/2 inch pipe. The 4 1/2 inch drill collars listed in ADI's bid proposal weighed in at 1100 pounds in lieu of the 4 3/4 drill collars and 10,000 pounds specified in Request for Bid. ADI contends that by adding the words "above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools" they clearly intended to provide all equipment demanded by the District. This is the type language which leads to contract disputes. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that they intended to commence the work, if awarded the contract, with the equipment listed on their bid proposal. On an hourly drilling contract this equipment is inadequate. All of these witnesses also testified they would use the equipment listed in the Request for Bid specifications if required to do so by the District. Neither Dave Robinson, Petitioner's superintendent who prepared its bid and attended the pre-bid conference, nor Jerry C. Howell, President of Petitioner who modified and approved the bids submitted, had ever used API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and were not familiar with the dimensions of that item. Yet they did not check to ascertain how the inside diameter of that drill pipe compared with the inside diameter of the 4 1/2 drill stem flush joint they had on hand. Petitioner further contended that the cost of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe was insignificant in determining the bid price submitted, and therefore, this discrepancy was immaterial and should not lead to rejection of the bid. Petitioner's bid failed to comply with General Conditions 1.17 in that it failed to explain in detail the reasons the 4 1/2 inch drill stem proposed for use meets the specifications which required a drill pipe with a substantially larger minimum interior cross section area. Petitioner's challenge to Youngquist's bid proposal as being non- responsive for not listing the API 3 1/2 inch pipe is without merit. Youngquist's bid complied with the provision of Section 1.11 of the General Specifications and McQuown's visit to Youngquist's facility confirmed that Youngquist had on hand all of the equipment specified in the Request for Bid Proposal. Petitioner was represented at the compulsory pre-bid conference by David Robinson, ADI's superintendent, who prepared ADI's bid package. Robinson testified that at the pre-bid conference he asked Mr. McQuown what was the inside diameter of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and McQuown responded 1 7/8 inches. Several other witnesses, including McQuown, testified that no questions were asked at the pre-bid conference about the API 3 1/2 inch pipe and all of these witnesses were fully aware that the pipe has an ID greater than 2 1/2 inches. McQuown's testimony that Robinson asked only about the inside diameter of the 4 3/4 inch drill collar shown in the bid specifications and he responded 1 7/8 inches to that question is deemed the more credible evidence. Robinson testified that he thought McQuown has misspoke when he said 1 7/8 inches but did not check available catalogues to determine the actual ID of this pipe to shed some light on the adequacy of the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed in ADI's bid. The more credible testimony is that Robinson was not misinformed about the ID API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe at the pre-bid conference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by American Drilling, Inc. to challenge the award of Bid Request 9237 be dismissed and that the contract be awarded to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6618BID Proposed findings listed by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those neither noted below nor included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 16. Rejected. Although there can be a slight variation in the internal diameter of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, there is no API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe with an inside diameter less than 2 1/2 inches. 18. Rejected as contrary to the credible evidence. Rejected. ADI fully intended to use the drill pipe and collars listed on its bid unless or until the District mandated a change to the equipment or tools specified. Both of Petitioner's principle witnesses believed the 4 1/2 inch drill stem listed could satisfactorily perform the required drilling. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted as a fact that after ADI learned it was low bidder inquiries were made to locate a source for the specified drill pipe and collars. At McQuown's visit to ADI, Jerry C. Howell assured him that ADI wanted to fully cooperate with the District in carrying out the contract when issued. Rejected that ADI's response was clear and complete as required by the specifications. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. Diversified was not a party to these proceedings. Rejected. Youngquist's bid complied with the bid specifications. By not responding to those items in the bid specification, Youngquist, pursuant to the General Bid Specifications, agreed to provide exactly the equipment specified by the District in the Request for Bid. 32. These omissions have never been deemed by the District to be grounds for rejecting bids. 33 -34. Rejected as immaterial. 36. Although McQuown testified that he did not pay a lot of attention to the general (boiler plate) conditions in the bid proposal, he recognized that the failure of a bidder to list equipment different than that contained in the bid proposal meant that the bidder intended to supply the equipment specified. See 36 above. Rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as immaterial. First sentence rejected. Rejected. First sentence rejected. 46 - 49. Rejected as immaterial. 51. Rejected insofar as Youngquist's bid is concerned. 53. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as improper and inaccurate interpretation of the contract provisions. Moreover, this is a question of law, not of fact. The bid specifications speak for themselves. Interpretation of these specifications is a legal not a factual matter. Last sentence rejected. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as fact, accepted as a conclusion of law. See 36 above. 63 Generally accepted. However, it is found that all parties recognize that it was not necessary for bidders to have on hand all equipment requested in the bid specification, and that ADI representatives indicated that they would like to start work with the equipment on hand and would do so unless otherwise directed. Proposed joint findings submitted by Respondent and Intervenor are accepted. Those not included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Manson, Esquire Mary Catherine Lamoureaux, Esquire Post Office Box 499 Tampa, Florida 33601-0499 Richard Tschantz, Esquire A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Mark R. Komray, Esquire Thomas Smoot, Esquire Suite 600 12800 University Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the District School Board of Collier County (the "School Board"), acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications, in accepting the bid of Charron Sports Services, Inc. ("Charron") as the lowest responsive bid to School Board Invitation to Bid No. 197-3/02 (the "ITB").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On or about April 3, 2002, the School Board published its first advertisement of ITB No. 197-3/02, Stadium Bleacher Renovations. The ITB sought bids for the rehabilitation and renovation of permanent grandstand structures at five Collier County high schools: Barron Collier High School, Naples High School, Lely High School, Gulf Coast High School, and Immokalee High School. The ITB had its origins in a biennial inspection of the grandstands conducted by Dr. Robert Mitchell, a consulting engineer, in January 2002. Pursuant to contract with the School Board, Dr. Mitchell has conducted these inspections since at least 1996. His inspection sought to identify hazardous conditions to users of the grandstands and to recommend repairs and renovations necessary to bring the structures into compliance with the National Fire Protection Association's National Fire Code, Chapter 102, "Standard for Grandstands, Folding and Telescopic Seating, Tents, and Membrane Structures," most recently updated in 1995. From his field notes, Dr. Mitchell compiled a recommended scope of work for the grandstand renovation project. His scope of work was the basis for the specifications of the ITB. The ITB generally sought to bring the grandstands into compliance with Chapter 102 of the National Fire Code as regards railing heights and the floor and wall openings of the stadiums. Under the heading "General Comments," the ITB stated: The floor and wall openings will be closed completely unless otherwise specified. Special attention will be given to closing openings around press boxes and steps. The chain link fencing must have no sharp ends exposed to the spectators. The wires at both the top and the bottom of the chain link fencing must be manufactured with their ends bent back if they are both inside the frame and thus in contact with the spectators. The chain link fencing must be 9 gauge, galvanized steel. This fencing must be tied to the stadium framing and rails every 12 inches along each rail and at the top and bottom of the fencing with 9 gauge aluminum wire ties. No chain link that is removed may be reused in this project unless it is explicitly allowed by the Engineer. The chain link that is removed is the property of the Contractor. The hardware used to replace corroded fasteners of seats, flooring and walls must be made of composition 316 stainless steel and be the same diameter as the fasteners existing now. The ends of the bolts that protrude through the nuts must be positioned so that they are under the stands and thus the screw threads cannot be encountered by the spectators. Attach new framing to existing framing with 5/8 inch diameter bolts. Lock washers are required on all bolts. All fasteners that are 3/8 inch diameter and smaller that are used on this project must be stainless steel. Fasteners larger than 3/8 inch diameter may be either galvanized steel or stainless steel. All sharp edges or corners on framing that spectators might encounter must be removed. Pressure wash all concrete piles. Remove cracked, loose concrete from the tops of damaged concrete piles. Mechanically remove the corrosion products that are found on the reinforcing steel that was found to be exposed. Do not crack, break or pry concrete that is not loose. It will not be possible to access all the steel that is corroded. Clean the corroded steel with Ph- Ospho-Ric or an Engineer approved equivalent. Prime the exposed steel with Rustoleum 769 Damp-Proof Primer or Engineer approved equivalent. Paint the steel with an industrial enamel. Allow the Engineer to inspect the coated steel before replacing the concrete. Replace the concrete leaving the center of the top of the pile higher than the edges so that water cannot collect around the steel. Seal the tops of all the piles with Silicone Acrylic Concrete Sealer to prevent water intrusion. There are about 300 piles to be pressure washed and sealed. Prime and paint all wood that you add to match the adjacent wood. The Contractor must verify all measurements and quantities given in these specifications prior to submission of his bid. The ITB also set forth five pages of specific work to be accomplished at each of the five high school stadiums. The ITB included the School Board's standard form of instructions to bidders. Standard provisions relevant to this proceeding include: BIDDING PROCEDURES: All bids must be prepared in the format of the PROPOSAL FORM supplied herewith and submitted in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS. * * * c. Unless otherwise provided in any supplement to these INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS, no bidder shall modify, withdraw or cancel his bid or any part thereof for forty-five (45) days after the time designated for the receipt of bids in the advertisement or INVITATION TO BID. * * * PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF BIDS: Each bidder shall copy the PROPOSAL FORM on bidder's letterhead, indicating bid prices and bid days thereon in proper spaces. The bid prices and bid days shall be for the entire work and for any alternates specified. Any erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained or noted over the signature of bidders. Proposals containing any conditions, mission, unexplained erasures, alterations, items not called for, or irregularities of any kind, may be rejected by the Owner at its sole, complete and unrestricted discretion. * * * Bid documents shall be placed in one envelope and addressed to the Owner at the place the bids are to be opened, with full identification of the bidder's name, project being bid upon, and time and date set for opening of bids, and shall include: Bid Proposal (2 copies), Bid Bond, List of Subcontractors, (See Florida Statute Section 255.0505 and attached form 00430)(2 copies), Unit Price Schedule, (2 copies) if applicable, Contractor's Qualification Statement Florida Trench Safety Act Certificate of Compliance. Copy of Contractor's Professional License (FSS 489) * * * BID GUARANTEE: Each bid must be accompanied by a BID BOND in an amount not less than five percent (5%) of the total amount of the bid as a guarantee that bidder will not withdraw his bid for a period of forty-five (45) days after the scheduled time for the receipt of bids and if awarded the contract, enter into a written contract with the Owner satisfactory in form to the Owner.... * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: The bidder acknowledges the complete and unrestricted right of the Owner to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received. In addition, the bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a bid if the bidder failed to furnish any required bid security, or to submit the data required by the bidding documents, or if the bid is in any way incomplete or irregular. AWARD OF CONTRACT: Owner will consider base bid and additive or deductive alternates as may produce a net amount which is acceptable to the Owner. Award of the contract, if it be awarded, will be within forty-five (45) calendar days after the opening of the bids. All bidders are advised that they are subject to the provisions of Collier County School Board Policy FEFF entitled "Protest Arising from the Contract Bidding Process." (copy attached) Collier County School Board Policy FEFF, entitled "Protest Arising from the Contract Bidding Process" and dated November 4, 1982, was attached to the standard instructions and provides: This rule shall apply to protests relating to any contract entered into by the School board with a contractor or subcontractor pursuant to the provision of Part 11 of Chapter 23, Chapter 255, Chapter 287, or Chapters 334-340 of the Florida Statutes. Whenever the School Board makes a decision or intends to make a decision concerning a bid solicitation or contract award, the superintendent or his designee shall give notice of the decision or intended decision by United States Mail or by hand-delivery to all bidders. Within the notice, the following statement shall appear "Failure to file a protest notice within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." For any other School Board decision falling within the ambit of this policy, notice of the decision or intended decision shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by sending the notice by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested, to the bidders. Florida Statute Section 120.53(5) requires that "Any person who is affected adversely by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision and shall file a formal protest within 10 days after the date he filed the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120." (emphasis added) The quoted policy does not reflect that Chapter 96-159, Laws of Florida, repealed Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and transferred its substance to Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. The "Standard Form for Bid Proposal" or "proposal form" referenced in the general instructions required a base bid of the total price to perform all the work at all five high schools. The form then required the bidder to bid a price for each of the following alternates: Delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School. Delete all work except that at Naples High School. Delete all work except that contained in Addendum One [regarding handicap facilities at Lely High School, discussed below]. The alternates were included because the School Board was concerned that its budget might not cover all of the work set forth in the ITB. Richard Malick, director of maintenance and operations for the School Board, was in direct charge of the project and was the employee who directed Dr. Mitchell to prepare the bid specifications. Before releasing the ITB for public bidding, the School Board sought a bid on the work from Gulfpoint Construction Company, Inc., a company already under contract to perform small projects for the School Board. On March 19, 2002, Gulfpoint proposed to complete the work for $493,000. David Lesansky, the School Board's executive director of facilities management and Mr. Malick's immediate superior, determined that this bid was too expensive and directed Mr. Malick to release the ITB for public bids. The alternatives were included so that some work could proceed even if the base bids exceeded the School Board's budget. Extensive and conflicting testimony was elicited at the hearing regarding the budget for this project. This issue is more pertinent to DOAH Case No. 02-2948BID, because one of the School Board's stated justifications for ultimately withdrawing its award recommendation to Charron and rejecting all bids was that the project could not be completed within budget. The proposal form required bidders to provide the number of calendar days required to achieve substantial completion of the work, and the number of calendar days required to achieve final completion of the work. However, also included in the ITB was a "Standard Form of Contract" that stated firm completion dates: substantial completion by August 5, 2002, and final completion by August 12, 2002. The project could not commence before July 1, 2002. On April 24, 2002, the School Board's project manager, Michael Johnson, conducted a pre-bid conference to discuss the project specifications. Thomas Lombroia, the president of Intercoastal, attended this conference, as did a representative of Charron. Mr. Lombroia testified that the prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference generally agreed that the project could not be completed by August 12, 2002. Mr. Lombroia testified that Mr. Johnson addressed the bidders' concern by pointing out that the standard form allowed them to enter their own estimates of the time the project would take, implying that the firm dates in the standard contract would be negotiable. At the hearing, Mr. Johnson denied discussing that the standard form allowed the bidders to enter their own estimates of the time for the project, or even telling the bidders to fill in that blank on the standard form. Mr. Johnson testified that he told Dr. Mitchell to put the firm dates into the ITB because it was essential that the work be finished by the first day of school on August 12, 2002, and that he told the bidders those dates were "benchmarks" from which no deviation would be accepted. The issue regarding the time of completion is more pertinent to DOAH Case No. 02-2948BID, because one of the School Board's stated justifications for ultimately withdrawing its award recommendation to Charron and rejecting all bids was that the project could not be completed by August 12, 2002, the final completion date in the ITB. On April 24, 2002, after Mr. Johnson conducted the pre-bid conference, Dr. Mitchell took the prospective bidders on a walk-through tour of four of the five work sites. Also on April 24, 2002, the School Board issued Addendum One to the ITB. This addendum called for the construction of a handicap ramp, platform, and six wheelchair parking spots across the front aisle of the home side grandstand at Lely High School. On April 25, 2002, the School Board issued Addendum Two to the ITB. This addendum modified several of the original ITB specifications, in response to questions and concerns raised by the prospective bidders at the pre-bid conference and walk- through on the previous day. At 2 p.m. on May 7, 2002, the bid opening was conducted in Naples by staff of the purchasing department, supervised by Mr. Johnson. Charron and Intercoastal were the only bidders. Mr. Lombroia drove from Miami to attend the bid opening on behalf of Intercoastal. Charron did not send a representative to the bid opening. Intercoastal filled out the proposal form as follows: Base bid: $428,000 Delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School: $154,700 Delete all work except that at Naples High School: $102,800 Delete all work except that contained in Addendum One: $34,848 Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Substantial Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 120 Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Final Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 180 Charron filled out the proposal form as follows: Base bid: $216,714.13 Delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School: [blank] Delete all work except that at Naples High School: [blank] Delete all work except that contained in Addendum One: [blank] Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Substantial Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 100 days Bid of Calendar Days from Date of Notice to Proceed to Final Completion as required by 00800-12(18): 120 days Mr. Lombroia immediately questioned the responsiveness of Charron's bid because it left blank all three alternates. Mr. Johnson allowed Mr. Lombroia to review the Charron bid. Mr. Lombroia noted that Charron had included auxiliary pages that appeared to set forth prices for specific items of material and labor at each school, but he "couldn't make heads or tails of them." Mr. Johnson was noncommittal as to how the School Board would proceed. He told Mr. Lombroia that Nancy Sirko, the director of purchasing, would have to review the bid before any decision could be made. Mr. Johnson advised Mr. Lombroia to put his concerns in writing, and told Mr. Lombroia that he would telephone him later that afternoon. Mr. Lombroia left and began the drive back to Miami, with his cellular phone turned on to receive Mr. Johnson's call. After Mr. Lombroia left, Mr. Johnson called Ms. Sirko into the room to review the bids. Ms. Sirko reviewed the numbers set out in the auxiliary pages of the Charron bid. She added the prices for material and labor for Barron Collier High School, and arrived at a total of $75,324. She took this to be Charron's bid for the first alternate on the proposal form, i.e., "delete all work except that at Barron Collier High School." Ms. Sirko performed the same operation on the prices of material and labor for Naples High School, and arrived at a total of $45,215.40. She took this to be Charron's bid for the second alternate, i.e., "delete all work except that at Naples High School." Ms. Sirko totaled the labor and materials prices in the Charron bid for all five schools, and arrived at a figure of $211,428.42. Five percent of this amount is $10,571.42, which was the amount of the bid bond submitted by Charron. A summary sheet in the auxiliary materials stated that Charron's base bid was $211,428.42, jibing with Ms. Sirko's calculation. The summary sheet also stated that Charron added the cost of its bid bond ($5,285.71) to the base bid to arrive at a total of $216,714.13, the price set forth on the base bid line of Charron's proposal form. Ms. Sirko was unable to determine Charron's price for the third alternate, "delete all work except that contained in Addendum One." She stated that Mr. Johnson examined Charron's auxiliary pages for Lely High School and found three items of material and labor, totaling $16,760, that corresponded to the work required by Addendum One. Ms. Sirko took this to be Charron's bid for the third alternative. Ms. Sirko made no effort to match the items of labor and materials listed in Charron's auxiliary pages with the items set forth in the ITB's scope of work to determine whether Charron had bid on all the work, despite the fact that Charron's base bid was less than half the price bid by Intercoastal. Having determined a complete bid for Charron, Ms. Sirko concluded that Charron's was the lowest responsive bid. She prepared a notice of proposed bid award to Charron and posted it on the bid summary board outside the purchasing office on the afternoon of May 7, 2002. The notice included the prices bid by Intercoastal and Charron for the base bid and each of the three alternatives. The notice did not contain the statutory notice of protest rights and time limits required by Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. As noted above, Mr. Lombroia was on his way back to Miami and had no way of seeing this posted notice. Ms. Sirko made no effort to notify Intercoastal by mail or hand-delivery. Mr. Johnson never made the promised telephone call to Mr. Lombroia on the afternoon of May 7, 2002. At some point on the afternoon of May 7, 2002, Mr. Johnson contacted a representative of Charron. He asked this person to fill in the blanks for the three alternates in the Charron bid and send him the completed form. On May 8, 2002, Charron returned a completed form with prices that matched the prices derived by Ms. Sirko. Mr. Johnson did not explain why this contact with Charron was necessary, if he and Ms. Sirko had already constructed Charron's alternate bids through their own efforts. Mr. Johnson simply stated that he wanted Charron to fill in the blanks to ensure that any mistakes were those of the bidder, not the School Board. On May 8, 2002, Mr. Lombroia faxed and mailed a letter to Ms. Sirko requesting a complete bid abstract listing the bidders, bid amounts, alternates, and bid bond. On May 9, 2002, Mr. Lombroia faxed and mailed a letter to Ms. Sirko stating, "We respectfully object to the proposal tendered by Charron Sports Services, Inc., as non-responsive." The letter stated that Charron had not completed the standard form, and that Charron's bid bond of $10,571.42 was less than five percent of the amount shown on the face of Charron's bid. As of May 9, Mr. Lombroia still had no idea that Ms. Sirko had posted a proposed award of the contract to Charron. Mr. Lombroia still believed that the responsiveness of Charron's bid was under discussion and that no award decision had been made. On or about May 9, 2002, having had no response from any employee of the purchasing department, Mr. Lombroia telephoned Dr. Mitchell to learn whether he knew anything about the status of the bid award. Dr. Mitchell knew nothing about the bid opening. On the afternoon of May 14, 2002, Mr. Lombroia received a letter from Ms. Sirko, dated the previous day. Ms. Sirko enclosed a breakdown of pricing by school as she had compiled it from the auxiliary pages of the Charron bid, including the price for the work at each school and amounts for "freight" and "bid bond." The breakdown included a total price for the work at Lely High School, but did not break out the items Mr. Johnson had determined responded to Addendum One, the handicap ramp, platform, and six wheelchair parking spots. Ms. Sirko's letter stated, in relevant part: The spaces provided for "Delete" pricing were not filled out, which is considered a minor technicality that will be waived, as the submitted pricing breakdown by schools provides exact detail and exceeds the information required in the bid documents. The combined pricing for the schools adds back to the Base Bid of $216,714.13, which also makes the bid bond correct. All other required paperwork is present and in order and staff considers this a responsive and low bid. A recommendation for award will be presented at the June 6, 2002 meeting. Ms. Sirko's letter did not contain the statutory notice of protest rights and time limits required by Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Ms. Sirko testified that it had never been the School Board's practice to include the statutory notice in its correspondence with bidders. She stated that the statutory notice was contained in School Board Policy FEFF, and that the policy's inclusion in the ITB was sufficient notice to bidders of their protest rights. On May 14, 2002, Mr. Lombroia responded by letter to Ms. Sirko. He reiterated his contention that the Charron bid was non-responsive, noting that "Even your extrapolation of the submitted 'price breakdown by schools and freight and bond costs' fails to provide a bid for Alternate 3, the handicapped ramp, platform and wheelchair parking spots at Lely H.S." Mr. Lombroia contended that the submission of a price breakdown by school was itself contrary to the specifications and grounds for rejection of the Charron bid. Mr. Lombroia requested complete copies of all bid documents and correspondence submitted by Charron. On May 16, 2002, Ms. Sirko telephoned Mr. Lombroia to discuss the bidding of the alternates. She told Mr. Lombroia that Charron did not understand the instructions for bidding the alternates and so submitted its auxiliary documents with its price breakdown for each school. Ms. Sirko did not explain how she knew that Charron had misunderstood the instructions in the ITB. On May 23, 2002, Mr. Lombroia received a letter from Ms. Sirko, dated May 16, 2002. The letter stated, in pertinent part: Per our phone conversation this afternoon, please find enclosed the entire bid packet of Charron Sports Services. I checked with our Facilities Department and the budget for this project is $200,000, well within the range of Charron's bid. Your bid was more than twice that amount. As you will see on page 2 of the bid, the initial grand total is $211,428.42, of which 5% is $10,571.42 or the amount of the bid bond. Page 3 adds to this total a charge of $5,285.71 for the cost of the bid bond, to come up with the total of $216,714.13, which is listed on the Bid Proposal Form as the base bid. As far as the Delete lines not being filled out, again as I said, this is a minor technicality which is being waived as the breakdown by schools is attached. The cost for Barron Collier is $75,324.00; the cost for Naples High is $45,215.40, and the first 3 items listed on Lely's breakdown, which equal the cost of the requirements in Addendum No.1, total $16,760.00. In response to the "items not called for" on page 00100-3, item No.6, paragraph a., if you continue to read, it states "may be rejected by the Owner as its sole, complete and unrestricted discretion." Why would I reject a bid that tells me exactly what I'm paying for? There is no question as to any of the costs submitted for this project and therefore, no reason to reject this bid. I also told you that neither of the letters you submitted on May 8 and 9 constitute filing a notice of protest. You stated that staff present at the bid opening told you to put your concerns in writing, which you did. Voicing your objections and stating your intent to file a protest are two different things. Page 00100.1-1 in the "Bidding and Contract Requirements" section of the bid packet provides direction on filing a bid protest and it is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with this. Ms. Sirko's letter did not contain the statutory notice of protest rights and time limits required by Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Ms. Sirko's letter correctly and adequately explained the apparent discrepancy in the amount of Charron's bid bond. The documents in Charron's bid support the finding that Charron's bid bond was adequate to support its actual base bid of $211,428.42. Also on May 23, 2002, Mr. Johnson faxed to Dr. Mitchell a copy of Mr. Lombroia's letter of May 13, 2002. In a note attached to the fax, Mr. Johnson asked Dr. Mitchell to compose a letter recommending award of the contract to Charron for all of the work except the handicap work at Lely High School, at a price of $199,954.13. On May 24, 2002, Mr. Johnson faxed to Dr. Mitchell copies of the Intercoastal and Charron proposal forms. Mr. Johnson faxed the completed form that Charron submitted on May 8, not the original proposal form with blanks for the alternate bids. On May 24, 2002, Dr. Mitchell sent Mr. Johnson a letter on the stationery of Environmental Engineering & Training, Inc., recommending that the bid of Charron be accepted, less the work described in Addendum One, at a price of $199,954.13. At the hearing, Ms. Sirko testified that the School Board's rules do not require that a design professional such as Dr. Mitchell recommend award, but that it is the usual practice to obtain that recommendation. Ms. Sirko maintained that Dr. Mitchell's recommendation was merely confirmation of her own decision, made on May 7, 2002. Also on May 24, 2002, Intercoastal faxed to the School Board a detailed notice of bid protest, followed by a formal written protest on May 31, 2002. Intercoastal's protest alleged that Charron was not a certified, registered or licensed contracting company pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and thus was prohibited from performing the work specified in the contract. The protest alleged that Charron failed to include federal excise and Florida sales taxes in its bid, in contravention of the ITB's specifications. The protest further alleged that the pricing breakdown by school that Charron submitted in lieu of filling in the blanks on the proposal form omitted and/or altered significant work specified in the ITB. The specifications called for replacement of all galvanized steel fasteners that secured seats, steps, flooring and vertical panels on the Barron Collier High School grandstands with stainless steel fasteners. Charron's bid specified replacement only of corroded nuts and bolts. Charron's bid omitted the drilling of a 1.5-inch diameter hole through the concrete at the northwest gate of Barron Collier High School stadium to create a recess for the sliding vertical gate pipe. Charron's bid omitted the pressure washing, inspection, and sealing of the concrete piles at Naples, Lely, and Immokalee High Schools. Charron's bid omitted the requirement to remove the chain-link center gate at Lely High School, and omitted welding work specified on a galvanized angle gate at Lely. For Immokalee High School, Charron's bid omitted the requirement to replace missing seat board end caps, add a seat board to the top seats, replace missing seat, floor and vertical plate fasteners, and replace missing rail end caps at the north end of the press box. On May 28, 2002, Mr. Johnson faxed to Dr. Mitchell a copy of Intercoastal's notice of protest, requesting that Dr. Mitchell "review the complaint and let me know if it's valid." Mr. Johnson's fax also included the auxiliary pages from the Charron bid and the original proposal form with blanks for the three alternate bids. By letter dated May 30, 2002, Dr. Mitchell responded to Mr. Johnson as follows: Re: You requested me to examine Charron Sports Services bid documents and determine whether or not they indicated in them that they would preform [sic] all the work required in the specifications and addenda for Bid No. 197-3/02, Stadium Bleacher Renovations. Dear Mr. Johnson, Charron Sports Services in their bid documents indicate that they will preform [sic] the work described in the original specifications and the first addendum by quoting a base bid of $216,714.13. Charron further indicated that the work described in the first addendum is $16,760.00 of the base bid. My understanding is that [the School Board] intends to award just the work described in the original specifications. Thus Charron has indicated that they will do the work described in the original specifications for $199,954.13. The above is made clear on the STANDARD FORM FOR BID PROPOSAL. Charron's additional information as to the details of how they arrived at their bid was not required. This contributed information should have no effect on the scope of work defined by the Engineer in his specifications. Intercoastal Contracting is correct in saying that Charron's listing of the work in their bid documents is incomplete when compared with the specifications. Charron does not mention all the work listed in the specifications. (emphasis added) Dr. Mitchell's letter inaccurately stated that Charron's proposal form "made clear" that it would perform the work described in the original ITB for $199,954.13. In fact, the figure of $199,954.13 was part of Ms. Sirko's extrapolation, later confirmed by Charron. When questioned on this point at the hearing, Dr. Mitchell stated that he considered the proposal form plus the auxiliary pages to compose Charron's "standard form for bid proposal." Dr. Mitchell's testimony on this point is rendered incoherent by the next paragraph of his letter, which states that the auxiliary pages in the Charron bid are surplusage that should have no effect on the scope of the work. At the hearing, Ms. Sirko made a similar point: that Charron's auxiliary pages were essential for determining Charron's price bid on the three alternates, but they were irrelevant as to the scope of work to be performed. Again, this point is incoherent. The same pages cannot be both essential and irrelevant. The ITB specified the work to be performed, and required the bidders to submit a firm price for that work. Charron deviated from the ITB's instructions, and submitted a detailed list of work to be performed-- omitting several items specified in the ITB-- along with a list of prices for that listed work. Nothing in Charron's bid as submitted on May 7 allowed for the assumption that the price bid by Charron was for anything other than the work listed by Charron, which was less than all of the work specified in the ITB. The actions taken by Ms. Sirko and Dr. Mitchell contradict their testimony on this point. After receiving Dr. Mitchell's letter of May 30, Ms. Sirko telephoned him and asked him to "please touch base with Charron" to confirm that its price bid included all the work specified in the ITB, not just the work listed in Charron's bid. Dr. Mitchell made the call, and a representative of Charron told him that Charron did intend to perform all the work specified in the ITB. The evidence presented at the hearing established that the Charron bid was ambiguous. The actions of Ms. Sirko, Mr. Johnson, and Dr. Mitchell demonstrated that they understood the bid was ambiguous, despite their testimony at the hearing. At the bid opening, Mr. Johnson could not tell whether Charron had bid on the alternates because Charron left its proposal form blank. Ms. Sirko later pieced together from the auxiliary pages what she surmised was Charron's bid on the alternates, but she needed Mr. Johnson to call Charron to confirm her conclusion. Neither Ms. Sirko nor Mr. Johnson ever reviewed the itemized auxiliary pages of Charron's bid to make sure Charron was bidding on all the work. After Intercoastal pointed out that Charron's bid did not include all the items of work specified in the RFP, the School Board sought Dr. Mitchell's guidance. Dr. Mitchell confirmed that the auxiliary pages in Charron's bid did not include all the items of work, but maintained that was irrelevant because Charron's base bid committed it to perform all the work specified in the ITB. However, once again, Charron had to be contacted to confirm this interpretation of its bid. Intercoastal bid a clear price to perform all the work specified in the ITB. Charron's prices had to be pieced together from the auxiliary pages in its bid. Because Charron's auxiliary pages did not include all the work items specified in the ITB, it was unclear whether Charron intended to perform all the work or whether Charron was making a counter-offer to perform certain parts of the work at a reduced price. This ambiguity necessitated post-bid contacts and provided Charron with an opportunity to amend or even withdraw its bid, an opportunity not afforded Intercoastal, which submitted its bid in the prescribed format. The evidence did not establish that the actions of Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sirko, and Dr. Mitchell were motivated by any desire other than to secure the best price for the School Board. The ITB required the bidders to submit a "contractor's qualification statement" and a list of subcontractors. The School Board conceded that only a licensed contractor would be qualified to perform the work and that Charron was not licensed as a contractor in the State of Florida. Charron was a licensed contractor in South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. At the time it submitted its bid, Charron had applied and been approved to sit for the examination for the "Specialty Structure Contractor" examination. A specialty structure contractor is permitted to install screen enclosures and aluminum framing, and to perform masonry and concrete work incidental to such installation, but is not permitted to engage in any work that alters the structural integrity of a building, such as altering roof trusses, lintels, load bearing walls or foundations. See Rule 61G4-15.015, Florida Administrative Code. A specialty structure contractor could not lawfully perform all of the work identified in the ITB. Charron's list of subcontractors included a Florida company, Golden Eagle Engineering Contractors, Inc. ("Golden Eagle"), which was listed under the heading, "Builders Hardware." This was the bid's sole express mention of Golden Eagle's proposed role in the work to be performed. Charron's "contractor's qualification statement" included a copy of the Florida general contractor's license of Heather Calligan of Golden Eagle. Ms. Sirko testified that she interpreted the inclusion of Ms. Calligan's license as an indication that Charron intended to perform the contract under the supervision of Golden Eagle, and that Charron was therefore able to perform the work identified in the ITB. At the hearing, Intercoastal contended that an unlicensed contractor may not enter a contract for a construction project and engage a licensed subcontractor to supervise the project, because it is inherent in the common meaning of the terms that a "subcontractor" may not supervise a "contractor." The salient fact is that Charron's bid does not support Ms. Sirko's supposition that Charron intended to work under the supervision of Golden Eagle. Whether or not Intercoastal's contention is correct, it highlights the oddity of an unlicensed general contractor performing under the supervision of its own licensed subcontractor. Even if lawful, such an unusual arrangement would have to be explained in the bid. The only express mention of Golden Eagle in the Charron bid is as a hardware subcontractor. The inclusion of Ms. Calligan's license in the bid package, without explanation or express commitment, does not reasonably lead to the conclusion reached by Ms. Sirko. The bid contained no express statement that Golden Eagle would act as a supervising contractor. Viewed in the light most favorable to Charron, the bid was ambiguous on this point. The ITB stated that the project was subject to federal excise and Florida sales taxes, and those taxes must be included in the bidder's bid. Charron's bid stated that its prices did not include taxes because "we are not currently set up to collect Florida tax." The School Board contended that the failure to include taxes was a minor deviation, because the School board itself could purchase the materials for the project pursuant to its own tax-exempt status. The undersigned agrees that the failure to include taxes was a minor deviation, though for different reasons. First, inclusion of sales taxes in Charron's bid would not have altered the fact that Charron's bid was significantly lower than Intercoastal's. Thus, Charron secured no competitive advantage from failing to include federal excise and Florida sales taxes in its bid. Second, Charron bid a fixed price, and was expressly instructed that its price must include taxes. Had Charron not expressly stated that its price did not include taxes, the School Board would have been unaware. Inclusion of the statement imposed no additional cost on the School Board. Charron's failure to include taxes in its price would not permit it to pass the taxes through to the School Board. Charron's price was fixed by its bid, and the School Board could require Charron to absorb any costs above the accepted price, including the cost of taxes. On June 25, 2002, the School Board filed a demand that Intercoastal immediately post a $25,000 bond "that complies with all requirements of F.S. 255.0516." Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, authorizes school boards to require protest bonds in the amount of five percent of the lowest accepted bid for projects valued at less than $500,000. The $25,000 bond requirement applies only to projects valued at greater than $500,000. The School Board's demand, even if properly made, was excessive. The June 25, 2002, demand was the first notice provided by the School Board of an intent to require the posting of a protest bond. Intercoastal did not file a statutory bond.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the District School Board of Collier County enter a final order upholding the protest filed by Intercoastal Contracting, Inc. and withdrawing the proposed award of the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 197-3/02 to Charron Sports Services, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 4th day of November, 2002.
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. T1285 to Intervenor Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. ("K & R").
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: On May 14, 2008, the Department released its bid solicitation for Contract T1285. The proposed contract was for the construction of a one-way pair through Lake Alfred, including new construction, reconstruction, milling and resurfacing, widening, drainage improvements, lighting, signalization, signing and pavement marking and landscaping on State Road 600 (U.S. 17/92). Polk County, the location of the project, lies in the Department's District 1. Qualified contractors, including Mid-State and K & R, received an electronic disk containing the solicitation, bid blank, plans and specifications for Contract T1285. The letting date for this project was June 18, 2008. Bids were to be submitted on or before that date via Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. No party submitted a protest of the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The work to be performed on Contract T1285 included the installation of limerock road base to be paid for in accordance with line item 0175, Optional Base Group 09 ("Base Group 09"). The bid documents included a set of "Supplemental Specifications." Section 6 of the Supplemental Specification was titled "Control of Materials." Subsection 6-3.3, titled "Construction Aggregates," provided as follows: "Aggregates used on Department projects must be in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-103."2 Under the heading "Developmental Specifications" is a February 15, 2008, revision to the Construction Aggregates subsection that provides: Subarticle 6-3.3 (Page 54) is expanded by the following: 6-3.3.1 Department Directed Source for Aggregates: For this Contract, obtain aggregates for use in limerock base from the following vendor: Vulcan Construction Materials LP. Upon award of the Contract, provide the vendor and the Department a schedule of project aggregate needs. Once a schedule has been provided to both the Department and vendor, the Engineer will issue written authorization, with a copy to the vendor, for the purchase of aggregates from the vendor. This authorization is required before aggregates will be released by the vendor. Pick up the required aggregate such that the project schedule will be maintained. Payment to the vendor by the Contractor will be due upon receipt of the materials pursuant to the Department's Vendor Contract No. BDH50. This rate is the unit price agreed upon by the Department and the vendor and will be made available to bid proposal holders at the time of bid at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/aggregate /aggregate.htm. The Department will make payment to the Contractor for the aggregates on progress estimates as a part of the bid unit price for the appropriate pay items. The rate is subject to change and adjustments for such changes will be made to the bid unit price of the appropriate pay items. Disputes with the vendor concerning aggregate supply will not be cause for Contract time adjustments, time suspensions or monetary adjustments to the Contract amount. The Contractor will be solely responsible for providing the necessary advance notice to the vendor and other coordination to obtain timely aggregate supply for the project. The import of Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 was that all bidders would be required to obtain the limerock needed for Base Group 09 from a single vendor, Vulcan Construction Materials LP ("Vulcan"). The winning bidder would agree to pay Vulcan in accordance with a separate contract negotiated between Vulcan and the Department. The hyperlink provided in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.13 led to a document called "Aggregate Guidance" produced by the Department's State Construction Office. The front page of the Aggregate Guidance document contained "Bidder Information" consisting of a spreadsheet setting forth the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base and limestone coarse aggregate, with the price varying depending on the date and port of delivery. Between January and June 2008, the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base from both the Port of Tampa and Port Canaveral was $16.93. The Aggregate Guidance page contained additional hyperlinks with the following titles: "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," "Aggregate Vendor Contract," "Aggregate Vendor Projects List," "Aggregate Vendor Authorization Letter," "Aggregate Vendor Contract Frequently Asked Questions," and "Aggregate Price Adjustment Sheet." Alvin Mulford is the vice-president of Mid-State who, along with his estimator, put together his company's bid for Contract T1285. Mr. Mulford testified that his company has been bidding on Department work, and that he has never before seen a provision similar to Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Mr. Mulford directed his estimator to obtain clarification from the Department, to be sure that the bidders were required to purchase the limerock base from Vulcan. One reason for Mr. Mulford's concern was the "exorbitant" rate charged by Vulcan in comparison to other vendors. The restriction to a single supplier was so abnormal, and that supplier's rate was so out of line with the market, that Mr. Mulford decided to seek guidance from the Department through the question and response internet bulletin board provided by the Department for its projects. The question posed by Mid-State was as follows: Does the contractor have to use Vulcan materials for the limerock base at a rate of $16.93 per ton as stated in the Developmental Specifications 6-3.3.1? If so from which location is the material to be picked up? Is it also true that payment to the vendor (Vulcan Materials) will be due immediately upon receipt of the materials? I wanted to clarify this issue as it is unusual for the contractor to be limited to the use of only one vendor. The Department's response was as follows: The unit rate for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Pickup locations for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Payment should be issued by the Contractor to the Vendor (Vulcan Construction Materials LP) upon receipt of the materials as defined in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Because the Department's response did no more than redirect him to the Department's website, Mr. Mulford decided to look at the website in more detail. He investigated the hyperlinks, including the Vulcan contract with the Department. When he clicked on the hyperlink titled "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," he found a document that provided as follows, in relevant part: Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage by Districts With the execution of the contract with Vulcan Construction Materials LP, contract number BDH50, Vulcan has committed to provide aggregate in the types and quantities defined in the contract (attached). The process for this contract in Districts 1, 5, and 7, is as follows: Include in the projects identified in the attached spreadsheet the appropriate special provision beginning with the July 2007 lettings. The District Specifications Engineer and District Construction Office will need to coordinate this effort. There are two special provisions for the purpose of notifying construction contract bidders of the Department's intention toward the aggregate. The first special provision is the mandatory version that will direct the bidder to obtain aggregates for the specified work from Vulcan. The second special provision provides the bidder an option to obtain its aggregates from Vulcan. * * * After these projects have been awarded, the contractor is required to notify FDOT and Vulcan a schedule of its aggregate needs for the project. After receiving this schedule, FDOT's Resident Engineer will issue written authorization to the contractor, with copy to Vulcan. This authorization is required before Vulcan will release aggregate to the contractor. Payment to Vulcan will be from the contractor. FDOT will pay cost of aggregate on progress estimates as part of the contractor's bid price for the work. The contractor is required to include in its bid price for the work the cost of the aggregate at the Vulcan rate. The Vulcan rate will be posted on the FDOT State Construction Website showing the rate. When adjustments are made to the Vulcan rate, FDOT will make adjustments in the construction contract unit price. . . . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Mulford testified that he understood the underscored language in the hyperlinked document to be a directive to the bidders and therefore a mandatory requirement of the bid specifications. He did not ask the Department for further clarification because he believed the requirement was clearly stated in the hyperlinked document. David Sadler, the director of the Department's office of construction, testified that the hyperlinked document was developed by his office to offer guidance to the districts as to the concept behind and use of the aggregate vendor contract. The document was not a part of the bid solicitation document. Mid-State's bid price was $7,429,398.44. Mid-State's price for Base Group 09 was $619,645.80, or $19.30 per square yard. This price reflected the Vulcan rate for limerock base of $16.92 plus tax and Mid-State's costs for the work associated with Base Group 09. 19. K & R's bid price was $7,370,505.24, or $58,893.20 lower than the bid price of Mid-State. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $256,848.00, based on a stated unit price of $8.00 per square yard for limerock base. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $362,797.80 lower than that of Mid-State, accounting for more than the differential between the overall bids of Mid-State and K & R. Marcus Tidey, Jr., K & R's vice president in charge of its Florida division, testified that K & R was well aware that the Vulcan price for limerock base was $16.93, and that K & R understands its obligation to pay that price to Vulcan should K & R be awarded Contract T1285. Mr. Tidey testified that at the time of bid submission, he cut K & R's bid price to $8.00 per square yard as a competitive strategy to win the contract. Mr. Tidey made a conscious decision that K & R would absorb the difference between $8.00 bid price and the Vulcan price of $16.93. Mr. Tidey testified that K & R needed to win this job in order not to have its crews and equipment sit idle during the economic downturn, and therefore decided to take all of its markup, roughly $250,000, out of the bid. He could have made the $250,000 cut on any item or items in the bid, but decided on Base Group 09 because the limerock base was a big item and therefore easy to cut by a large amount. Mr. Tidey also testified that the contract provides a $400,000 incentive payment for early completion of the job, meaning that K & R will be able to work "faster and smarter" and make up for the price reduction at the end of the job. Mr. Tidey testified that he obtained the Vulcan prices from the Department's website as instructed by Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. He did not click on the hyperlinks, which appeared to reference the contract between the Department and Vulcan and therefore was of no concern to him. The Department and K & R dispute Mid-State's assertion that the underscored language of the hyperlink set forth in Finding of Fact 15 was a requirement of the bid specifications, based on Mr. Sadler's direct testimony and the underlying illogic and unfairness of requiring bidders to seek out hidden specifications. The Department and K & R concede that if the bid specifications did in fact require the bidders to include in Base Group 09 the full costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan, then K & R's bid is nonresponsive. Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 directed bidders to the Department's webpage for the purpose of obtaining the current Vulcan rate quote. It did not instruct the bidders to investigate the hyperlinks or to assume that the information contained therein was mandatory. Absent an instruction to bidders to review the information contained in the hyperlinks, the Department could not make such information mandatory without placing less curious bidders at a competitive disadvantage. The Department had no intent to play hide-and-seek with the bid specifications in the manner suggested by Mid-State. In addition, K & R points to three line items of the bid specifications in which the Department eliminates competition, instructing the bidders not to bid and inserting a fixed unit price and bid amount for all bidders as to those items. K & R reasonably asserts that the Department was fully capable of treating Base Group 09 in the same fashion, had it intended to require the bidders to pass through to the Department all the costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan. However, the Department supplied the bid quantity (31,106 square yards) and left it to the bidders to determine the price per unit they would bid. K & R's bid was responsive. Nothing in the bid specifications prevented K & R from absorbing part of the cost of the Vulcan limerock base and passing the savings on to the Department, or required bidders to pass on to the Department the full costs of complying with the bid specifications regarding Base Group 09. The sole remaining issue is whether K & R's bid, though facially responsive, was materially unbalanced. The Department routinely conducts reviews of bid line items that appear "unbalanced," i.e., for which there appear to be significant differences between the price bid and the Department's cost estimate, in order to determine whether the price difference is due to a quantity error by the bidder. The Department's review confirms that the bid quantity specified on the bid blank is accurate. If a quantity error is found, the bids are recalculated using the bidders' unit prices and the correct quantities to determine whether the bid rankings would change. A bid for which there is a discrepancy between the bid and the Department's estimate is termed "mathematically unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid that affects the ranking of the low bid is "materially unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid is acceptable, but a materially unbalanced bid affords the bidder an unfair competitive advantage and must be rejected. The Department followed its usual procedure in analyzing the K & R bid to determine whether it was unbalanced. Philip Gregory Davis, the Department's state estimates engineer, testified that there were some unbalanced items in the K & R bid, but no quantity errors that would have changed the ranking of the bids. Richard Ryals, the project designer who conducted the unbalanced bid review, testified that the quantities were correct for Base Group 09. As noted above, K & R's low bid for Base Group 09 was an intentional strategy, not the result of a quantity error. K & R's current bonded capacity qualification with the Department is $258 million in contracts at any one time. K & R posted a bid bond, and has more than enough capacity to comfortably perform this contract. There is no economic danger to the Department in accepting K & R's low bid.
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 Mid-State's formal written protest and awarding Contract T1265 to K & R. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2009, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued an invitation to bid (ITB) and solicited bids for district-wide miscellaneous property management maintenance services pursuant to ITB-DOT-94-95-4004. Kemp Services, Inc. (Kemp), submitted the lowest bid for the subject ITB. Petitioner, Urban Group, Inc., submitted the second lowest bid for the subject ITB. Section 1.1 of the ITB provided: Invitation The State of Florida Department of Transport- ation requests written bids from qualified firms to MAINTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY STRUCTURES AND VACANT LOTS BY PROVIDING CLEAN-UP SERVICES, LAWN SERVICES, LANDSCAPE SERVICES, SECURING OF BUILDINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS HANDYMAN AND SKILLED LABOR SERVICES. ALSO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR SIGN REMOVAL FOR STRUCTURES ILLEGALLY ON THE DEPARTMENT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ILLEGALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE COUNTY AREA: BROWARD, MARTIN, PALM BEACH, ST. LUCIE AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTIES. For the purpose of this document, the term "bidder" means the prime Consultant acting for itself and those individuals, partnerships, firms, or corporations comprising the bidder's team by joint venture or subcontract. The term "bid package" means the complete response of the bidder to the Invitation To Bid, including properly completed forms and supporting documentation. [Emphasis in text.] The services were to be provided on an as-needed basis for the term of the agreement, two years. Section 1.7.1 of the ITB provided: Qualifications 1.7.1 Bidders must meet the following minimum qualifications: BIDDERS MUST HAVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS EXPERIENCE PROVIDING AT LEAST TWO (2) OF THE SIX SERVICES OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES IN EXHIBIT "A". BIDDERS MUST HAVE BEEN IN CONTINUOUS BUSINESS FOR THE PAST TWO (2) YEARS AND COMPLETE FORM "F" WITH THE INFORMATION REQUESTED REGARDING WORK EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES. ALL REFERENCES WILL BE CHECKED. FAILURE TO PROVIDE FORM "F" AND THE WORK EXPERIENCE REQUESTED WILL CONSTITUTE A NON- RESPONSIVE BID. [Emphasis in text.] Section 1.7.4 of the ITB provided: Qualifications of Key Personnel Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project must have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise accepted by the Department's Contract Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the bid package. Section 1.7.5 of the ITB provided: Authorizations and Licenses The Consultant must be authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Such authorization and/or licenses should be obtained by the bid due date and time, but in any case, will be required prior to award of the contract. For corporate authorization, contact: Florida Department of State Division of Corporations The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904)487-6052 Other than the provisions above, no other licensure or authorization to do business was required by the ITB. Section 1.8.2 of the ITB provided: Responsiveness of Bids All bids must be in writing. A responsive bid is an offer to perform the scope of services called for in this Invitation to Bid. Bids found to be non-responsive shall 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, including, but not limited to, failure to utilize or complete prescribed forms, conditional bids, incomplete bids, indefinite or ambiguous bids, improper undated or unsealed signatures (where applicable). Section 1.8.4 of the ITB provided: Other Conditions Other conditions which may cause rejection of bids include evidence of collusion among bidders, obvious lack of experience or expertise to perform the required work, or failure to perform or meet financial obligations on previous contracts, or in the event an individual, firm, partnership, or corporation is on the United States Comptroller General's List of Ineligible Contractors for Federally Financed or Assisted Projects. Bids will be rejected if not delivered or received on or before the date and time specified as the due date for submission. Section 1.8.5 of the ITB provided: 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 irregular- ities are defined as those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department's interest and will not affect the price of the Bids by giving a bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Section 1.18.1 of the ITB provided: Award of the Contract The Department intends to award a contract to the responsible and responsive bidder who bids the lowest cost as identified in Form "C", Bid Blank, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The ITB did not specify a minimum number of employees, vehicles or hours of service for a bidder to be deemed responsible or responsive. At all times material to this case, Kemp has been in continuous business for the past two (2) years, and completed form "F" with the information requested regarding work experience and references. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. At all times material to this case, Kemp had at least two years experience providing at least two (2) of the six services outlined in the scope of services. The Department's agent, Mr. Gentile, checked with two of the references listed by Kemp to verify information relative to this bid requirement. While Mr. Gentile was authorized to check with all references listed by Kemp, the failure to do so does not discount the information obtained from the sources that were checked. Kemp had an appropriate occupational license to perform work in the tricounty area, but did not have occupational licenses with the City of Hollywood or Broward County. At all times material to this case, Kemp maintained a warehouse to secure the equipment to be used such as lawnmowers, trimmers, and cleaning supplies/equipment. After the bid protest was filed, the Department verified that Kemp had used the warehouse as it claimed. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The mailing address Kemp listed on the first page of its bid response was 8637 S. Sutton Drive, Miramar, Florida. Mr. Faluade resides at that address. He listed that address for mail purposes. The business address for Kemp listed on the bid response was 6200 Johnson Street, Miramar, Florida. This address is a store-front facility with limited office equipment and furniture. Kemp maintains an office at this location but stores its equipment elsewhere as noted above. Kemp was the lowest responsive, responsible bid for ITB-DOT-94-95- 4004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the award of ITB-DOT-94-95-4004 to Kemp Services, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 14th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5967 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 4, 6, and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 5, 7, and 16 noting that the additional emphasis is not in the text and that the citations are incomplete (and perhaps misleading), they are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. Corporate documents may have been filed on that date, however, the weight of the credible evidence established that Kemp had been in business the requisite amount of time. Paragraph 12 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The business conducted by the Kemp personnel continued regardless of the business entity structure that was used. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Moreover, no credible evidence was presented to establish that Kemp did not provide services as described in the ITB or that it was not in business the requisite time. Paragraph 17 is rejected as incomplete, and therefore, misleading. The mailing address listed by Kemp was a residential address. Paragraph 18 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 19 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Kemp probably does not have a Leon County occupational license either. It did have an appropriate occupational license at all times material to this case. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas H. Duffy Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mitchell B. Polay Mark H. Klein 750 S.E. Third Avenue Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
