The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT"), acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications, in rejecting the proposal of Petitioner, Old Tampa Bay Enterprises, Inc. ("Old Tampa Bay"), to RFP-DOT-97/98-1003, Bridge Tending/Maintenance and Repair Services for Five Movable Bridges, Sarasota and Manatee Counties (the "RFP" or "RFP 1003"), and awarding the contract to Intervenor, General Electric Industrial Systems ("GE"). GE also raises the issue whether Old Tampa Bay lacks standing because it submitted a materially false or fraudulent proposal.
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 10, 1998, FDOT issued RFP 1003, requesting proposals for a bridge-tending, maintenance and repair service contract for five movable bridges within Manatee and Sarasota Counties. The contract would run for a period of one year, with an option for two annual renewals. FDOT contemporaneously issued RFP 1004, for the performance of identical bridge tending, preventive maintenance and repair services on four other movable bridges in Sarasota County. The RFP required, among other things, that proposers must employ an experienced bridge tender supervisor and an experienced registered electrical engineer. The RFP required that the contractor must be licensed to perform electrical and mechanical work in the State of Florida, and that a copy of the license be submitted as part of the proposal package. RFP 1003, Section 1.7.5. (In this and some other sections of the RFP, FDOT employed the undefined term "Consultant" rather than the term "Contractor" or "Proposer" used through the bulk of the RFPs. Absent a clarifying explanation, it is assumed that all three terms are used interchangeably.) The RFP required the proposers to provide the names of "key personnel," a resume for each of these individuals, and a description of the functions and responsibilities of each key person relative to the task to be performed. The approximate percent of time to be devoted exclusively to this project was also to be provided. FDOT’s prior written approval was required for the removal and substitution of any of the key personnel proposed. "Key personnel" included project engineers, bridge superintendents, mechanics, and electricians. Under the heading "preventive maintenance," the RFP required the proposers to provide "sufficient and competent personnel to perform the inspection, troubleshooting and work for all bid item requirements." The electrician must be "a licensed electrician with experience in industrial maintenance and troubleshooting." RFP 1003, Exhibit A-3, Section 3.0. The RFPs incorporated by reference the "Bridge Operations and Maintenance Manual" (the "Bridge Manual"), an FDOT document establishing procedures for bridge operations and maintenance requirements statewide. The Bridge Manual set forth the following qualifications for electricians: All electricians working on movable bridges or electrical equipment on any bridge must hold at least a journeyman electrician’s license in at least one Florida county and have skills in industrial electrical work. Ability to read and understand blueprints and written instructions. Ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing. Ability to plan, organize and coordinate work assignments. Ability to install, alter, repair and maintain electrical systems, equipment and fixtures. Bridge Manual, pages 2-3. Another section of the Bridge Manual elaborated on the minimum qualifications for electricians as follows: All electricians working on movable bridges or electrical equipment on any bridge must hold at least a journeyman electrician’s license in at least one Florida county and have at least two years experience in industrial electrical work. Vocational/training in industrial electricity can substitute at the rate of 720 classroom hours for each year of the required experience. After employment, they should attend the Bridge Inspection school and Movable Bridge Inspection school. They should also receive continuing training on motor controls, National Electric Code and applicable safety training. They should be able to read blueprints, and written instructions, communicate effectively, be able to plan, organize, and coordinate work assignments, and have the ability to install, alter, repair and maintain electrical systems, equipment and fixtures. Bridge Manual, pages 2-17 through 2-18. The RFP awarded a maximum of 100 points to responsive proposals. A maximum of 60 points could be awarded for the technical proposals, which were scored by a three-member technical committee that included Hendrik Ooms, FDOT’s assistant maintenance engineer for District One. Each member of the committee scored the proposals independently. Their scores were then averaged to arrive at the final technical score. The RFP listed Richard Marino, the head of contracts for District One, as the project manager who should receive all technical questions from prospective proposers. Regardless of the formal designation, Mr. Ooms was in fact the project manager and the person capable of answering technical questions. The technical proposal scoring subsumed a maximum of 35 points for the "management plan," including 20 points for identified "key personnel." A maximum of 35 points could be awarded for the price proposal. The low price proposal received the maximum 35 points, with the remaining proposals scored according to the formula: (Low price/proposer’s price) x Price points = Proposer’s total points. The technical committee was not aware of the contents of the price proposals prior to scoring the technical proposals. Finally, proposers could obtain 5 preference points for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation of at least 10 percent of the total dollar amount of the contract, or 2 preference points for DBE participation of between 5 and 10% of the total dollar amount. On or about May 11, 1998, three companies submitted proposals for RFP 1003 and 1004: GE; Old Tampa Bay; and C & S Building Maintenance Corporation. GE is the incumbent vendor for these contracts. Until this bid, Old Tampa Bay was a subcontractor to GE on these contracts. On May 22, 1998, FDOT posted the proposal tabulations indicating the intended awardees of the two contracts. Old Tampa Bay was the apparent awardee of the contract for RFP 1003, the contract at issue in this case, with a total score of 79.67 points. GE was the second high scorer, with 79.45 points. GE was the apparent awardee of the contract for RFP 1004. As to RFP 1003, the averaged technical score for Old Tampa Bay was 39.67 points. The averaged technical score for GE was 49 points. All three members of the technical committee awarded GE more points than Old Tampa Bay, though Mr. Ooms saw a greater difference between the two bids than did the other committee members, Richard Marino and Kenneth Clark. Mr. Marino awarded 56 points to GE and 52 points to Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Clark awarded 53 points to GE and 47 points to Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Ooms awarded 38 points to GE and 20 points to Old Tampa Bay. Despite the difference in the technical proposals, Old Tampa Bay was named the intended awardee for RFP 1003 on the strength of 35 points for its significantly lower price proposal ($539,915 per year, versus $621,340 per year for GE) and obtaining the full 5 points for DBE participation. GE was awarded 30.45 price points according to the RFP formula and obtained no DBE points. No formal protest having been received, FDOT moved forward to the next step in the award process. The agency sent substantially identical letters to Old Tampa Bay as the intended awardee of the contract for RFP 1003 and to GE as the intended awardee of the contract for RFP 1004. The letters, dated June 15, 1998, and signed by Felipe Alvarez, FDOT’s purchasing agent, informed the vendors that they had each proposed the same people as "key personnel" who would devote 100 percent of their time to the project. This situation "concerned" FDOT, as these persons obviously could not devote 100 percent of their time to RFP 1003 as employees of Old Tampa Bay and 100 percent of their time to RFP 1004 as employees of GE. The letters requested each of the vendors to clarify the employment of the following persons: Mr. W. Bruce Chapman, whom GE had identified as its bridge superintendent and Old Tampa Bay had identified as its project manager; Mr. Gary Berkley, whom GE had identified as its mechanic and Old Tampa Bay had identified as its primary mechanic; Kelly Green, whom both GE and Old Tampa Bay had identified as primary electrician; and John Vance, whom both GE and Old Tampa Bay had identified as supporting electrician. The letters concluded with the following statement: The Proposal Package stated that if awarded the Agreement, the Consultant is to provide the services of the key personnel proposed. Removal and substitution of any of the key personnel proposed will require the Department’s prior written approval. Please advise the Department if your firm plans to provide the same key personnel or will be providing an equivalent substitution; equivalent meaning as of [sic] the same caliber, experience, and expertise or better than the individual originally proposed. (Emphasis added.) As noted in FDOT’s letter, the Old Tampa Bay proposal listed Kelly Green and John Vance as electricians. Old Tampa Bay’s proposal emphasized that Vance and Green were the current electricians performing electrical maintenance and repairs on the bridges, with nine years combined experience on the District One contract. Old Tampa Bay's proposal emphasized the ease of transition to the new contract that FDOT would enjoy should it select Old Tampa Bay: There will be no transition pain from the existing prime contractor [GE] to [Old Tampa Bay] as ALL personnel currently serving are already on the [Old Tampa Bay] payroll and have been for several years. FDOT will have no new relationships to establish or unknowns with which to be concerned. (Emphasis in original.) Old Tampa Bay’s proposal emphasized in several places that Old Tampa Bay would provide the same electricians who were already working on the bridges. In describing its technical approach to the electrical systems, Old Tampa Bay emphasized that its electricians would require no orientation before commencing work: The electrical system is a critical link in the operation of the bridge. Its maintenance is crucial to reliable operation. [Old Tampa Bay's] comprehensive maintenance program is designed to meet and exceed contract requirements. The [Old Tampa Bay] electrician (Resume attached) is knowledgeable and experienced in the performance of this program. He has performed this service under other FDOT contracts. Old Tampa Bay's proposal emphasized the experience of its electricians with respect to the electro-mechanical control systems, stating that "All [Old Tampa Bay] service personnel including electricians have been trained to work on, maintain, and troubleshoot as required each intricate system." Old Tampa Bay emphasized the experience of Vance and Green, and stated that they had "never failed to correct any problems on this system on any of the bridges in this contract." Old Tampa Bay made similar representations in regard to equipment malfunctions and computerized control systems, emphasizing the quick, successful responses by and experience of its electricians. The evidence indicated that Old Tampa Bay knew, or should have known, at the time it submitted its proposal, that John Vance had no intention of working for Old Tampa Bay on these contracts. Old Tampa Bay included Mr. Vance’s name and license in its proposal without his consent. Mr. Vance never stated orally or in writing that he agreed to be included in Old Tampa Bay's proposal. Old Tampa Bay never asked Mr. Vance’s permission to include his name as a proposed supporting electrician. Old Tampa Bay never asked Mr. Vance’s permission to include a copy of his electrical contractor’s license in Old Tampa Bay's proposal. About two weeks prior to the proposal submission date, Old Tampa Bay's president, Donald Abernathy, asked Mr. Vance for a copy of his license, but did not tell him that Old Tampa Bay intended to include the license in its proposal. Rather, Mr. Abernathy told Mr. Vance that Old Tampa Bay needed the license for purposes related to insurance. Mr. Vance refused to provide Old Tampa Bay with a copy of his license. Old Tampa Bay obtained a copy of Mr. Vance’s license by making a public records request to Manatee County, and submitted that copy with its proposal. Mr. Bruce Chapman has served for nearly four years as a bridge tender supervisor, employed by Old Tampa Bay under a GE contract with the FDOT. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Chapman was still an Old Tampa Bay employee. Mr. Chapman assisted Mr. Abernathy in trying to obtain permission of various people to use their names in Old Tampa Bay's proposal. Mr. Chapman testified that he knew from conversations with Mr. Vance that Mr. Vance did not want to work for Old Tampa Bay on the new contract. Old Tampa Bay also knew at the time of proposal submission that it had obtained no assurances from Kelly Green that he would work for Old Tampa Bay on the contract for RFP 1003. As detailed below, Mr. Green ultimately signed a letter-of-intent to work for GE on the contract for RFP 1004. Mr. Abernathy contended that Old Tampa Bay was entitled to include Vance and Green in its proposal without permission because they were Old Tampa Bay employees. However, Mr. Abernathy also conceded that Vance and Green were at-will employees, and his prior attempt to secure their permission to use their names in the Old Tampa Bay proposal was a tacit admission that Old Tampa Bay had no control over them. Further, in the fall of 1997, Mr. Abernathy attempted to obtain the signatures of Mr. Vance and several other bridge employees to a non-compete agreement for the purpose of binding them to Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Vance refused to sign the agreement. Old Tampa Bay provided payroll services to Vance and Green during their work on the bridges under GE’s existing contract with the FDOT, but Old Tampa Bay never supervised the work of the bridge electricians, never provided Vance or Green with the tools, equipment or supplies they used in their work as bridge electricians, and never had any control over the day-to- day activities of any electricians on any FDOT contract. The electricians worked on a daily basis with GE’s project engineer, Douglas Blake. Mr. Blake had trained Mr. Vance on bridge electrical equipment when the latter commenced work on the bridges. The electricians looked to Mr. Blake for technical and substantive assistance in working on the bridges. Mr. Vance testified that he considered himself an employee of GE. Mr. Green did not testify at the hearing. On June 26, 1998, both Old Tampa Bay and GE submitted responses to the FDOT letter of June 15, 1998. In a letter signed by William Trainor, contract leader, GE set forth its staffing plan for RFP 1004. GE identified the following as "key personnel" proposed for the positions discussed in the FDOT letters: John Vance as bridge superintendent (replacing W. Bruce Chapman); Bruce Morris as mechanic (replacing Gary Berkley); Kelly Green as primary electrician; and John Vance as Supporting electrician. GE attached résumés for each of these personnel. GE indicated that it would utilize PRM, Inc. as a subcontractor to secure the required contract personnel for the contract under RFP 1004, and GE attached letters-of-intent for employment for each of the named key personnel. Each of these letters was signed either by the named employee or by the president of PRM, Inc. FDOT accepted GE’s response in full. The award of the contract for RFP 1004 to GE was not protested. In a letter dated June 26, 1998, signed by Donald R. Abernathy, president, Old Tampa Bay proposed the following key personnel: W. Bruce Chapman as project manager; Gary Berkley as mechanic; Charles Adam Kenney as bridge superintendent (not mentioned in the FDOT letter); and Kelly Green as primary electrician. Old Tampa Bay attached résumés for each of these personnel. The letter made no mention of a supporting electrician. Old Tampa Bay also attached agreements of the employees to serve in their respective positions. However, the signature line on Kelly Green’s statement of acceptance was left blank. Mr. Abernathy testified that he asked Mr. Green to sign the document indicating his acceptance of employment with Old Tampa Bay, but Mr. Green refused. Mr. Abernathy did not reveal this information to FDOT, continuing to maintain that he was within his rights as Mr. Green's employer to include his name in the proposal. FDOT knew from its review of the GE submission that Mr. Green had in fact signed a letter of intent for employment with PRM, Inc. to work on the GE contract. Mr. Alvarez, the FDOT purchasing agent, acted chiefly as a coordinator and as the person ensuring that the procedural requirements of competitive bidding laws were met by FDOT. He admittedly lacked the expertise to make decisions as to the technical aspects of the project. Thus, Mr. Alvarez forwarded the vendors’ responses to Mr. Ooms, the project manager, for his evaluation. Mr. Ooms is a professional engineer, and for the past five years has supervised the operations of all nine bridges covered by RFPs 1003 and 1004. In a memorandum to Mr. Alvarez, dated July 2, 1998, Mr.. Ooms reported his findings and conclusions regarding the vendors’ submissions. As noted above, he found the GE submission acceptable in its identification of PRM, Inc. as a subcontractor and its naming of Vance, Morris, and Green as intended key personnel. Mr. Ooms found acceptable the submission of Old Tampa Bay insofar as it named Chapman, Kenney, and Berkley as key personnel. However, Mr. Ooms noted that the Old Tampa Bay submission provided no documentation of Kelly Green’s commitment to work for Old Tampa Bay. Mr. Ooms also noted that the Old Tampa Bay submission made no mention of John Vance, who had been listed as support electrician in Old Tampa Bay’s original proposal, and listed no substitute who would take over those duties. Mr. Vance had also accepted an offer from PRM, Inc. to work on the GE contract. Thus, Mr. Ooms concluded that the proposed key personnel roster submitted by Old Tampa Bay was not acceptable. By letter to Donald R. Abernathy dated July 8, 1998, Mr. Alvarez conveyed to Old Tampa Bay the "discrepancies" found by FDOT in the Old Tampa Bay submission of June 26, 1998. While stating that FDOT accepted the proposal of Chapman, Kenney, and Berkley for their respective positions, Mr. Alvarez pointed out the problems noted by Mr. Ooms as to Green and Vance. The letter concluded that "the Department still requires that your firm provide, in writing, clarification as to the positions of Primary and Supporting Electricians," and required the response by July 13, 1998. Old Tampa Bay responded by letter to Mr. Alvarez from Mr. Abernathy dated July 10, 1998. The letter provided no explanation as to Mr. Green’s unsigned agreement or Old Tampa Bay's failure to mention Mr. Vance or otherwise address the position of supporting electrician. The letter stated no objection to any of the conclusions contained in FDOT’s letter of July 8, 1998. The letter took no issue with the standard described for "equivalent" electricians. Old Tampa Bay's letter stated that it had selected Mr. Gary McCormick as its primary electrician. The letter noted that Mr. McCormick was finishing a project but would be available for this contract no later than July 27, 1998. The letter stated that while Mr. McCormick was a "skilled and valuable electrical and hydraulic specialist," he had never been required to have an electrician’s license by any prior employer. The letter requested that FDOT waive the license requirement for 90 days, during which time Mr. McCormick would obtain the required license. The letter attached Mr. McCormick’s résumé, which indicated that he had been involved with the Stickney Point bridge from September 1997 until July 1998. The résumé provided no dates for any of his other employment since 1973. The résumé indicated that most of Mr. McCormick’s electrical experience involved repair and installation of elevators. Old Tampa Bay's submission made no attempt to relate Mr. McCormick’s elevator experience to the electrical specifications of the RFP. The letter further stated that Old Tampa Bay was "actively seeking" a supporting electrician, and that Mr. Abernathy would fill the position until the search was completed over the "next few weeks." The letter gave no further indication of the status of Old Tampa Bay's attempt to locate a support electrician. The letter attached the résumé of Mr. Abernathy. Mr. Alvarez forwarded Old Tampa Bay’s July 10, 1998, letter to Mr. Ooms for his review. By memorandum dated July 15, 1998, Mr. Ooms responded to Mr. Alvarez, concluding that the proposed key personnel roster of Mr. McCormick and Mr. Abernathy as primary and supporting electricians was not acceptable. Mr. Ooms’ memorandum first addressed Old Tampa Bay's original statements in its proposal as to Vance and Green, noting that Old Tampa Bay represented both electricians as follows, in his words (punctuation and capitalization not corrected): [Mr. Green] "has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 4 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties. His duties range from preventive maintenance to emergency repair" . . . "an intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Green has a Journeyman’s electricians license. * * * [Mr. Vance] has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 5 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties. The maintenance he performs covers the entire bridge--the gates, lock motors, drive motors, variable frequency drives, programmable controllers, contactors, limit switches, control panels and resistors." "intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Vance has a [sic] Electrical Contractor’s license. Mr. Ooms contrasted Mr. Green’s qualifications with those of Mr. McCormick, whose résumé showed that he had less than one year’s experience with bridges, did not hold a journeyman electrician’s license, and thus was not "an equivalent substitution for Mr. Kelly Green." Mr. McCormick’s résumé listed his current employer as "Acutec Inc.," his position as "project electrical foreman," and stated that he was "currently finishing Stickney Point drawbridge rehabilitation project. In charge of electrical, PLC, and hydraulic systems installation, trouble-shooting, and start-up. Working closely with Gregg Martin of FDOT, Sarasota." Mr. Ooms testified that Mr. McCormick did not have the qualifications claimed in his résumé. He testified that Mr. McCormick was not in charge of electrical, PLC and hydraulic systems installation on the Stickney Point bridge. He testified that Mr. McCormick was strictly a "wire puller," with "no experience whatsoever to do this type of work." Mr. Ooms took issue with Mr. McCormick’s claim that he was "in charge" of the installation of the PLC, or programmable logic controls. Mr. Ooms testified that Mr. McCormick’s employer, Acutec, was involved with writing the PLC program, setting up the parameters, checking out the hydraulics, and performing the interfacing, but that Mr. McCormick was simply running wires from point-to-point pursuant to instructions from others. Mr. Ooms testified that he knew these facts from watching at first-hand the work being performed on the Stickney Point bridge. Mr. Ooms did not call Acutec to verify the statements in Mr. McCormick’s resume. Mr. Ooms stated that there was no need to call Acutec, as he was out on the bridge and could see for himself what Mr. McCormick was doing. PLCs, or programmable logic controls, are the means by which newer bridges are controlled by computer. The PLC sequences the computer program to constantly monitor the condition and operation of the bridge. The PLC technology is not unique to bridges. It is common in many manufacturing operations, and is in place on two of the five bridges covered by RFP 1003. The remaining three bridges have a manual relay control system. Old Tampa Bay did not dispute that PLC experience is necessary to perform the work as an electrician on this contract. Mr. Ooms noted that Mr. McCormick’s résumé claimed PLC experience, but that when the time came for the contractor to deliver the laptop computer with the PLC programs to run the renovated Stickney Point bridge, Mr. McCormick could not even run the program on the computer. Mr. Ooms testified that if one cannot run the computer program, one cannot do anything on a computer controlled bridge. Mr. Ooms’ testimony as to the qualifications of Mr. McCormick is credited. While Mr. Ooms might have confirmed his conclusions with Mr. McCormick’s employer, he cannot be found to have acted arbitrarily in relying on his own extensive observations of Mr. McCormick’s job performance. Old Tampa Bay offered no evidence to dispute the factual underpinnings of Mr. Ooms’ decision that Mr. McCormick was not an equivalent substitute for Kelly Green. Mr. Ooms’ July 15, 1998, memorandum also rejected Mr. Abernathy as the temporary supporting electrician. As quoted above, the memorandum noted Old Tampa Bay's representation that John Vance, the supporting electrician it originally proposed, has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past five years in Sarasota and Manatee counties, has intimate knowledge of these bridges, and has an electrical contractor’s license. Mr. Ooms noted that Mr. Abernathy does not have an electrical contractor’s license. Mr. Ooms also took issue with Mr. Abernathy’s résumé statement that he has acted as a bridge inspector for the past eight years for Kisinger Campo and Associates, a company that FDOT hires to perform bridge inspections. Mr. Ooms wrote that in the five years that FDOT has let out the operations and maintenance contracts, he has never "seen or known of Mr. Abernathy visiting a Sarasota or Manatee county bridge or troubleshooting a bridge problem." He testified that Kisinger Campo could not have used Mr. Abernathy as a bridge inspector because he lacked the required engineer’s license or certification as a bridge inspector. Mr. Ooms admitted that Kisinger Campo does not always tell him who is performing the inspections. Mr. Ooms made no inquiries of Kisinger Campo to verify Mr. Abernathy’s résumé. Mr. Abernathy testified that he was in fact an electrical inspector for Kisinger Campo for eight years and that in 1997 he personally performed inspections on every bridge covered by RFP 1003, including the electrical, lighting, and PLC systems. Mr. Abernathy conceded that he does not have an electrical contractor’s license. Mr. Abernathy’s testimony is credited as to his experience as a bridge inspector. In the case of Mr. McCormick, Mr. Ooms reasonably relied on his own extensive observations. As to Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Ooms attempted to rely on what he did not observe. Mr. Ooms chose to assume, without knowledge or verification, that Mr. Abernathy’s résumé was false. This assumption was arbitrary, and cannot be credited. Mr. Ooms’ decision to reject Mr. Abernathy was nonetheless reasonable. Mr. Abernathy did not possess the requisite license, and admitted that his most recent experience in actually performing bridge electrical maintenance and repair was more than twenty years ago. By letter to Mr. Abernathy dated July 17, 1998, Mr. Alvarez conveyed FDOT’s rejection of Old Tampa Bay’s proposal pertaining to the electrician positions. The reason for rejection was stated as follows: As stated within the Request for Proposal Package, if you are proposing to substitute key personnel you must provide an equivalent substitution; equivalent meaning as of [sic] the same caliber, experience, expertise or better than the individual originally proposed. . . . Please understand, the Department is looking forward in [sic] entering into an Agreement with your firm, [sic] however, it cannot accept anything less than what was originally proposed. Mr. Alvarez’ letter enclosed Mr. Ooms’ memorandum of July 15, 1998, and offered Old Tampa Bay another opportunity to submit substitute electricians no later than July 27, 1998. By letter from Mr. Abernathy to Mr. Alvarez, dated July 27, 1998, Old Tampa Bay submitted a new list of proposed substitutes. The text of the letter stated, in full: We have selected Mr. Steven Manning, Master Electrician License Number 3994, Hillsborough County to be our primary electrician. Attached is his resume. We have selected Mr. Adrian Cook as the supporting electrician, Journeyman License Number JE776, Hillsborough County. We have selected Mr. Wayne Cano as an electrician’s helper. Hillsborough County licenses have full reciprocity with Manatee and Sarasota Counties. Résumés of all three proposed employees were attached, along with copies of the relevant licenses and certificates of completion of various professional training courses. Mr. Manning’s résumé contained sketchy descriptions of the kinds of electrical work he had performed, and gave no indication that he had any experience working with computers or PLCs. Mr. Manning’s résumé revealed no experience with moveable bridge maintenance or repair. Mr. Manning had no experience as an electrician on the FDOT bridges. Mr. Manning’s résumé indicated that his experience included industrial electrical experience intermittently during eight years of electrical work. The résumé indicated "industrial and commercial electrical work," "working in fuel terminals, working with motor controls," "remodeling tenant spaces," "working with new commercial," "working with commercial remodeling, and service work," "traveling around Florida and Georgia remodeling Pizza Huts," "residential and commercial sales, estimating jobs, job foreman, billing and scheduling, handling of permits," and "working with industrial and commercial, service work, remodeling and new construction." Old Tampa Bay's submission offered no specific information or explanation of how Mr. Manning’s varied experience related to the specifications for electrical maintenance and repair in the RFP. Old Tampa Bay had obtained Mr. Manning’s name by calling an electrical company, Southern Power and Controls, and asking for recommendations of personnel with qualifications and experience equivalent to Mr. Green’s. Southern Power and Controls is an industrial electrical firm specializing in industrial controls, motor controls, switch gears, limit switches, and PLCs. Old Tampa Bay would have paid a finder's fee to Southern Power & Controls for any employees who went to work for Old Tampa Bay on this contract. Old Tampa Bay provided Southern Power and Controls with the documentation it had submitted to FDOT regarding the qualifications and experience of Vance and Green. Robert Harwell, a registered electrical engineer and principal of Old Tampa Bay, had discussions with Southern Power and Controls as to the qualifications of the candidates it sought. No person from Southern Power and Controls appeared at the hearing to explain the process by which they selected Mr. Manning. No person from Old Tampa Bay ever interviewed Mr. Manning. Mr. Manning did not testify at the hearing. Old Tampa Bay proposed Adrian Cook as a supporting electrician. Mr. Cook’s résumé indicated that he was a licensed journeyman electrician, with four years’ experience as an electrician and two years as an apprentice. Mr. Cook’s résumé indicated two years of unspecified commercial and industrial work, but no moveable bridge experience. Old Tampa Bay obtained Mr. Cook’s name from Southern Power & Controls, asking for personnel with qualifications and experience equivalent to Mr. Green’s. No person from Southern Power & Controls appeared at the hearing to explain the rationale for choosing Mr. Cook. No person from Old Tampa Bay ever interviewed Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook did not testify at the hearing. Old Tampa Bay submitted Mr. Wayne Cano as an "electrician’s helper." Old Tampa Bay did not specify what function Mr. Cano would serve or what actions he would perform as an "electrician’s helper." Neither the RFP nor Old Tampa Bay's proposal contains any mention of an "electrician’s helper." Mr. Cano’s résumé did not indicate an electrician’s license. Old Tampa Bay did not state that it had any intention to require Mr. Cano to obtain an electrician’s license. Mr. Cano’s résumé did not indicate any moveable bridge experience or experience on other FDOT projects. Again, Mr. Alvarez forwarded the Old Tampa Bay letter and attachments to Mr. Ooms for his review. Mr. Ooms provided his response by memorandum dated August 6, 1998. Again, Mr. Ooms outlined the qualifications and experience of the electricians originally proposed, Kelly Green and John Vance, as set forth in Old Tampa Bay's own proposal. Mr. Ooms wrote as follows (punctuation and capitalization not corrected): Mr. Green’s experience were [sic] listed as follows. "has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 4 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties. His duties range from preventive maintenance to emergency repair . . . an intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Green has a Journeyman’s electrician license. Mr. Vance’s experience were [sic] listed as follows. "has worked on FDOT movable bridge contracts for the past 5 years in Sarasota and Manatee counties." "The maintenance he performs covers the entire bridge-- the gates, lock motors, drive motors, variable frequency drives, programmable controllers, contactors, limit switches, control panels and resistors." "intimate knowledge on the operation of bridges so that during malfunction he can use the bypass functions to keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." Mr. Vance has a [sic] Electrical Contractor’s license. Mr. Green and Mr. Vance each have over four years of "on the Bridge" experience trouble shooting non functioning systems. They have worked on nine different bridges that were 30-40 years old with antique controll [sic] systems and on bridges recently rehabilitated with modern computer controlled systems. They have years of experience in reading and analyzing bridge ladder logic programs and trouble shooting problems and solutions. All these bridges were operational and any loss of service was quickly reported. An outage can easily block traffic for several miles in minutes generating calls from the sherrifs [sic] department. In addition, any breakdown in service has severe political consequences due to the Ringling bridge and Anna Maria Bridge replacement program. A problem on Ringling Bridge can cause a [sic] hour detour and missed flights. On page C-1 of the contract it states "The Contractor’s personnel that will perform the work required by this Section shall be trained and well experienced in start-up and maintenance of equipment . . . and will have headquarters within Sarasota/Manatee County" . . . On page A-3.2 is [sic] states "the Contractor shall initiate corrective action within fifteen (15) minutes following the malfunction." further down on Page C-1 of the contract "the Contractor agrees to provide men and equipment to a bridge sites [sic] within 30 minutes of notification of any emergency equipment failure". Mr. Ooms contrasted the experience and qualifications of the proposed substitutes as follows (punctuation and capitalization not corrected): Mr. Steven Manning experience [sic] in industrial electrical work does not start until 1997. It does not show any bridge related work. His training certificate in Electrical ladder Drawings" is for a one day 7 contact hours session. The "well experienced" requirement is not clearly indicated by his resume. Mr. Adrian Cook also does not show any bridge related work and the "well experienced". Mr. Wayne Cano has 11 years of industrial experience but no bridge experience or electricians license. In conclusion Old Tampa Bay enterprises needs to provide us with equivalent substitutions. Specifically licensed electricians with a minimum of four years experience in diverse bridge electrical configuration; with old relay logic operation, well experienced in PLC controllers from various manufactures [sic]; the ability to read and interpret ladder logic drawing; the ability to program plc’s. The Department’s inclusion of response time in the contract clearly indicates our desire for prompt and efficient emergency repair work. In other words the Department would like the equivalent of Mr. Green and Mr. Vance in the original proposal who’s [sic] experience will "keep bridge down time and repair time to a minimum." By letter to Mr. Abernathy dated August 13, 1998, Mr. Alvarez forwarded FDOT’s rejection of Old Tampa Bay’s proposed substitutes. The letter essentially reiterated the contents of the memorandum quoted above, and informed Old Tampa Bay that it would have one last opportunity to provide FDOT with equivalent or better substitutions for the electrical key personnel. Old Tampa Bay’s response would be due no later than August 24, 1998. Mr. Alvarez testified that as to this and his prior letters to Mr. Abernathy, he essentially acted as a conduit for the actual decision-maker, Mr. Ooms. Mr. Alvarez wrote the letters because he was the designated contact person in the FDOT contracts office, not because of any personal expertise or authority he possessed to deal with the issue of the qualifications of the proposed key personnel. By letter from Mr. Abernathy to Mr. Alvarez, dated August 21, 1998, Old Tampa Bay informed FDOT that "we are unable to locate electricians which meet or exceed the qualifications of those we proposed, i.e., Mr. Green and Mr. Vance. Please proceed as necessary." Old Tampa Bay’s letter did not take issue with any of the conclusions set forth in Mr. Alvarez’ letter of August 13, 1998. On August 24, 1998, FDOT posted a revised proposal tabulation finding Old Tampa Bay nonresponsive and listing GE as the intended awardee of the contract for RFP 1003. At the hearing, Mr. Ooms testified that he did not know Mr. Manning, Mr. Cook, or Mr. Cano, had no personal knowledge of their background or experience, and relied on their résumés in making his decision. Mr. Ooms felt that Mr. Manning, while a master electrician, lacked sufficient experience on PLCs and had no experience working on bridges. Mr. Ooms noted that the only indication of electrical ladder drawing or computer experience on Mr. Manning’s résumé was a seven-hour continuing education course in electrical ladder drawing. Mr. Ooms’ undisputed testimony was that a single seven-hour course was insufficient to provide the expertise needed to perform the duties required of an electrician on these bridges. Mr. Ooms admitted that John Vance and Kelly Green lacked PLC experience when they started working on the bridges, and were trained by FDOT. However, Mr. Ooms rejected Old Tampa Bay’s suggestion that Mr. Manning could be similarly trained on the job. Vance and Green were trained in connection with the installation of PLC equipment on the Cortez Bridge in 1996. Mr. Ooms testified that this training was simply a part of the rehabilitation of the bridge, and that PLC experience was not a prerequisite at the time Vance and Green were hired. Mr. Ooms further distinguished this situation by noting that the issue here is not simply qualifications, but equivalency. Mr. Ooms stated that because Old Tampa Bay’s winning proposal was based on the presence of Vance and Green, any substitutes for Vance and Green must not only meet the RFP specifications but must be equivalent to the experience of Vance and Green, which included PLC experience. Mr. Ooms testified that he rejected Adrian Cook for the same lack of PLC experience. Mr. Cook held the required journeyman electrician’s license, but his résumé gave no indication of PLC or troubleshooting experience. Mr. Ooms testified that he called Mr. Cook’s current employer, who vouched for him as a "good man," but provided no details as to his PLC experience. Mr. Ooms also admitted that he did not ask the employer about Mr. Cook’s PLC experience. As to Mr. Cano, Mr. Ooms testified that he appeared well qualified but lacked the required journeyman electrician’s license, and lacked bridge experience. Mr. Ooms was impressed by Mr. Cano’s PLC and ladder logic experience, and might have approved him but for the lack of the required license. Mr. Ooms acknowledged that Kelly Green did not have his journeyman electrician’s license when he started work on the bridges. Mr. Ooms testified that he was unaware of that fact at the time Mr. Green was hired. Douglas Blake, project engineer for GE, affirmed that in the five years GE has been performing bridge operations and maintenance, FDOT has never asked any electrician to produce a license. Mr. Blake testified that performance of an electrician’s job on these bridges does not require permitting, and that there is no license exposure to an electrician working these jobs. Mr. Blake’s opinion was that the license requirement is merely a contract tool FDOT can use to eliminate substandard bids. No witness for FDOT assented to Mr. Blake’s characterization of the license requirement. FDOT’s consistent position was that a prospective electrician must have at least a journeyman electrician’s license, as set forth in the RFP and the Bridge Manual. Mr. Blake testified that Manning, Cook, and Cano all appeared to be worthy candidates to be bridge electricians, insofar as their electrical technical qualifications appeared to compare favorably to those of Vance and Green. No evidence was presented that Mr. Ooms had any knowledge of Mr. Blake’s opinion at the time he made his decision, or that such knowledge would have altered that decision. Lane Tyus, a GE electrical engineer with experience on these bridges, likewise testified that the résumés of Manning, Cook, and Cano would pass his initial screening and that he would make a final decision in a face-to-face interview. No evidence was presented that Mr. Ooms had any knowledge of Mr. Tyus’ opinion at the time he made his decision, or that such knowledge would have altered that decision. At the hearing, Old Tampa Bay produced a list purporting to show 25 electricians whose hiring for bridge work was approved by FDOT for various districts during the period 1991 through 1998, despite the fact that none of the 25 had prior bridge experience. This list included Mr. Vance and Mr. Green in District One, where Mr. Ooms works. Mr. Ooms disclaimed knowledge as to the approval practices of other districts, which in any event have no relevance to this proceeding. Mr. Ooms again averred that this situation is different than that prevailing when Vance and Green were hired, because the substitutes here proffered by Old Tampa Bay must not only meet the RFP requirements but must be the equivalent of Vance and Green in experience and expertise. Mr. Abernathy testified that he believed the team of Manning, Cook and Cano was the equivalent of Vance and Green. He testified that any modern industrial electrician must have experience with PLCs, and will not necessarily spell-out that experience on his résumé. He testified that it was his "absolute firm belief" that no matter whose names he submitted to FDOT as substitute electricians, they would be rejected. Mr. Ooms testified that he neither favored GE nor disfavored Old Tampa Bay. He admitted having greater familiarity with GE’s personnel because they have been working on the bridges for the last five years. He testified that he considers it his professional obligation to work with whoever holds the contract. Aside from the obvious licensure deficiency for Mr. Cano, these proposed substitutes may well have been equivalent to Vance and Green. However, their equivalence could not be ascertained from Old Tampa Bay's submissions. Their résumés did not clearly establish their qualifications in areas that Old Tampa Bay knew or should have known were critical to FDOT. The agency made its expectations very clear to Old Tampa Bay as to what was expected of equivalent substitutes. Old Tampa Bay did nothing to expand upon the sketchy résumés of these persons, or to explicate the relationship between their experience and the work to be performed on the bridges. Mr. Ooms cannot be faulted for failing to consider information that the proposer did not provide. It is found that Mr. Ooms was not biased in rejecting Manning, Cook, and Cano. Old Tampa Bay argues that the disparity in the scoring of the technical proposals between Mr. Ooms and the other two evaluators demonstrates his bias in favor of GE. However, as noted above, all three evaluators gave GE the highest marks for RFP 1003. In fact, the scores for GE’s proposal given by the other two evaluators were significantly higher than the score Mr. Ooms gave to GE’s proposal. The fact that Mr. Ooms found an 18-point disparity between the proposal of GE and the proposals of the other two bidders does not of itself indicate bias in favor of GE on his part, any more than the fact that his score for GE was 15 to 18 points lower than the GE scores by the other evaluators indicates a bias against GE. FDOT demonstrated no bias against Old Tampa Bay in this process, providing Old Tampa Bay repeated opportunities to provide satisfactory substitutes for Green and Vance. Old Tampa Bay attempted to show disparate treatment by introducing evidence showing that FDOT allowed GE to substitute Kelly Green for an electrician named Charles Cave in 1995, after award of the previous contract, despite the fact that Green at the time had no experience working on the bridges and did not obtain a journeyman electrician’s license until approximately two months after he commenced work. Assuming arguendo that FDOT’s actions in awarding this contract may be attacked by showing different agency behavior in prior contracts, the evidence adduced by Old Tampa Bay is insufficient because it gives no indication of the qualifications of Charles Cave, the electrician replaced by Mr. Green. There is no way to determine whether Mr. Green was or was not an equivalent substitute for Mr. Cave, and thus no way to establish disparate treatment by FDOT from one contract to the next. Old Tampa Bay further asserts that FDOT’s treatment of Mr. Green when he commenced work indicates that FDOT had the discretion to allow Mr. McCormick to obtain his journeyman electrician’s license after commencing work. Assuming arguendo that Old Tampa Bay’s assertion is correct, the facts establish that the lack of a license was a secondary concern in the rejection of Mr. McCormick. Mr. Ooms testified that his rejection of Mr. McCormick was primarily based on lack of bridge and PLC experience, and the overstatement of qualifications on Mr. McCormick’s résumé. Even if Mr. McCormick possessed the required license, Mr. Ooms would have properly rejected him. Old Tampa Bay challenged FDOT’s allowing GE to make changes in its management personnel after being awarded the contract for RFP 1003. The three upper-level managers in question were located in Atlanta, had nothing directly to do with the operation of the bridges, and were not "key personnel" as described in the RFP and Bridge Manual. GE informed FDOT of the change in a courtesy letter, dated October 20, 1998, more than five months after submission of the original proposals. The RFP did not require these remote persons to be identified by name at all, let alone require GE to freeze them in place as a condition of its contract. As noted above, the facts established that Old Tampa Bay included the name of John Vance in its proposal though it knew or should have known that Mr. Vance had no intention of working for Old Tampa Bay on this project. Old Tampa Bay attempted to demonstrate that GE did substantially the same thing when it included the name of Mr. Lane Tyus in its proposal as its registered electrical engineer. Mr. Tyus indeed testified that he did not know that GE had included his name in the proposal at the time it was submitted, and was not made aware of his inclusion until some time after Old Tampa Bay filed its protest. However, Mr. Tyus also testified that he knew his résumé was kept on file by GE precisely for inclusion in proposals. Further, he testified that he has been involved with the contract for these bridges since 1992, that he was not surprised at his inclusion, and that he was prepared to undertake the tasks described in the GE proposal. Thus, there is no comparison between Mr. Tyus’ situation with GE and that of Mr. Vance with Old Tampa Bay. Finally, Old Tampa Bay attempted to demonstrate bias in the fact that FDOT allowed GE to submit John Vance's name as bridge superintendent for RFP 1004, despite his lack of experience in that position. However, Mr. Ooms testified that Mr. Vance was in fact more than qualified for the position, in that the training requirements set forth in the Bridge Manual for electricians such as Mr. Vance include all the requirements for bridge superintendents as well as electrical courses.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the protest filed by Old Tampa Bay Enterprises, Inc. and awarding the contract for RFP-DOT-97/98- 1003, Bridge Tending/Maintenance and Repair Services for Five Movable Bridges, Sarasota and Manatee Counties, to General Electric Industrial Systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 1999, 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 27th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Sjostrom, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis LLP 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Office oif the General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert A. Rush, Esquire Robert A. Rush, P.A. 726 Northeast First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner has standing to administratively challenge, on the ground that navigation will be adversely affected, the Department of Environmental Regulation's determination, announced in its May 2, 1989, Notice of Permit Issuance, to issue Permit No. 061594966 authorizing Respondent Avatar Corporation to conduct dredge and fill activities in the Northwest Channel in Broward County, Florida, in connection with the construction of a fixed span bridge traversing that waterway? Whether its challenge was timely instituted? Whether the permit should be issued and under what additional conditions, if any?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a homeowners association. Its 300 dues-paying members 1/ own homes in an area of the City of Hollywood bounded on the north by Sheridan Street, on the south by the City of Hallandale, on the east by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the west by U.S. Highway One. Avatar is a developer. It owns land in the City of Hollywood that it has platted and now desires to develop into a residential community known as Harbor Islands consisting of, among other things, 3,175 dwelling units, a hotel, and retail stores. In addition, four parcels of land (Parcels 2, 3, 11 and 11A) within the planned community, totaling approximately 30 acres, have been dedicated to the City of Hollywood for use as public park land. Avatar's right to develop this land for residential use was affirmed in the final judgment entered in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 72-4252 on September 20, 1974, as supplemented by the supplementary final judgment entered in that case on December 17, 1981. Neither Petitioner, the Department, nor any other state agency was a party in Broward County Circuit Court Case No. 72-4252. The land that Avatar seeks to develop is situated on three islands and is bounded on the north by the Washington Street Canal, on the south by the City of Hallandale, on the east by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the west by the DeSoto Waterway. Two waterways, the Venetian Waterway and the Northwest Channel, run through the interior of the planned Harbor Islands development (Development). The Venetian Waterway lies between the two southernmost of the Development's three islands. From its northern terminus at the Northwest Channel, it follows a southerly course beyond the southern boundary of the Development and into the City of Hallandale. On its southward trek, it passes under two bridges, one within the Development and one in the City of Hallandale. These bridges are of the fixed span variety and both have a vertical clearance of approximately ten to 12 feet. The Northwest Channel separates the northernmost of the Development's three islands from its other two islands while connecting the DeSoto Waterway with the Intracoastal Waterway. It is a man-made canal, the construction of which was the subject of a 1969 agreement between Avatar's predecessors in interest, who will hereinafter be referred to as the "Mailmans," and the City of Hollywood and Broward County, among others, 2/ that settled a lawsuit the Mailmans had filed. Numbered paragraphs 5, 6, 12 and 15 of the agreement provided as follows: NORTH AND SOUTH CHANNELS. The MAILMANS agree to construct and perpetually maintain at their expense, a channel or canal, running from the southerly portion of the DeSoto Waterway, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto, the same to be located in the vicinity of the present existing channel or within 500 feet south thereof, and in a like manner to construct and maintain a similar channel or canal, running from the northerly portion of the DeSoto Waterway, easterly to and connecting with the Intracoastal Waterway as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said channels shall have a minimum depth of 10 feet and shall be sufficient for all vessels requiring a clearance of 16 feet, and a minimum width of 100 feet. The parties acknowledge that the purpose of said channels or canals is to provide the general public the unobstructed and perpetual means of navigable access to the Intracoastal Waterway from any part of the DeSoto Waterway both north and south of Northeast Ninth Street. BRIDGES. The parties agree that the MAILMANS shall have the right to construct bridges, at their expense, across the aforesaid channels described in paragraph 5, hereinabove, together with necessary approaches and abutments. Said bridges shall be either "turntable" or stationary bridges, of a minimum height of 16 feet, as measured at high tide, with a clear span of not less than 30 feet. The parties further agree that the MAILMANS shall have the right to construct at their expense a bridge across DeSoto Waterway at Northeast Ninth Street, together with necessary approaches and abutments, which bridge shall be the only one not required to have clearance of 16 feet. Said bridge, together with necessary approaches and abutments, if constructed, shall be of such size and construction as shall not block, obstruct or interfere with the use of any part of Diplomat Parkway or Northeast Ninth Street lying west of DeSoto Waterway as each public thoroughfare presently exists. The parties further agree that under no circumstances shall any bridge be constructed so as to hinder or obstruct perpetual and navigable access of vessels requiring a minimum clearance of 16 feet at mean high tide, to the Intracoastal Waterway from any part of DeSoto Waterway lying North and South of Northeast Ninth Street. The MAILMANS agree that in the event of the aforesaid construction, they shall permanently maintain said bridges in safe working order. Said parties further agree to provide, at their expense necessary personnel to operate all turntable bridges at all times. 3/ 12. COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND; RECORDING. The parties agree that all of the covenants contained in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, herein are to be construed as running with the land; that a copy of this Agreement is to be recorded among the public records of Broward County, Florida; and that appropriate reference or specific designation of this agreement is to be made in any instruments of conveyance or development by deed or plat or otherwise, which shall be executed by the MAILMANS, their successors or assigns, as to any property described on pages 1 or 6 hereinabove. 15. BINDING EFFECT. All rights and obligations under this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by successors, assigns, nominees, heirs and personal representatives of the parties. As the plat for the Development reflects, the Northwest Channel is privately owned by Avatar and has not been dedicated to any governmental entity. 4/ The depth of the water in the Northwest Channel ranges from approximately ten to 12 feet at its shallowest point to approximately 25 feet at its deepest. At present, there are no bridges crossing the Northwest Channel. The Northwest Channel is the only means of access to the Intracoastal Waterway for boats using the DeSoto Waterway north of the Atlantic Shores Boulevard (Northeast 9th Street) bridge in Hallandale (which portion of the waterway will hereinafter be referred to as the "Northern DeSoto Waterway") and the Washington Street Canal west of the culvert crossing at Three Islands Boulevard (which portion of the waterway will hereinafter be referred to as the "Western Washington Street Canal") that are too tall to safely navigate under the Atlantic Shores Boulevard bridge, which is a fixed span bridge and has a vertical clearance of approximately six to eight feet. 5/ The Northern DeSoto Waterway and the Western Washington Street Canal are used by pleasure boaters and water skiers. Neither watercourse has a high volume of traffic. Approximately 35 of Petitioner's members own waterfront homes adjacent to the Development on the other side of either the Washington Street Canal (which homeowners have a Washington Street address) or the DeSoto Waterway (which homeowners have a Diplomat Parkway address). Most, if not all, have docks behind their homes. 6/ They do not have to rely on marine transportation to reach their homes, however, inasmuch as they have easy access to their property by land. One such homeowner is Kenneth Hark, who lives at 1415 Diplomat Parkway. Hark owns a boat, the "Marcy," that he docks behind his home on the DeSoto Waterway south of where it meets the Northwest Channel. The "Marcy" is approximately 34 feet long. With its outriggers extended, it is approximately 30 feet high. It is approximately 18 feet high with its outriggers lowered. Hark uses his boat approximately once a week. Because of the height of his boat, he must traverse the Northwest Channel to get to the Intracoastal Waterway. Rowland Schaefer is another member of Petitioner who lives along the DeSoto Waterway and docks his boat behind his home. His boat is approximately 60 feet long, 17 to 18 feet wide and 25 to 28 feet high. There are other boats that are regularly docked on the Northern DeSoto Waterway and the Western Washington Street Canal. One of these boats is the "My Lady," which is approximately the same height as Hark's boat. Homeowners living along the Northern DeSoto Waterway and the Western Washington Street Canal also occasionally have visitors who arrive by boat. For instance, Hark's next door neighbors have an adult son who, on occasion, comes to their home in a sailboat that is approximately 40 feet in height. Another boat that brings visitors to the neighborhood is a vessel that is approximately 80 to 90 feet long and 25 to 30 feet high. About three to five times a year this boat docks behind the Cowan residence. In mid-December of 1988, Avatar submitted a "short form" application to the Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a fixed span bridge over the Northwest Channel at Three Islands Boulevard, where the average depth of the water is approximately 15 feet. The proposed bridge would connect the northernmost of the Development's three islands with the southern island that lies to the west of the Venetian Waterway. The project and its anticipated impacts were described in Avatar's response to Item 10 on the application form as follows: The applicant proposes to construct a fixed bridge approximately 220 feet long and 71.25 feet in width to provide access for development of the northernmost island of the Harbor Islands Development community. The proposed bridge will have a vertical navigational clearance of 17.04 feet above mean high water, 19.34 above mean low water, and a horizontal clearance of 51.83 feet between pile caps. There will be no dredging and filling associated with the proposed work, and no significant encroachment of the floodplain will occur. Benthic vegetation along the slopes of the Northwest Channel consist primarily of green algae, including sporadic stolons of Caulerpa sertularioides. In deeper portions of the channel, where light is limited, the benthic substrate is barren. Water quality impacts will be temporary in nature, with turbidity controls such as but not limited to turbidity curtains implemented to ensure that turbidity values do not exceed 29 N.T.U.'s above background. Item 5 on the application form requested the "NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY." Avatar's response was "None." Aside from Avatar there were no other private property owners who owned land adjoining the Northwest Channel. Accordingly, Avatar's response to Item 5, to the extent that it conveyed such information, was accurate. Avatar's application was processed and reviewed by staff in the Department's Southeast District office, who in February of 1989, sent Avatar a letter advising it that the application was incomplete and that additional information and clarification was needed. The letter provided as follows with respect to Avatar's response to Item 5: Item No. 5 was not completed. Please provide the name and address including zip code of the nearest adjoining property owners with waterfront residence. On or about March 8, 1989, Avatar submitted a written response to the Department's February, 1989, letter. The response stated the following regarding "adjoining property owners:" The proposed project is located in the center of a large piece of property owned exclusively by [Avatar]. There are no adjoining property owners. The nearest potential adjoining property owners are located over 2000 feet from the proposed project site. In fact, Avatar did not own all of the property within the Development. It had dedicated certain land to the City of Hollywood and therefore no longer owned the entire property. Among these parcels of land that Avatar had dedicated was Parcel 11. Parcel 11 is located on the northernmost island of the Development a short distance (approximately 250 feet) to the north of the site of the proposed bridge. Furthermore, there were private homeowners with waterfront residences on the DeSoto Waterway and Washington Street Canal, including members of Petitioner, who also owned property less than 2,000 feet from the proposed project site. The Department did not forward a copy of Avatar's application to these or any other homeowners. Neither did it require Avatar to publish notice of the filing of the application. It, however, did send a copy of Avatar's application to the Mayor of the City of Hollywood and the Chairperson of the Broward County Board of County Commissioners, accompanied by a letter advising them of a local government's right to timely file objections to an application for a dredge and fill permit and to request an administrative hearing after receiving the Department's notice of intent to issue the requested permit. Neither the City of Hollywood nor Broward County filed any objections to Avatar's application. Moreover, no member of the general public commented on the application. On May 2, 1989, the Department issued a notice of its intent to grant Avatar's application for a dredge and fill permit (Permit No. 061594966). The notice explained that a person whose substantial interests were affected by the granting of the permit had a right to file a petition for an administrative hearing within 14 days of his or her receipt of the notice and that the Department's issuance of the permit would be considered "final" if no such timely petition was filed. A copy of the notice was mailed to Avatar, as well as the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board and the Broward County Property Appraiser. Neither Petitioner nor its members were sent a copy of the notice. There was no publication of the Department's notice. On August 30, 1991, Avatar requested that Permit No. 061594966 be modified to reflect a reduction in the length of the permitted bridge from 220 feet to 130 feet. The plans submitted by Avatar in support of its request indicated that the modified structure would have a vertical clearance of 17.1 feet at mean high water and 19.4 feet at mean low water and a horizontal clearance of 52 feet. In October of 1991, the Department approved the requested permit modification. Avatar was notified of the Department's decision by letter, a copy of which was sent to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources and the Broward County Office of Natural Resource Protection. The letter described the modification as "minor." Pilings that will support the bridge have already been driven and are in place. If construction of the bridge is completed in accordance with the plans approved by the Department, some boaters who now use the Northwest Channel as their sole means of travelling back and forth between the Northern DeSoto Waterway and Western Washington Street Canal to the west and the Intracoastal Waterway to the east will no longer be able to do so because their boats will be unable to safely navigate under the bridge. While the bridge will not be able to accommodate all of the boats that currently use the Northwest Channel, its vertical clearance is greater than that of the typical bridge crossing a canal in a residential area. To redesign the bridge to raise its vertical clearance several feet would require lowering the design speed to approximately ten to 15 miles per hour, which would pose a potential safety hazard. Navigational problems associated with vertical clearance would be eliminated if Avatar constructed a turntable bridge or a drawbridge instead of a fixed span bridge. Turntable bridges and draw bridges, however, are considerably more costly to build and maintain than fixed span bridges of comparable size. Furthermore, because of concerns regarding incompatibility, they are generally not constructed in residential neighborhoods. Petitioner first became aware of the issuance of Permit No. 061594966 in the spring of 1992, when two of its members visited the Department's Southeast District office and reviewed the contents of the Department's file on the permit, including Avatar's application for the permit and the Department's notice of its intent to grant the application. 7/ After its Board of Directors voted to challenge the issuance of the permit and the membership assented to launch such a challenge, Petitioner filed its request for a formal hearing on the matter. 8/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting Avatar's application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a fixed span bridge over the Northwest Channel as the Department proposed to do in its May 2, 1989, notice of intent to issue Permit No. 061594966. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of December, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 31st day of December, 1992.
Findings Of Fact 1. On or about January 18, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's signs 600 and 625 feet south of Candlewood Drive in Pasco County on what appeared to be the easterly right-of-way of U.S. 19. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 59 feet from the easterly edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Respondent's signs were 49 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway. Respondent located his signs east of the berm along U.S. 19 which he believed to be off of the DOT right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact Leamington (Petitioner herein), is a road maintenance and construction contractor doing business since approximately 1985. John Hummell is Petitioner's President and is responsible for all bids submitted for contract awards. Petitioner contracts primarily with the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent herein). Since 1985, Petitioner has entered into approximately forty-one (41) contracts with Respondent. Petitioner was one of seven bidders on State Job #17030-3536, Contract E-1706, let by Respondent in District I. Respondent notified Petitioner of its decision to award the bid to the second lowest bidder, Simco, by notice posted on April 19, 1993 stating that Leamington's bid was rejected because it was considered not to be responsible and was not in the best interest of the Department (to contract with Leamington). The work in question involves the repairs of the bridge located at SR- 789 at Little Ringling Causeway west of Sarasota in Sarasota County. The work entails removal and replacement of silicone sealant on the bridge deck and replacement and rejacketing of piling with grout epoxy. The bid tabulations revealed that Petitioner's bid was approximately $500.00 less than that of the second lowest bidder, Simco, Inc., of Sarasota. The Department has a procedure called the "district contracts procedure". Part of the procedure calls for the awards committee to review bids and determine who the bid should be awarded to. The awards committee, which was chaired by Glenn Ivey, the District Director of Operations, reviewed the bid submitted for project E-1706. The awards committee voted unanimously to reject Leamington's bid on Contract E-1706. The decision to reject Petitioner's bid, by the awards committee, was based on Petitioner's performance on its more recent Department contracts. Specifically, the awards committee considered projects E-1649, for sidewalk repair in several counties; contract E-1545, a concrete repair job in Lakeland; and contract E-1652, a roadway shoulder repair job. Leamington's contract on the concrete repair job (E-1545) was rated as being poor when Leamington was, in effect, asked to leave the job. Based on Leamington's poor workmanship and difficulties encountered on that contract, Respondent terminated work on the contract after approximately sixty percent (60 percent) of the work was completed. The remainder of that project was completed by another contractor. Specifically, Job No. E-1545 called for Petitioner to remove and replace portland concrete slabs on Memorial Boulevard in Lakeland. Petitioner failed to restore the concrete slabs to a smooth surface, making it necessary for Respondent to have the slabs ground such that motorists had a smooth driving surface. After several warnings, Respondent cancelled the project and, as noted, approximately forty percent (40 percent) of the work was completed by another contractor. Another project reviewed by the awards committee was Contract E-1652, a roadway shoulder repair contract. On that project, Petitioner was advised that the shoulder had to be graded at a certain angle and was shown, by several of Respondent's engineers, the proper manner in which to accomplish the task. Petitioner failed to grade the shoulder at the correct angle as requested. Petitioner also routinely failed to provide proper traffic control during the performance of Contract E-1652 and frequently disputed Respondent's employees advice as to work instructions and ways to eradicate the poor workmanship on that project. Additionally, Petitioner failed to use skilled workers and did not have ample equipment on the job to perform the work on Contract E-1652. Initially, Petitioner had limited equipment at the beginning of the work on Contract E-1652. After Petitioner received a letter from Respondent advising that there wasn't adequate equipment to complete the project, Petitioner obtained additional equipment. The Department terminated Petitioner's work under Contract E-1652 because Petitioner had approached the contract deadline for completion and due to of the numerous problems the Department experienced with Petitioner in getting the work completed acceptably. Bobby Cranford, the Assistant Maintenance Engineer for the Petitioner's Sarasota Maintenance Unit, recommended that Petitioner not be awarded any more roadway shoulder repair contracts based on the difficulties experienced by Petitioner's "poor" workmanship on contract E-1652. Another project reviewed by the awards committee was Petitioner's work performance on Contract E-1649, a sidewalk repair job which encompassed several counties. Petitioner did not have the required personnel and expertise to perform the sidewalk job correctly. Petitioner was kept informed of deficiencies and necessary corrections to correctly perform the sidewalk repair job, however, the proper repairs have not been made. The Respondent introduced a composite of twenty-three (23) photos showing the extent of the problems Petitioner needed to correct the sidewalk repairs with notes as to the corrective action that was needed. Specifically, Petitioner used little expansion joint materials and no edging tools were utilized on the project. Similar problems were found throughout the four county area in which Petitioner was engaged on the sidewalk project. By letter dated May 13, 1993, Respondent advised Petitioner of the numerous problems on contract E-1649. Specifically, Petitioner's President was told of visual inspections which showed substandard work on the original work as well as the work wherein Petitioner attempted to correct deficiencies which were discovered by Respondent. For example, Petitioner was advised that at 506 First and Main Streets in Wachula, there were sections of concrete sidewalk removed and scheduled for replacement with adjacent sections now damaged. Petitioner was further advised that workers had driven trucks on the sidewalk damaging several slabs not marked for replacement. Finally, Petitioner was asked to correct broken sprinklers at the work site and to resolve a claim filed by a Mrs. Campbell, which was registered with Respondent. The awards committee also relied upon an independent inspection report prepared by Bobby Cranford. That report is a forty (40) page report citing numerous deficiencies on the sidewalk repair project. Respondent requires that contractors employ english speaking superintendents at each work site to assist in communicating with its inspectors. Petitioner utilized superintendents who did not speak english and thereby created a language barrier making communication difficult with Respondent's personnel. Respondent had to monitor Petitioner's projects extensively and at a cost which increased the Department's overhead disproportionately when compared to other projects let to other district contractors. Based on a review of Respondent's work on Petitioner's recent contracts, no other contractors performing contracts in District I had a performance record as poor as Petitioner. When the awards committee made its decision to reject Petitioner's bid on the subject contract, it also relied on a memorandum from , Wally Clark, a District I attorney. In the memorandum it was concluded that Petitioner had subcontracted work to Hummell, Inc., a separate entity and that the required prior written approval of the subcontracting had not been obtained from Respondent. The investigation also revealed that the subcontractor, Hummell, Inc., had not been paid for its services (by Petitioner). An internal audit also prepared by Wall revealed that Hummell, Inc. was an unpaid subcontractor of Petitioner. The awards committee also considered allegations from Phillip Spears, a subcontractor of Petitioner, who had not been paid for work performed on Respondent's contracts. The committee also considers a newspaper article which stated that Petitioner was under investigation by local law enforcement officials for failure to pay subcontractors on the Interstate 75 project. Dennis Hall is the District Investigator for District I. Hall accompanied Wall, the author of the internal audit report, on investigations and interviews in compiling the audit report. One of the persons interviewed by Wall and Hall was Larry Zavitz. Zavitz was an inspector employed by Petitioner in excess of twenty- eight (28) years and had performed the inspection on Petitioner's sidewalk repair project under Contract E-1649. During the interview of Zavitz, he admitted to receiving a loan of $1,000.00 from John Hummell which Zavitz had not fully repaid at the time of the interview. Upon Zavitz admission of accepting the loan, he was asked and later resigned from the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner's protest of the rejection of its bid on Contract E-1706 be rejected and the Department enter its award of the subject contract to the second lowest responsible bidder, Simco, Inc. of Sarasota. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Haydon Burns Building 562 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 William H. Roberts, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Michael E. Riley, Esquire 106 East College Avenue Post Office Box 10507 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's operation of an overweight truck over the low-limit bridge involved herein is a violation and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier and truck vehicle weights on covered vehicles operated on the streets and highways of this state. It does so through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to conduct random safety and compliance inspections of commercial vehicles being operated in this state. The parties agree that on August 8, 1991, Respondent, P.J. Constructors, Inc. was prime contractor to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation for the removal and replacement of a highway bridge over the Florida Turnpike where it intersects with Hood Road in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. At the time in issue, Respondent was operating a 1981 MAC tractor trailer low boy on which it was transporting a piece of heavy construction equipment. At the time in issue, Officer Neff stopped the vehicle for crossing over this bridge which was clearly posted as having a maximum weight limit for tractor trailers of 15 tons, (30,000 pounds). Following standard Department weighing procedures measuring weight at each axle and combining those weights to arrive at a total, and using portable Department scales which are calibrated every 6 months for accuracy, Officer Neff determined the vehicle weight at 54,800 pounds. This was 24,800 pounds over the legal weight and resulted in a penalty assessment of $1,240.00 at 5 per pound of overweight. The approaches to this bridge were clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this type vehicle was 15 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge to give a driver ample notice of the restrictions and ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route over roads situated between the signs and the bridge. In addition to the signs, however, earlier the same day, as warnings were issued to users of the bridge who were going to a construction site on the other side, Respondent's driver was specifically told of the bridge's low limits and advised of an alternate route to avoid it. Admittedly, the alternate routes would be longer than the route over the bridge, but no evidence as presented by either party as to how much the difference was. Respondent's General Manager, Mr. McAllester, claims the signs were not in position on the two occasions he visited the site during the bid process in February or March, 1991. He cannot say that he knew where the signs might have been located (away from the site), but avers only that he did not see any. However, officer Neff specifically checked to see that the signs were in place before issuing the citation on August 8, 1991 and it is, therefore, found that the signs were properly in place on that date. Mr. McAllester also urges in the alternative, however, that even if the signs were in place, as contractor on the bridge replacement project, the terms of the bid specifications, which directs contractors from operating equipment in excess of the maximum weights set out by law, exempts the contractor where the existing road or bridge is to be removed as a part of the work included in the project. The bridge in issue here was removed and replaced as a part of the project on which Respondent was contractor and the current bridge has no limit. Mr. McAllester admits that when the instant citation was issued, Respondent had no special permit to cross the bridge with an excess load. Once the citation was issued, however, Respondent quickly retained an engineer to do a structural analysis of the bridge in issue. Based on that analysis, Respondent thereafter sought and obtained permission to cross the bridge with an overload provided all other traffic was stopped on Hood Road while the excessively laden vehicle was on the bridge so it would be the only vehicle thereon at the time, and provided that vehicle kept to the center of the road while on the bridge. Subsequent to the citation and before the permit was issued, Respondent did not operate any excessively laden vehicles on the bridge. Respondent admits that at the time the citation was issued, there was traffic operating both on the Turnpike and on Hood Road. Therefore, a potential danger to the public existed. Nonetheless, traffic was maintained on both roadways throughout the entire project without incident. None of the weight limits or a need to maintain weight standards was discussed at the pre-bid conference, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $1,240.00 against the Respondent. P.J. Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Foster McAllester Vice President and General Manager P.J. Constructors, Inc. 4100 S.W. 70th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Ben G.Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel ]Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue On May 12, 2004, did Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), act illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it cancelled the posting and noticed its intent to reject the bid of Rosiek Construction Co., Inc. (Rosiek), in relation to financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement, SR 682 (the Project)? § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Findings Of Fact The subject of this protest is financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement. Respondent and 12 other pre-qualified bidders received copies of the bid solicitation notice, plans and specifications for the Project at issue. Rosiek submitted a responsive bid for the Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on April 28, 2004. There were no other bidders. Rosiek is pre-qualified to bid and receive the contract for the Project and therefore is a responsible bidder. On May 12, 2004, DOT posted its notice of intent to reject all bids. Rosiek timely filed this bid protest on May 14, 2004, with DOT, along with the statutorily required bid protest bond. DOT's 2004 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction is applicable to this project. FACTS BASED UPON ROSIEK'S ADMISSIONS DOT had advertised its bid solicitation notice for Financial Project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on or about March 4, 2004. Rosiek received the copy of the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project. Rosiek did not file a specifications challenge with respect to the referenced Project. DOT advertised the amount of $37,087,000.00 as its budgeted amount for the Project. Rosiek submitted a total bid of $50,470,378.12 for the Project (total bid A+B). ADDITIONAL FACTS Juanita Moore is a manager of the DOT Contracts Administration Office. She served as a member of the Technical Review Committee and the Awards Committee in relation to the Project. When the Technical Review Committee is confronted with a bid, such as the Rosiek bid, which is from a single bidder, something is missing from the bid or for certain differentials in price between the bid received and the official cost estimate, the Technical Review Committee considers these to be "problem jobs." In connection with terminology, Ms. Moore explained that the budget figure, referred to in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project as a Proposal Budget Estimate, is derived from an earlier estimate in the process and in turn an official cost estimate was established for the Project. The official cost estimate is also referred to simply as the estimate. The official cost estimate has not been disclosed as has been explained in the Preliminary Statement to the Recommended Order. The official cost estimate here is broken down into component items within the Project pertaining to cost for Mobilization, Concrete Class IV, Concrete Class V, etc. After the Technical Review Committee considered the Rosiek bid, the bid was passed on to the Awards Committee where it was decided to reject the bid. According to Ms. Moore the bid was rejected as too high when compared to the official cost estimate. The reference to a bid being too high relates to a bid which is more than 10 percent in excess of the official cost estimate. The budget figure and the official cost estimate are not necessarily the same in a given instance. The fact that it was the only bid was also a factor considered in the rejection. As Ms. Moore explained, at the time the Rosiek bid was rejected, it was principally because it was too high in relation to the official cost estimate. Given the posture in this case, the rejection as the only bid will form the basis for resolving this dispute, absent DOT's willingness to divulge the amount of the official cost estimate or how it was established. DOT does not have an established policy for rejecting bids based upon the fact that only a single bidder responded to the solicitation. In her experience, Ms. Moore does not remember DOT rejecting a bid solely on the ground that there was only one bidder. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting held on May 12, 2004, detail the response by that committee to the Rosiek bid. In the copy of that document provided for this proceeding, DOT's official cost estimate is redacted. The percentage differential between the official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is likewise redacted. The item number 0101-1 for Mobilization reflects Rosiek's bid of $4,900,000.00 compared to the official cost estimate which is redacted. Similarly, Item No. 0400-4-4, Concrete Class IV refers to the contractor bid price of $800.00 per cubic yard compared with the official cost estimate which is redacted. There are other comparisons between several additional categories or items in which the contractors bid price is reflected but the official cost estimate in comparison is redacted. The minutes go on to describe how the review being made by the Awards Committee led to the conclusion that the official cost estimate could be adjusted, placing the bid received by Rosiek a certain percentage above the estimate on a 10 percent criteria job but the differential between the adjusted official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is not revealed as a percentage because of redaction. The DOT district where the project would be located is District 7, the Tampa office. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting indicate that the district and the Technical Review Committee recommended to the Awards Committee that it reject the Rosiek bid and re-advertise. That was the decision made by the Awards Committee on May 12, 2004, to re-let in June. Nothing in the minutes prepared by the Awards Committee refers to the significance of Rosiek as the only bidder and any concern which the Awards Committee had about that fact. On May 12, 2004, when DOT provided a Cancellation of Posting and a Notice of Intent to Reject to Rosiek, it did not state the rationale for that decision. It merely indicated to Rosiek that it was DOT's intent to reject all bids on the project and advised Rosiek of its opportunity to contest that decision. On May 5, 2004, Kenneth A. Hartmann, P.E., the District 7 Secretary, prepared the District Response to Post- Bid Evaluation of Bids in Excess of Approved Award Criteria. The document is presented in question-and-answer form. In response to the question numbered 4 within the document, related to the prospect of critical safety deficiencies in the existing system being corrected by the construction of a new bridge, Mr. Hartmann responded with the answer "No." In relation to question numbered 2, excluding normal inflation, the question was asked whether re-advertising the project would likely result in a higher bid. Mr. Hartman answered "No." In response to question numbered 16, related to his recommendation as the district secretary, for action that should be taken by the Awards Committee he stated "This project should be rejected and re-advertised for a June 2004 1st [sic]. Considering that the project is medium to large and was competing against two other large bridge projects on the same day it is understandable that the contractor's bid was higher than our estimate." In response to question numbered 15 concerning the work load level of the contracting industry in the locality where the project would be constructed, Mr. Hartmann referred to "a high level of work load." At hearing Donald Skelton, P.E., the District 7 Secretary testified in support of the rejection of the Rosiek bid. In the past he had served as Director of Transportation Development with DOT, a position that made him responsible for preparation of the design plans and contract packages that are bid. He had involvement with this Project pertaining to the preparation of design plans and getting the Project to contract letting. He reviewed the Rosiek bid. In discussions related to the Rosiek bid during the post-bid evaluation period, there was a concern over a lack of competition and the differential between, what Mr. Skelton refers to, as the budget amount and the bid amount by Rosiek. Mr. Skelton was mindful of potential safety issues that might warrant the prospect of trying to find additional money to fund the Project, if it was necessary to replace the existing bridge for safety reasons. If the bridge were structurally deficient or in bad shape, that would need to be addressed, versus the additional time necessary to potentially rebid the project. No safety issues of that sort were found by Mr. Skelton. Mr. Skelton explained that the fact that there was single bidder made it difficult, if not impossible, to make a comparison between that bid and what the true market value of the bridge construction would be. Mr. Skelton expressed the hope by the DOT, that there would be more than one bidder in the future to truly get an impression of the degree of competition and whether the competition would result in a realistic price for the public. He recognized that there is no guarantee that DOT is going to get a lower bid if the project is re-bid. Mr. Skelton indicated that when you have multiple bids you can compare what the economic system would support in relation to the affordability of the project. That comparison is of similarity in prices among the competitors trying to win the job, with the belief that bidders put their best effort forward to prevail in the competition. A single bid does not give any indication of market factors, in his view. Michael Rosiek is the vice-president for Rosiek. In his testimony, he expressed a concern that if the project was re-let for bid, Rosiek's competitive position would not be good, in that the other contractors would have read the Rosiek bid that was made in the first letting, informing the competitors of the Rosiek price to its detriment. Further, Mr. Rosiek expressed a concern that in a re-letting the company would be bidding "against ourselves." Louis Wenick, P.E., has a business consulting service. The nature of the business is consulting work relating to the construction industry. A considerable part of the business involves DOT projects. In his work Mr. Wenick is involved with scheduling, cost analysis, and entitlement analysis in DOT projects. He is familiar with DOT's specifications, policies, and procedures. Mr. Wenick is a registered engineer in Florida and a certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Wenick obtained information from DOT concerning its history in receiving sole bids for a project and the instances in which the sole bidder was awarded the contract. Mr. Wenick looked at procedures followed by DOT in awarding contracts. Mr. Wenick looked at the DOT experience in re- letting bids to determine if a company was a low bidder in the first letting when bids were rejected, and what percentage of the time that low bidder would succeed in being awarded the contract upon a re-letting. Mr. Wenick prepared certain charts intended to depict the DOT response in the areas examined by the witness. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 3 is referred to as Problem Jobs for the April 28, 2004, letting, with two posting dates of May 20, 2004, and June 7, 2004, respectively. The chart depicts the proposal I.D. number (bid), the project number and the type of problem identified in reviewing bid responses and a brief statement of the Technical Committee's comments and the Awards Committee's disposition in those projects depicted. Nothing more is described in the chart. In no case set forth in the chart was the type of problem described in any detail or, limited to an experience with a single bidder, as opposed to perceived problems in relation to the bid that was too high, as well as having a single bidder or to the problem of having a bid that was too high alone. Seven projects were awarded. Two were not. The rejections were based upon the bids being too high. One of the projects initially awarded was later rejected due to the unavailability of local funding to support the project. Mr. Wenick prepared a chart, Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 4. This reflects the DOT award results for sole or single bidders from the period July 1999 through April 2005. The columns in the chart show the numeric count of sole bids, at certain letting dates, with the contracts numbers, the name of the low bidder, and the disposition of the bids. The numeric count of sole bids is a running tally over the period. This reflects 52 sole bids of which eight were rejected, making the percentage accepted 84.62 percent. Again the nature of the projects is not shown in the chart, and this chart does not indicate the basis for rejection. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 5 is another chart prepared by Mr. Wenick. It reflects instances in which projects were re-let for bid in the period July 1999 to April 2005. The letting dates are reflected. The project numbers, the low bidders names, if known, and the amount quoted is set out. The re-let date if the project was re-let is reflected. The low quote on re-bid and the low bidder's name on re-bid are reflected, as is the percentage difference between the low quote in the first letting and the low quote in the re- letting. Where data is established in all columns in the chart, 18 of the projects are shown to have been re-bid out of 24 projects that were bid initially. Within that group, five bidders who bid in the initial letting were awarded the contract in the re-letting, while 13 low bidders in the first letting were disappointed in the re-letting. This equates to 27.78 percent success rate by the low bidder in the initial letting when re-bidding in the re-letting. Having considered the exhibits prepared by Mr. Wenick, the information is insufficient to discern the reason for DOT's past policies and practices and to compare them to the present case for consistencies in the application of those policies and practices when rejecting bids. Additionally, the reason for the choices in any single project described in the charts cannot be appropriately understood from the charts and compared to the experience here. On the topic of the success rate for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting and the low bid in the re-letting, it is so general an analysis, that it cannot be relied upon to determine the real significance for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting, only to be disappointed in the re-letting when the contractor did not receive the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Rosiek Amended Formal Written Protest challenging the DOT decision to reject its bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of August, 2005.
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
Findings Of Fact Introduction On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified and interested contracting firms that it was accepting bids from firms interested in providing various services on State Job No. 90030- 3539. Such bids were due on or before June 24, 1987. In general terms, the project required the successful bidder to perform various maintenance services on the Old Seven Mile Bridge between Pigeon Key and Knight Key just southwest of Marathon in Monroe County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that the project involves the following classes of work: Bridge painting 82 percent Restoration of spalled areas 6 percent Miscellaneous concrete and steel 9 percent Maintenance of traffic 3 percent In response to this offer, three contractors submitted timely bids. These included petitioner, Midwest Industrial Painting of Florida, Inc. (Midwest), intervenor-respondent, Cone Constructors, Inc. (CCI), and J. D. Abrams, Inc. Their respective bids were $1,746,390, $1,122,000 and $2,149,345. The parties have stipulated that the bids of both CCI and Midwest are below the DOT budget estimate and preliminary estimate for the project. On August 3, 1987 DOT posted its intent to award the project to CCI, which submitted the lowest dollar bid. Thereafter, petitioner timely filed a protest challenging the award of the contract to CCI. In its formal protest, Midwest contended that CCI was ineligible to submit a bid since it was not prequalified by DOT to perform bridge painting, a service required for this job. The filing of the protest prompted the instant proceeding. The Project The Old Seven Mile Bridge, once a vital link in the Florida Keys highway network, was replaced in the early 1980s with a new Seven Mile Bridge. Since its replacement, the old bridge has had very little, if any, traffic and is no longer in service as a state highway. Indeed, its center span has been removed, and it is used primarily as two fishing piers by avid anglers and for access to Pigeon Key where a University of Miami research facility is located. The legislature recently mandated that the old bridge be turned over to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). So that DNR receives the bridge in good condition, DOT intends to perform all necessary maintenance and rehabilitation prior to its turnover. The project has been identified as State Job 90030-3539. The job includes painting the exposed structural steel, doing "corrective measures" to portions of the structural members, and other miscellaneous work. The project will be funded wholly with state funds, and is not considered a critical job. Although at hearing DOT personnel considered the structural work to be the most important aspect of the project, and the painting to be incidental, DOT did not prepare the bid specifications in this manner. Rather, it elected to prepare the specifications listing bridge painting as normal work. By categorizing the work in this manner, DOT did not contravene any statute, rule or standard. Had DOT categorized painting as "specialty" or incidental work on the project, painting would have been considered an incidental aspect of the job, and bidders would not have to be prequalified in bridge painting. However, DOT did not assert its specifications were in "error," or that this might serve as a ground to reject all bids. Indeed, there is no evidence that any bidder was confused or had any doubt as to the services required under the contract. Prequalification Requirements DOT requires that, on projects exceeding a cost of $250,000, bidders obtain a certificate of qualification setting forth the areas (classes) in which they are qualified to perform work. This is commonly known as prequalification. One of these classes of competency is bridge painting, which constituted approximately 82 percent of the work to be done on Old Seven Mile Bridge. The parties have stipulated that CCI's certificate of qualification did not include bridge painting as an area in which it had been qualified. Despite several post-June 24 requests by DOT to furnish additional information, CCI had not yet supplied such data at the time of hearing as would enable it to qualify. On the other hand, Midwest was conditionally qualified in this area, but, because of certain DOT reservations, its certificate was due to expire on June 15, 1987. However, Midwest requested a Section 120.57(1) hearing to contest this expiration date, and Midwest has, with DOT's acquiescence, continued to use its certificate for bidding purposes until an adjudication of the claim is made. Without a certificate of qualification, DOT rules provide that a contractor not be given bid documents that would enable it to submit a bid. Further, DOT witnesses confirmed that no bidder has ever been authorized to become prequalified after it had submitted a bid, nor has a nonqualified bidder been awarded a contract. The agency does have a "policy" of allowing contractors who are qualified in the major work class of minor bridge work (but who are not qualified in bridge painting) to receive bid documents on certain major projects. Even so, this policy, however applied in the past, has never been used on a project such as this, and DOT officials confirmed that this was the first time bid documents had been erroneously sent to a nonqualified bidder. DOT's Reaction to the Bids Through "inadvertence" or "error," DOT furnished bid documents to CCI. Thereafter, CCI, Midwest and a third contractor submitted bid proposals. When the bids were opened, DOT discovered that the lowest dollar bidder (CCI) had not been prequalified on bridge painting. The bids were then routed to the DOT technical review committee, a five person committee that reviews projects where the bids do not conform with award criteria. This committee made no recommendation and was "uncommitted." The matter was then reviewed by the DOT awards committee which unanimously recommended that the contract be awarded to CCI even though it had not prequalified on one segment of the work. In proposing that the contract be awarded to CCI, DOT acknowledges that this is not its normal practice. Indeed, it concedes that this is probably the first occasion that it has proposed to award a contract to a nonqualified bidder. However, it considers the project "unique" in the sense that the bridge will be turned over to DNR immediately after the work is completed. In addition, by using CCI, it can save around $624,000 in state funds which can be used to claim almost another $6 million in matching federal funds for other state work. Finally, DOT is fully satisfied that CCI is capable of performing the work on the project, particularly since it considers the structural repairs the most important aspect of the job. If CCI's bid is rejected, DOT's preference is to reject all bids and relet the project. The agency's nonrule policy is that, for projects valued at more than $250,000, a contract will be awarded if the lowest bid is no more than seven percent above DOT's estimate of the project's value. In this case, both CCI and Midwest submitted bids below DOT's budget and preliminary estimates. The Bidders Midwest, which is located in Tarpon Springs, Florida, has been in the bridge painting business for many years, and has worked on DOT projects since 1974. This is the first occasion the firm has filed a protest. The firm is capable of performing the required work. Although its certificate of qualification was supposed to expire on June 15, or before the June 24 bid opening day, Midwest challenged this action and the certificate continues to be used for bidding purposes. The apparent low bidder (CCI) is located in Tampa, Florida and has been engaged in a number of DOT projects since it was formed approximately five years ago. It is now working on three other DOT bridge projects. The firm was prequalified in the bridge painting class in 1983 and 1984, but for some reason, allowed its qualification to lapse. Its present certificate is valid until April 30, 1988 and qualifies CCI to bid on several types of major bridge projects. CCI stands by its bid proposal, and is fully confident the work can be done for $600,000 less than proposed by Midwest. The firm has access to the necessary equipment and manpower to perform the job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting the bid of Cone Constructors, Inc. on the ground it was unqualified and non-responsive, and instead awarding the contract on State Job 90030-3539 to Midwest Industrial Painting of Florida, Inc., which submitted the lowest responsive bid. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of September, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Blackhawk is the owner of a mine located in Palm Bay, Florida, which, since 1982, has produced cemented coquina shell material for use as a base material in the building of roads. FDOT is the state agency responsible for the construction and maintenance of state roads. FDOT approves sources of supply of road base materials, including cemented coquina shell, for use by contractors in the construction of FDOT road projects. FDOT approval is intended to assure that the producer is capable of providing material in accordance with the standard specifications for that material. Approved source status is required for a producer to sell its material to a contractor for use on FDOT projects, or on non-FDOT projects (some cities and counties) which require that material be from an FDOT-approved source. Approval may be obtained upon the producer's request, after inspection and evaluation performed by FDOT's Bureau of Mining and Materials in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure for Evaluation, Approval and Control of Mineral Aggregate Sources ("SOP") and Section 915 of FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (("Section 915"). Approval does not guarantee that the producer's material will be used by a contractor. Contractors bidding on FDOT projects are given options of base materials from which to choose. Once the base material is chosen, the contractor selects a producer from the FDOT approved source list. A source's approval will expire if it has not furnished material for Department usage for a period of one calendar year; that period may be extended for one additional year upon the producer's written request. Section 915 defines the composition of cemented coquina shell material, provides for approval of material sources in accordance with the SOP, provides that the material shall be free of specified deleterious substances and sets forth the physical and chemical properties of the material, including the requirement that, "the minimum percentage of carbonates of calcium and magnesium shall be 50." (Petitioner's exhibit #2) Prior to amendment in 1986, Section 915 contained a provision granting the State Materials and Research Engineer the discretion to waive the requirement for minimum carbonates content if the material was determined to be equally suitable for its intended use. The 1986 amendment removed the waiver provision. The 50 percent minimum carbonate content provision has been in effect since 1969 or 1970. Section 915 is less than two pages within a 786-page document ("the Blue Book") entitled FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 1986 Edition. The October 1986 version of Section 915 is in a separate two-page supplement. The Blue Book covers a vast array of subjects relating to contracts, construction, and materials for roads and bridges. The specifications change to keep up with developments in technology. The changes are placed in packets of supplemental provisions, like the current version of Section 915, and those provisions are eventually printed in a new edition of the "Blue Book". The standard specifications are incorporated into all FDOT road and bridge construction contracts, along with relevant supplements, and with "special provisions" which address the unique requirements of the project under contract. The SOP is a 28-page document which (in its words) "...establishes the Florida Department of Transportation's policy of accepting Limerock, Cemented Coquina and Shell Base materials produced for Department use through a producer Quality Control (QC) Program... [and] ...provides the producer with information related to the methods and levels of source approval, the minimum requirements for QC programs and approval, and the criteria by which the Department will maintain that approval. ..." (Petitioner's Exhibit #3, SOP, p. 1) Neither Section 915 nor the SOP have been adopted as rules pursuant to the requirements of Section 120.54, F.S. Blackhawk was an FDOT approved source of cemented coquina shell material in 1983 and 1984. The mine was given conditional approval in January 1985, for six months. The conditional approval expired in July 1985, and approval was suspended for failure to meet the carbonates requirement of Section 915. Blackhawk was not granted a waiver. While it was approved, Blackhawk provided material for two FDOT projects and for several other projects that required FDOT approval. Approximately one- third of its projects had a requirement that the rock come from a DOT-certified source. Blackhawk lost an ongoing contract on a county road project as a result of FDOT's suspension of its approval. Blackhawk continues in business, selling its material to sources which do not require FDOT approval. Blackhawk's President, Andrew Machata, has met with various individuals at FDOT regarding its status and Section 915 and the SOP. Initially, he was told that he had no administrative remedies, as FDOT personnel does not consider the process as subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. There is now pending a Section 120.57(1) F.S. proceeding related to Blackhawk's claim that it should be an approved source. (DOAH #85-4366) FDOT has promulgated administrative rules governing the prequalification of contractors to bid on FDOT projects, Chapter 14-22 FAC, and rules of procedure governing contract bidding and bid protests, Chapter 14-25 FAC. FDOT grants administrative remedies in both the prequalification procedure and in the bidding and bid award procedures. Blackhawk is not qualified to bid as a prime contractor of FDOT projects, nor is it seeking that qualification. It is seeking approval as a source of cemented coquina shell material, without which approval it cannot sell material to prime contractors for projects requiring FDOT approval.
