Findings Of Fact Background On May 6, 1988, Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), issued an invitation to bid (ITB), numbered DIT-87/88-26, whereby it sought to establish a 12-month germ contract for the purchase of Unisys personal computers, peripheral equipment and accessories. On May 9, 1988, Petitioner, Palm Beach Group, Inc., requested a copy of the ITB from the Department, and was mailed a copy of the ITB that day. Petitioner received its copy of the ITB on May 14, 1988, and filed its bid with the Department on May 19, 1988. By May 20, 1988, the bid opening date, three bids had been filed with the Department. Pertinent to this case are the bids of Unisys Corporation, which bid total unit prices of 140,792.00, and petitioner, which bid total unit prices of 16, 753.002 On May 23, 1988, the bid results were posted by the Department. The bid results revealed that the bid of petitioner had been rejected as nonresponsive to the ITB because it did not include page 13 of the ITB, and therefore did not include a bid on the 14 items listed on that page of the ITB. The bid results further revealed that the Department proposed to award the contract to Unisys Corporation. Petitioner timely filed its notice of protest and formal protest with the Department. On May 24, 1988, petitioner submitted to the Department page 13 of its bid, and proposed to supply the 14 items listed on that page at "no charge." The bid documents The ITB consisted of 18 consecutively numbered pages. Page 1 included the bidder acknowledgment form an some of the general conditions of the bid. Page 2 Included the remainder of the general conditions. Notably, page 1 of the ITB conspicuously provided that it was "Page 1 of 18 pages." Pertinent to this case, the ITB contained the following general conditions: SEALED BIDS: All bid sheets and this form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope....Bids not submitted on attached bid form shall be rejected. All bids are subject to the condition specified herein. Those which do not comply with these conditions are subject to rejection. * * * BID OPENING:...It is the bidder's responsibility to assure that his bid is delivered at the proper time and place of the bid opening. Bids which for any reason are not so delivered will not be considered....A bid may not be altered after opening of the bids... PRICES, TERMS, AND PAYMENT * * * (c) MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications, delivery schedule, bid prices, extensions and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services. Failure to do so will be at a bidder's risk.... INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No Interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006 Florida Administrative Code. Fail to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. NOTE ANY AND ALL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED HERETO WHICH VARY FRONT THESE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE. ATTACHMENTS: Special Conditions-Page 3 Bid sheets-pages 4-16 Minority Certification-Page 17 Attachment to all bids, etc.-page 18 Among the special conditions which appeared on page 3 of the ITB were the following The purpose of this bid is to obtain competitive prices per unit for the purchase of UNISYS personal computers, peripheral equipment and accessories for the Department of Insurance. * * * No substitutes or equivalents will be acceptable to the Department. The bid shall be awarded on an "all or none" basis using the low total bid price comprised of the total of all sections. Following the special conditions of the ITB appeared the bid sheets; pages 4-16 of the ITB. These sheets were divided into 10 sections: processors, displays, display controllers, keyboards, diskette drive, hard disk drives, memory, operating systems, miscellaneous devices, and lan options. Under each section the Department listed by part number and description the items that must be bid. The last page of the bid sheets, page 16, provided space to total the prices bid on sections 1-10. Notably, the following language appeared at the bottom of page 16: NOTE. RETURN ENTIRE UNIT PRICING, SECTION 1 THRU 10, PAGE 4 THRU 15 WITH THIS BID SHEET FOR EVALUATION AND AWARD PURPOSES. Petitioner did not protest the bid specifications or conditions within 72 hours after receipt of the ITB, nor did it raise any question or seek any interpretation of the conditions or specifications. The bid protest At hearing, petitioner contended that it should be excused for failing to include page 13 of the ITB in its bid and to bid those items, because such page was not included In the ITB forwarded to it by the Department or, alternatively, that its to include page 13 and to bid those items was a minor irregularity that could be cured by its submittal, after bid opening, of page 13 with an offer to supply the items on that page at "no charge." Petitioner's contentions and the proof offered to support them are not persuasive. First, the proof failed to establish that page 13 was not included in the ITB forwarded to the petitioner. Second, there was no ambiguity in the ITB. Rather, the ITB clearly provided as discussed supra, that the bid sheets consisted of pages 4-16, and that the bid sheets must be submitted to the Department for evaluation and award purposes. Under such circumstances, even if page 13 had been missing from the ITB forwarded to the petitioner, petitioner can not be excused for its failure to include page 13 and to bid the items on that page, and the Department's invalidation of petitioner's bid for such failure cannot be deemed arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. A minor irregularity? Minor irregularity is defined by Rule 13A-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code, as: ...a variation from the invitation to bid... which does not affect the price of the bid..., or give the bidder... an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders..., or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Variations which are not minor can not be waived. The items listed on page 13 of the ITB were an integral part of this bid, which was to be awarded on an "all or none" basis. Under such circumstances, the deficiency cannot be deemed minor, because it could affect the price of the bid or give petitioner an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. Succinctly, petitioner could revisit its bid after the bids had been made public and, considering how badly it wanted the contract, bid or not bid the omitted items. If it elected not to bid the items, petitioner could effectively disqualify itself and withdraw its bid. The other bidders who timely submitted their bids would not have an opportunity to revisit their bids to the Items listed on page 13 or to withdraw their bids, but would be held to the provision of the ITB that prohibited such withdrawal for 45 days after bid opening.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the formal protest filed by Palm Beach Group, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 24th day of June, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, The Middlesex Corporation and Affiliates (Middlesex) or Intevenor, J. B. Coxwell Contracting, Inc. (J. B. Coxwell), submitted the lowest and best responsive bid for State Project No. 55040-3521 let by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation issued an invitation to bid (ITB) for a contract to construct road improvements on State Road 363 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida; Project No. 55040-3521. The ITB incorporated the plans and specifications for the proposed highway improvements. The specifications stated in pertinent part: Article 1-3. . . . for the purpose of award, after the proposals are opened and read, the correct summation of the products of the approximate quantities shown in the proposal, by the unit prices, will be considered the bid. . . . . Until the actual award of the contract, however, the right will be reserved to reject any or all proposals and to waive technical errors as may be deemed in the best interest of the State. . . . .(emphasis supplied) Article 2-6. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable costs analysis values. In addition to the specifications, a part of the plans for the project required the successful bidder to perform substantial excavation work on the project site. The excavation work would more likely than not yield enough fill material to complete any fill or embankments required in the project. Therefore, the plans contemplated that the soils obtained from the excavation work would be used for the construction of an estimated 44,000 cubic yards of embankment in the project. In order to achieve this goal, page seven of the plans entitled "The Summary of Quantities" indicated that embankment was to be a "no-pay item". However, the bid proposal, the form which constitutes the actual bid of the contractor, contained a line item for a price quotation for embankment/fill, Item No. 120-6. By including such a line item in the bid proposal, bidders were required to submit some figure for this item or risk their bid being declared irregular under the specifications for this project. There was no timely objection filed by any bidder indicating that the bidder would be prejudiced by treatment of the embankment/fill item as a no-pay or as a pay item. Likewise, there was no timely challenge to the apparently conflicting plans and pay item sheet or that the conflicting plans and pay item sheet created a stiutaion which prohibited a bidder from submitting a responsive bid. Seven bids for the contract were submitted and opened on May 27, 1992. The three apparent lowest bids at the opening were: Anderson-Columbia at $4,251,147.89; J. B. Coxwell at $4,964,327.81; and Middlesex at $4,977,371.48. After the bids were opened, each bid was reviewed by FDOT's Technical Review Committee (TRC) to determine whether the bid was mathematically and materially unbalanced, contained all appropriate signatures, contained all appropriate documents and otherwise met the technical requirements of the ITB. In essence, the TRC reviews each bid to determine whether it is responsive to the bid proposal and, if not responsive whether the bid's lack of responsiveness is immaterial and waivable by FDOT. After its review of all the bids, the TRC then makes a recommendation to FDOT's Contract Awards Committee on whether a bid should be rejected for material nonresponsiveness to the ITB. In this case, the TRC recommended to the Contract Awards Committee that Anderson-Columbia's bid be rejected as nonresponsive to the ITB. On June 16, 1992, FDOT's Contract Awards Committee adopted the recommendation of the Technical Review Committee and declared Anderson-Columbia's bid nonresponsive. The awards committee also voted to award the bid to J. B. Coxwell as the second responsive low bidder and on July 6, 1992, FDOT posted a notice of intent to award the contract to J. B. Coxwell. In making the award, FDOT looked at the impact of the conflict between the plans and the bid proposal sheet. FDOT's practice is to add all the unit prices listed on the bid proposal sheet to determine the total amount of the bid. FDOT has never deleted an item from the unit price list to determine the amount of a bid. Following these policies and Consistent with Article 3-1 of the specifications, FDOT determined that a bidder's price quote for the enbankment/fill item would be included as a pay item in the total bid despite the plan's indication that embankment/fill would be a no-pay item and despite the fact that the embankment item probably will not be paid as long as the fill required is less than the excavation. However, at the time of bidding, no bidder could be certain that FDOT would choose to pay or not pay item 120-6. In this case, a review of the bids demonstrates that bidders were not uniform in their application of the conflict between the plans and bid proposal sheet in developing their specific bids. Some bidder's, like J. B. Coxwell, bid very low prices for the embankment/fill in their bid. Some bidder's, like Middlesex, bid prices for the embankment/fill item closer to the average unit price for embankment/fill. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the conflicting designation of the embankment/fill item and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the conflict. In short, all bidders received the same plans and bid proposal, reacted to them in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. The evidence did not demonstrate that the conflict between the plans and bid proposal sheet or FDOT's handling of the conflict was so unfair or confusing that the conflict completely impeded or subverted the purpose or fairness of the competitive bidding process. J. B. Coxwell. Finally, as indicated, the TRC reviews bids to determine whether they are materially unbalanced. In general, unbalanced bids are discouraged by the Department because an unbalanced bid has the potential to allow the contractor to recoup or receive a larger portion of the contract price at the beginning of the contract term thereby making it less disadvantageous for the contractor to walk away from the contract and making agency control over the contractor more difficult. However, not all unbalanced bids will be rejected by FDOT because mathematically unbalanced bids often will have no material impact on the order of the bidders or the interests of the state in the timely and orderly performance of a given road project. Additionally, because of the nature of a given project, there may be a very good reason for a contractor to submit a mathematicallly unbalanced bid. In fact, approximately 80% of all the bids submitted to FDOT contain some form of mathematical unbalancing. Given these facts, FDOT will only reject an unbalanced bid if the unbalancing is material to the project and its award. In evaluating unbalanced bids, FDOT follows the guidance in a May, 1988, memorandum from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which addresses bid analysis and unbalanced bids. The memorandum provides that where unit prices for items bid are either unusually high or low in relation to the engineer's estimate of the price (or mathematically unbalanced), the accuracy of the estimated quantities of the items are to be checked. If the quantities are reasonably accurate, the bid is to be further evaluated to determine whether the mathematical imbalance is "materially unbalanced" such that there is "reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting the mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." The analysis of a mathematically unbalanced bid to determine if it is materially unbalanced considers the effect of the unbalanced bid on the total contract amount; the increase, if any, in the contract cost when quantities are corrected; whether the low bidder will remain as the low bidder; and whether the unbalanced bid would have a potential detrimental effect upon the competitive process or cause contract administration problems later. In this case, FDOT compared the unit prices (line item prices) by each bidder on the bid proposal sheet to the average unit price for that item. The average unit price is based upon an average of the bidders' unit prices bid for a given pay item and the Department's estimated unit price for that item. If an individual bidder's unit price is significantly greater or less than the average price, FDOT's computer flags the item as mathematically unbalanced. Such a bid then receives further evaluation by FDOT to ensure the accuracy of the original estimates of the quantities of those items for which an unbalanced unit price has been submitted. FDOT also reviews the project plans for accuracy. The more in-depth review is performed to determine if there is a potential for a cost overrun or if there is an error in FDOT's estimated quantities which would result in an increased cost to the State for the project. In this case, J. B. Coxwell and Middlesex submitted bid proposals for each of the individual line item prices contained on FDOT's form. J. B. Coxwell's unit price for the embankment/fill item was $.10 per cubic yard of fill. FDOT's average price for the embankment/fill item was $3.20. The Middlesex quotation for embankment/fill was $2.25 per cubic yard of fill. FDOT's computer analysis of J. B. Coxwell's bid flagged the embankment/fill item as mathematically unbalanced. The quote by Middlesex for the embankment/fill item was not unbalanced and therefore was not flagged for furhter review by FDOT. However, the Middlesex bid was flagged as unbalanced for other line item quotations contained in its bid proposal. FDOT then made a more in-depth review of the bid of J. B. Coxwell and determined that although the bid was mathematically unbalanced, it was not materially unbalanced and did not result in a change in the bidding order. This determination was primarily based on the fact that the excavation portion of the project would yield enough fill to perform the embankment portion of the contract. Thus, a lower than average price in that item was not detrimental to the state, but, in fact, was in its best interest since a quote closer to FDOT's average would cause the state to be double billed for the fill FDOT's site would supply. There is no question that this was a reasonable analysis of the project in this case. Similarly, FDOT, utilizing the same analysis for unbalanced bids, also determined that the mathematically unbalanced unit prices submitted in the Middlesex bid were not materially unbalanced. Given the fact that Middlesex also had a mathematically unbalanced bid, which received the same analysis, Petitioner's argument that Coxwell's mathematically unbalanced bid should be rejected for such imbalance is rejected. Therefore, Middlesex has failed to demonstrate that it submitted the best responsive bid for State Project No. 55040-3521 and its protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the bid to J. B. Coxwell and dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 thes 8th day of December, 1992
Findings Of Fact In August, 1975, the Department of General Services invited competitive bids for the purchase of supervisory and control equipment and revenue metering equipment for expansion of primary electric utilities in the Capitol Center, a project known as State Project No. DGS-6026/6424, AEP File No. 74288-003. Plans and specifications for the project were developed by the department's consulting architect/engineers Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The Department of General Services (hereinafter Department) and Reynolds, Smith and Hills (hereinafter Reynolds) conducted formal bid opening on September 25, 1975. Bid proposals were received from petitioner, Weston Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Weston), and from Respondents, Harris Corporation (hereinafter Harris) and Hathaway Instruments, Inc. (hereinafter Hathaway). The amount of the bids were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE NO. 1-ADD TOTAL Harris 332,000.00 28,649.00 360,649.00 Weston 338,991.00 20,965.00 359,996.00 Hathaway 343,429.00 33,224.00 376,653.00 Hathaway's bid as submitted was responsive to the specifications and other requirements of the bid invitation. Weston's bid was responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation with the following exception. Specification B-2, in its second paragraph, states: "In order to facilitate the execution of the Agreement, the Bidder shall submit with his proposal a list of and brief description of similar work satisfactorily completed, with location, date of contracts, together with names and addresses of Owners." Weston did not submit that information with its bid but did submit that information on October 9, 1975. The Harris bid as submitted was not responsive to the specifications and requirements of the bid invitation. The material deviations from the specifications found in the Harris bid are as follows: Paragraph 16755-13(c) of the specifications states that data logger equipment by Teletype, Lear Siegler or General Electric will be considered. The Harris bid proposed a data logger manufactured by Practical Automation, Inc. and noted that if Harris was required to conform to the specifications by furnishing a data logger manufactured by one of the three specified manufacturers, its base bid would have to be increased by $635.00. Paragraph 16755-18 of the specifications requires a specific number of supervisory functions at each of the nineteen locations. The Harris bid met the requirements of the specifications at only one of the nineteen locations. At each of the other eighteen locations the Harris bid was from one to three supervisory points deficient. According to the evidence presented it would cost between $250 to $300 per location to furnish the supervisory points left out of Harris' bid. Paragraph 16755-13(d) of the specifications requires that the data logger shall log an uninitiated (alarm) change of status in red lettering. Harris' bid states that the equipment they have chosen is not available with red ribbon printout and that they therefore propose that all changes normally logged in red would instead have an asterisk in the first column. This specification requiring logging in red of an alarm change of status was included by the specifications writer of the architect/engineers as a safety feature. Paragraph 16755-13(e) of the specifications requires that the log shall contain time in a 24 hour format to a tenth of a minute. The Harris bid proposes that the log shall be in seconds rather than tenths of a minute. The specifications require equipment delivery to the job site and substantial completion within 180 calendar days after receipt of Notice To Proceed. The specifications further provide for liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day the contractor fails to meet the above completion date. The Harris bid requested that the liquidated damages clause and the required time for completion be modified to provice that the 180 day period would not commence until all drawings had been approved by the architect/engineers. The architect/engineers, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, calculated that the required drawing time was approximately 60 days. Therefore, the Harris bid proposes that Harris would have 240 days instead of 180 days in which to deliver the equipment to the site and substantially complete the contract. The Harris bid proposed a deviation from the warranty provision of the specifications. The specifications in paragraph E-17 placed the final determination of the need for repairs or changes under the guarantee clause of the specifications with the architect/engineers and the owner. Harris proposes to alter those specifications and place the right of final determination as to the existence and cause of any claim defect with Harris. Harris' bid contained information setting forth their experience with the Micro II System, which is the system they proposed in their bid. That information shows that the Micro II System had been in use no more than two and one-half years at the time of the bid letting. In its evaluation of the bidders' proposals, based upon the data contained in the original bid packages, Reynolds calculated that the deviation from the specifications by Harris gave Harris at least a $10,135 advantage in its bidding (See Petitioner's Exhibit 8). That evaluation did not include a dollar value for the deviation from the specification concerning the warranty. In that evaluation Reynolds noted the failure of Harris to meet the supervisory point requirements. They calculated that this would add $3,900 to Harris' bid based on twelve locations at $300 per location. In fact, Harris failed to meet the requirements at eighteen locations, which at $300 per location, would add $5,400 to Harris' bid. Thus, using the evaluation figures of Reynolds, it appears that Harris' deviations from the specifications gave them at least an $11,635 advantage in the bidding. On October 9, 1975, Reynolds held a conference with each of the three bidders. At that conference Weston provided a list of three names, with addresses of customers for whom Weston had completed work similar to that proposed in its bid. Reynolds did not receive any material information from these references until after October 31, 1975. At least two of the references commented favorably on Weston's performance in letters to Reynolds dated January 13, 1976 and January 20, 1976, respectively. By letter dated October 31, 1975, Reynolds' project manager for this project conveyed the architect/engineers' recommendation for award to the Department. That recommendation was that the contract be awarded to Hathaway Instruments, Inc., for the base bid item only. The recommendation noted that the alternate should be rejected because the bids for the alternate were excessively high. As stated in the letter of recommendation, Reynolds rejected Harris' bid because "there were several major exceptions taken to the specification (sic), the most serious of which was their not being able to meet the delivery schedule." Also, as stated in the letter of recommendation, Weston's bid was apparently rejected because they "could not meet the experience qualifications as specified." Harris, at the time of the bid letting, had five years experience with its Micro I equipment but had only two and one-half years experience with its Micro II equipment. The two lines of equipment constitute two generations of equipment. Neither Harris nor Weston had five years experience with the specific equipment proposed in their bids. Both, however, have had five years experience with the general type system and equipment proposed with Harris being the more experienced of the two. Based upon the evidence presented Weston and Harris are both responsible bidders. In November, 1975, the Department directed Reynolds to contact Harris and determine whether Harris would conform their bid to the specifications. The project manager for Reynolds so contacted Harris and by letter dated November 17, 1975 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4), notified the Department that Harris stated they would deliver the equipment within the time required by the specifications. That letter reiterated Reynolds' recommendation of Hathaway as contained in their letter of October 31, 1975. Reynolds did not retreat from their recommendation of Hathaway and at the final hearing again stated that recommendation. Thereafter, the Department proposed to award the contract to Harris and set the matter for final decision on December 2, 1975. Harris' bid was a responsible offer but was not in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions. The bids of Weston and Hathaway were responsible offers and were in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions except as noted in paragraphs 4, 7 and 19 herein. Paragraph B-18 of the Specifications and Contract Documents (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) states that "No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced." Section A of the same document states that bids would be received until 2:00 p.m. EDST, on September 25, 1975. No evidence was presented which would show that the time for receiving bids was extended beyond that set forth above. Therefore, the close of bidding appears to have been at 2:00 p.m., EDST, September 25, 1975. The agreement by Harris to conform their bid to the specifications and conditions constituted a material modification of their bid. This modification occurred in November, 1975, after the close of bidding, and was therefore not allowable under the terms of the Specifications and Contract Documents set forth above. The lowest base bid and alternate bid of those responsible offers received in full compliance with the bid specifications and conditions was that of Weston. No evidence was presented which would show that the Department submitted its complete File on this matter to the Division of Purchasing along with its reasons for recommending a bid other than the low bid meeting specifications, as required by Section 13A-1.02(a), F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact On May 19, 1983, Respondent mailed official Invitations to Bid (IFB) forms to 18 different firms, including Petitioner, soliciting bids for Class VI printing in accordance with the specifications and conditions attached to the letter, signed by R. E. Read, Jr. This letter contained the comment, "As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularities in bids received." This letter also advised prospective bidders who had questions regarding the IFB to call Larry Amison, the individual who had drafted the accompanying specifications. The notice of IFB, published in the Tallahassee Democrat on Thursday, May 19, 1983, also contained a notice of reservation of the right to reject all bids. Only five IFB forms were returned. Three of the five were returned without bids for various reasons, such as "Not Competitive," "Unable to meet specified delivery date" and "Cannot schedule job of this proportion at this time." This type of explanation, in government procurement circles, need not be taken at face value, but is often used to signal the recipient's thanks for the invitation to bid and a desire to be invited to bid again at some time in the future. The other two forms received were bids: one from Zenith Communications Group, and one from Petitioner. This procurement was somewhat unusual in that the IFB stipulated the amount of money the agency had to spend and requested a hid as to the most product it could get for that money. There were two publications involved: "A" and "B." An alternative was given on delivery date options: one within 30 working days of receipt of approved proofs, and one within 45. Zenith offered to provide 7,180 copies of Book "A" and 7,155 copies of Book "B" (14,335 total books) for a total price of $53,400 1/ within 30 working days. Petitioner offered to provide 9,473 copies of Book "A" and 4,950 copies of Book "B" (15,423 total books) for a total price of $53,344.64 within 45 days. The bids were opened on June 1, 1983, and published from June 1 through June 10, 1983. They were brought to the Director for consideration upon opening. It is his responsibility to evaluate the bids and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Agriculture on the successful low bidder. Since there was only one bid on each delivery date, the Director felt there were not two comparative bids. As a result, he forwarded the bid package to Ms. Grace Harrison, a purchasing agent with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and an individual very familiar with the procurement of printing services. After a review of the entire bid package, Ms. Harrison's studied opinion was that there were two valid bids and Douglas was the low bidder, and it is so found. Ms. Harrison also felt it was unusual not to receive any more responses than were received on a procurement of this magnitude. This same opinion is held by Mr. Amison, who drafted the specifications. Others have differing opinions, however. Whether it was unusual or not, however, is immaterial. There were two valid bids, and only two are required for an award. However, even in the case of two bids, the agency reserved the right to reject any and all bids. As a result, on or about June 6, 1983, the Director decided, based on his understanding of state policy on the matter and in light of the size of the procurement, to seek more bids through rebidding. In this case, the Director felt more bids were available because of the responses of the nonbidders which referred to the response times being so short. Therefore, he directed a rebid, and this information was communicated to all bidders, including Petitioner. On June 7, 1983, Petitioner wrote to the Director, disagreeing with his decision and notifying him of its protest. On the following day, the Director notified Petitioner the rebidding was being delayed, giving Petitioner 10 days to file a formal notice of protest. This was done in a timely manner. The phrase regarding the agency's right to reject bids is contained in every State IFB. Its purpose is to permit state agencies to reject bids where it becomes apparent there is a valid and legitimate benefit to be gained by the agency in doing so. One such situation is when, in the bona fide opinion of the agency, there are insufficient bids. While there is a difference of opinion as to whether only two bids are unusual in a procurement of this nature, there is no dispute that it would have been beneficial to the agency to have received more than two, since more bids would increase competition. To rebid the contract at this juncture would undoubtedly increase competition to the potential benefit of the Respondent. However, Petitioner claims it would also work to its detriment because other potential bidders would have access to the details of the two present bids and would thereby gain an advantage. This may be the result of rebidding.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner, Douglas Printing Company, Inc., be awarded Contract DOF- ADM-79. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1983.
The Issue Whether, in issuing the Revised Recommendation/Tabulation for contracts for Items 1 and 3 for Invitation to Bid No. 15- 048E, Multifunctional Devices, Cost-Per-Copy, Respondent acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 2014, SBBC issued ITB No. 15-048E (the ITB) entitled "Multifunctional Devices, Cost-Per-Copy" for the provision and maintenance of copying devices during the contract term. The listed Submittal Requirements were: Manufacturer's Authorization Special Condition 8; Descriptive Literature Special Condition 6; and Material Safety Data Sheets Special Condition 16. A Bidder's Preference Statement was not identified as a Submittal Requirement. Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB was entitled "TERM" and notified bidders that SBBC sought through the award of this bid to "establish a contract for the period beginning from the date of award and continuing through June 30, 2017." The Bid Summary Sheet found at Section 5 of the ITB requested bidders to provide cost-per-copy based on a stated average monthly number of copies, and to extrapolate cost out for 12 months and for 36 months. Page 1 of the ITB contained a certification to be executed by each bidder's authorized representative which stated in pertinent part as follows: Bidder agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and conditions contained in the ITB, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements of this ITB and failure to comply will result in disqualification of bid submitted. All bidders submitted a signed bidder certification. Section 3, Paragraph 1(a), of the General Conditions of the ITB provided as follows: SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "Bidder Acknowledgment Section" must be completed, signed and returned with the bid. The Bid Summary Sheet pages on which the Bidder actually submits a bid, and any pages, upon which information is required to be inserted, must be completed and submitted with the bid. The School Board of Broward County (SBBC) reserves the right to reject any bid that fails to comply with these submittal requirements. BIDDER'S RESPONSIBILITY: It is the responsibility of the Bidder to be certain that all numbered pages of the bid and all attachments thereto are received and all Addendum released are received prior to submitting a bid without regard to how a copy of this ITB was obtained. All bids are subject to the conditions specified herein on the attached bid documents and on any Addenda issued thereto. Section 3, Paragraph 6, of the General Conditions of the ITB provided as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of SBBC, the Board reserves the right to: 1) withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; 2) to reject any or all bids received when there are sound documented business reasons that serve the best interest of SBBC; 3) to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by Bidder; and 4) to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this ITB unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case, the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." On June 18, 2014, SBBC issued Addendum Number 1 for the ITB which replaced a number of pages within the bidding documents and contained responses to questions posed by prospective bidders. Addendum Number 1 included Question No. 6 in which Xerox inquired whether SBBC "would . . . consider a change to the contract term of the contract to 48 or 60-month term?" SBBC responded through Addendum Number 1 that it had amended the bid "to include additional pricing for 48 or 60-months term[s]," and SBBC continued to request proposals for a 36-month contract term. Addendum Number 1 revised Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the Special Conditions of the ITB to state as follows: TERM: The award of this bid shall establish a contract for the period beginning from the date of award and continuing through an award for a term of 36, 48 or 60 months. Bids will not be considered for a shorter period of time. All prices quoted must be firm throughout the contract period. Items will be ordered on an as needed basis. Addendum Number 1 included an Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet which required bidders to provide cost-per-copy based on a stated average monthly number of copies, and to extrapolate cost out for 12 months, 36 months, 48 months, and 60 months. On June 20, 2014, SBBC issued Addendum Number 2 for the ITB. The first page of Addendum Number 2 advised prospective bidders, "This Addendum amends the above referenced bid in the following particulars only: 1. DELETE: Appendix A–Cost Summary Sheet INSERT: Revised Appendix A–Cost Summary Sheet." The first page of Addendum Number 2 further cautioned bidders that "[i]t is important to include the REVISED page when submitting your response." Addendum Number 2 went on to provide a Revised- Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet which stated "A Cost Summary Sheet must be completed for each options [sic] 36 months, 48 months and 60 months" and included a cost summary sheet for each of those three options. The ITB and addenda numbers 1 and 2 were released by SBBC via Onvia DemandStar, with email notices thereof to prospective vendors who subscribed to its bid notification service. Toshiba downloaded the ITB, Addendum Number 1, and at least the first page of Addendum Number 2 from DemandStar prior to the submission of its bid to SBBC. Again, the first page of Addendum Number 2 cautioned bidders that Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet had been deleted and replaced and that it was "important to include the REVISED page when submitting your response." No bid specifications protest was filed by any person or entity concerning the ITB or addenda numbers 1 or 2. On July 3, 2014, SBBC opened bids timely submitted in response to the ITB by: Toshiba; ImageNet; Innovative; Lexmark International, Inc.; and Ricoh. Konica had also presented a bid to SBBC in the bid opening room prior to the opening of bids but after the announced time for submittal of bids. The Konica bid was delivered to SBBC but was not opened at the time of the bid opening. Toshiba, the incumbent, was the only bidder that violated the pricing requirements of the ITB. The bid submitted by Toshiba utilized the version of Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet that was released under Addendum Number 1 and only offered cost- per-copy pricing for the 60-month term option. Toshiba's bid did not submit the Revised-Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet issued under Addendum Number 2, nor did it contain any bids offering cost per copy pricing to SBBC for the 36 or 48-month term options. Although Toshiba's bid was not rejected as non-responsive for failing to bid on the 36 and 48-month term options and for failing to utilize and complete the Revised-Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet issued under Addendum Number 2, SBBC's staff later concluded in hindsight that it should have been rejected for such non-compliance. Toshiba's bid included a "Pricing" note immediately prior to its Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet that stated: [Toshiba] is proposing a 60 month CPC as a response to the [ITB]. Based on the fact the [ITB] has no minimum, cancellation for convenience, ability to upgrade and downgrade with no penalty, it is in the best interest of our organization to bid a term of 60 months. This term allows us to provide the most aggressive price to the [SBBC] and maintain the excellent service and support level in place. SBBC's staff recommended that an award be made under the ITB for pricing offered for a 36-month contract term for Items 1, 2, and 3 for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017. On July 10, 2014, SBBC posted its initial ITB Recommendation/Tabulation which did not consider the Konica bid. The initial posted Recommendation/Tabulation notified bidders of SBBC's intended award of contracts for Items 1 and 2 to ImageNet as the primary awardee and to Innovative as the alternate awardee for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017, and recommended the award of contracts for Item 3 to Ricoh as primary awardee and to ImageNet as alternate awardee for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017. Timely bid protests and bid protest bonds were filed by Konica and by Toshiba concerning SBBC's initial Recommendation/Tabulation of July 10, 2014. SBBC's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with the protestors on August 26, 2014, and determined that Konica's bid had been timely submitted and directed SBBC's Procurement and Warehousing Services Department (the Department) to evaluate Konica's bid for responsiveness. It also directed the Department to revise its recommendation on the ITB to reject Toshiba's bid for Item 2 as the device offered by Toshiba for that item did not meet the ITB's specifications which called for a single device capable of performing 95 copies per minute (cpm) and Toshiba instead offered two devices that performed at 85 cpm. After reviewing Konica's bid for responsiveness, SBBC posted a Revised Recommendation/Tabulation for the ITB on August 29, 2014, which (a) recommended award of Item 1 to ImageNet for a term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, as the primary awardee and to Innovative as the alternate awardee; (b) recommended award of Item 3 to Ricoh for a term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, as the primary awardee and to ImageNet as the alternate awardee; and (c) recommended the rejection of Toshiba's bid for Item 2 for its failure to meet the specifications for that Item. On September 4, 2014, Toshiba timely filed its notice of intent to protest the August 29, 2014, posted Revised Recommendation/Tabulation. On September 15, 2014, Toshiba timely filed its Amended Formal Petition Protesting Proposed Revised Recommendation/Tabulation. SBBC's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with Toshiba on November 5, 2014, pursuant to section 120.57(3), SBBC Purchasing Policy 3320, and the ITB, and rejected Toshiba's bid protest. On November 10, 2014, Toshiba timely requested that SBBC forward its bid protest to DOAH for a formal hearing. Toshiba has presented a number of arguments in these proceedings seeking to avoid the circumstances Toshiba created for itself when it failed to comply with Addendum Number 2 and violated the ITB's pricing requirements and the ITB's requirement as to the term of the contract to be awarded, when Toshiba only submitted a single bid and restricted the contract term for which it would be considered to 60 months. First, Toshiba attempts to divest SBBC of its express authority to select proposals for any contract duration for which it solicited bids other than for a month term. Second, Toshiba argues that SBBC was somehow obligated to specify within the bid specifications those business considerations that would inform SBBC's selection of the duration of the contract term to be awarded under the ITB. Third, Toshiba argues that ImageNet was non-responsive regarding the ITB's specifications concerning manufacturer's certifications. Toshiba also argues that all bidders, including itself, were non- responsive with regard to the ITB's specifications regarding bidding preference laws. None of the arguments presented by Toshiba in opposition to SBBC's intended award of Items 1 and 3 are persuasive. The Selection of the 36-Month Term SBBC's recommended award for a 36-month contract period from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, is consistent with the terms and conditions of the ITB and its addenda. At the very start of this competitive solicitation, SBBC informed bidders through Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB and the Bid Summary Sheet at Section 5 of the ITB that it was seeking a contract through June 30, 2017-–i.e., a 36-month contract. SBBC also made it clear in its response to Question No. 6 of Addendum Number 1 that "[t]he contract will be for a full 36 months." Although SBBC revised the bid specifications through Addendum Number 1 to allow bidders to submit "additional pricing for 48 and 60 months term[s]," "to allow the School District to consider a 48 and/or 60 months term contract," and revised Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB to provide for "an award for a term of 36, 48 or 60 months," it was clear under the ITB that SBBC contemplated that a 36-month contract could serve its needs. Addendum Number 2 further revised the bid specifications by providing the Revised–Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet which informed bidders that "a Cost Summary Sheet must be completed for each options [sic] 36 months, 48 months and 60 months." SBBC intended to review the additional pricing offered for 48 and 60- month contract terms to determine whether those particular options were a better business decision for SBBC. Several factors were considered by SBBC in selecting the contract duration for the award under the ITB. The selection of the shorter 36-month contract term was consistent with the expressed terms of the ITB and addenda and the expressed preference of SBBC's governing board to refrain from entering into long-term contracts and enabled SBBC to be flexible in finding solutions to its copying needs and to take advantage of changes that may arise in technology; avoided problems the school district was currently experiencing with a long-term cost-per- copy contract which ranged from equipment performance issues to the long-term placement of technology in schools; and enabled the school district to conduct research to determine whether future implementation of a managed print solution would provide the school district with additional cost savings or financial benefits in contrast to the cost-per-copy services being procured through the ITB. Clearly, this selection was neither arbitrary nor capricious. SBBC's elected governing board has made it known by its actions taken at public meetings that it disfavors long-term contracts for the procurement of goods and services and has gone so far as to reduce the term of contracts from the dais. SBBC's staff determined that the pricing offered to SBBC for a 60-month contract term was not significant enough to recommend a contract longer than the 36-month term SBBC had been requesting since the release of the ITB. Any cost advantages offered by Toshiba's bids for Items 1, 2, and 3 were reduced by $525,000 per year due to the disqualification of its bid for Item 2, which failed to meet the ITB's specifications. Consideration of Managed Print Services Xerox Corporation informed SBBC that a managed print services (MPS) program could save millions of dollars per year and later submitted a no bid response to SBBC regarding the ITB because SBBC was not implementing a MPS program under the ITB. SBBC had also received proposals from vendors in October 2013 concerning a MPS program and concluded that there existed a potential annual savings of millions of dollars if such a program could be implemented. All of which were additional reasonable, rational reasons for SBBC to remain consistent with its decision to award the contracts for a term of 36 months and not something longer. The ITB contains standard terms and conditions which enable SBBC to terminate an awarded contract regardless of reason and with or without cause upon 30 days written notice to the other party. Toshiba wants SBBC to rescue Toshiba from its failure to submit required bids for 36-month and 48-month periods by forcing SBBC to award a contract obligating the agency for a longer duration under the ITB than desired by the agency and then have SBBC terminate the 60-month contract award for convenience after 36 months. SBBC includes termination for convenience provisions within its contracts for goods and services due to section 1011.14, Florida Statutes, which restricts the ability of district school boards to obligate public funds for a period beyond one year. The inclusion of the standard termination for convenience clauses in its ITBs enables SBBC to enter into contracts exceeding one year which affords the school district opportunities to obtain continuity of service and price advantages that would not be available under shorter contracts. While SBBC has the ability under the ITB to terminate contracts for convenience upon 30 days' notice, it rarely does so. SBBC has never exercised its right to terminate its two prior contracts for the services sought under this ITB. Any such termination requires action by SBBC's governing board during a public meeting. SBBC's staff would not engage in the sham of recommending a contract to its governing board for a contract term longer than the period for which it intends to procure services from a vendor. SBBC's procurement staff believes that using the termination for convenience clause in the manner Toshiba recommends can have an adverse effect upon the school district's ability to encourage bidders to participate in its competitive solicitations or to offer it their best pricing. Questions 1 and 59 of Addendum Number 1 of the ITB provide evidence of concern within the bidding marketplace that SBBC might exercise its termination for convenience clauses with regard to the services being procured under the ITB and support the perception of SBBC's that it should avoid a reputation for exercising such termination authority. Toshiba argues that SBBC somehow materially misled bidders through the ITB by stating in response to Question No. 3 concerning MPS of Addendum Number 1 that: The School District is not planning to implement a Managed Print Services at this time. The School District would like to receive Additional information regarding other districts that have implemented a Managed Print Services. There are no evaluation points associated with this ITB. SBBC's responses to Question No. 3 of Addendum Number 1 were accurate and did not mislead bidders. Toshiba is the only bidder to claim to have been misled. Section 6, Paragraph 10, of the ITB requested bidders provide SBBC with information about how the awardee could transition SBBC to a MPS model from the cost-per-copy model being offered under its bid. While SBBC requested such information from vendors within the bidding marketplace, there is no evidence that any bidder's provision or omission of such information within its bid submission was considered in the selection of the recommended awardees. In fact, ImageNet was recommended for award even though it did not provide this ancillary information about transition to a MPS delivery model. Rather, the recommended awardees for a 36-month contract term for Items 1 and 3 were determined solely on the basis of cost submitted for those items by the bidders, all in accordance with the ITB. A MPS program was a possible initiative being considered by SBBC's former Chief Information Officer prior to his departure from SBBC in February 2014, at which time the school district's current cost-per-copy contract was nearing its expiration. Although SBBC still had an interest in the possibility of a MPS program, it was not going in that direction at the time it needed to release a bid for copying services to replace its current expiring contract. Toshiba contends that SBBC was somehow required to disclose to bidders whether the potential future implementation of a MPS program might impact the contract award period that SBBC might choose under the ITB. A myriad of business considerations may inform an agency in selecting the length of its contracts for goods and services, and there is no law or rule that requires an agency to specify those factors within an ITB. Responsiveness of the Bidders Toshiba has attempted to argue that ImageNet, the recommended awardee for Item 1 and the alternate awardee for Item 3, was somehow non-responsive under the ITB and ineligible for award. In support of this argument, Toshiba has referenced Section 4, Paragraph 8, of the Special Conditions of the ITB which state as follows: MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION: Bidder must submit with their ITB a notarized letter from manufacturer certifying that bidder is authorized to sell, service and warrant the multifunctional devices offered within this ITB. Failure of the bidder to provide this letter with their submitted bid or upon request shall result in disqualification of entire bid. If the bidder is the manufacturer, then bidder should state that their company is the manufacturer of the equipment provided in this bid (the letter does not need to be notarized). A bid is only disqualified under Section 4, Paragraph 8, of the ITB if (1) a notarized manufacturer's letter is omitted from the bid; and (2) the bidder fails to comply with a subsequent request from SBBC to provide the letter. No bidder, including Toshiba and ImageNet, included a notarized letter from a manufacturer with its bid. SBBC did not request any of the bidders to submit a notarized manufacturer's letter at any time after the submission of bids. As a result, none of the bids, including that of ImageNet, was non-responsive for a failure to satisfy Paragraph 8 of Section 4 of the ITB. Toshiba has also argued that all bids should be rejected due to Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB which concerns bidders' preference laws and states as follows: d) BIDDING PREFERENCE LAWS: ALL BIDDERS MUST COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THE LEGAL OPINION OF BIDDER'S PREFERENCE FORM IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED [sic] FOR AWARD. The State of Florida provides a Bidder's preference for Florida vendors for the purchase of personal property. The local preference is five (5) percent. Bidders outside the State of Florida must have an Attorney, licensed to practice law in the out-of-state jurisdiction, as required by Florida Statute 287.084(2), execute the "Opinion of Out-of-State Bidder's Attorney on Bidding Preferences" form and must submit this form with the submitted bid. Such opinion should permit SBBC's reliance on such attorney's opinion for purposes of complying with Florida Statute 287.084. Florida Bidders must also complete its portion of the form. Failure to submit and execute this form, with the bid, shall result in bid being considered "non-responsive" and bid rejected. No bidder, including Toshiba, included an "Opinion of Out-of-State Bidder's Attorney on Bidding Preferences" form with its bid. Each bidder's omission of that form was for good reason. Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB is a boilerplate provision within SBBC's standard bidding documents that is included pursuant to section 297.084(2), Florida Statutes, for any competitive solicitations in which personal property is to be purchased by SBBC. In instances in which it solicits bids to purchase personal property, SBBC includes a "Bidder's Preference Statement" form and includes that form among the checked "Submittal Requirements" listed in Section 2, Page 1, of the ITB. This ITB did not include a "Bidders Preference Statement" form among the bidding documents or list it as one of the required submittals. The state law and the boilerplate provision at Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB are only applicable to competitive solicitations for the purchase of personal property and do not extend to competitive solicitations for the purchase of services. As Section 4, Paragraph 12, of the Special Conditions of the ITB makes it clear that the multi-functional devices to be provided by the awardee under the ITB will "remain the property of the vendor," the standard bidder's preference provision contained within the ITB is plainly inapplicable to this procurement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained herein, dismisses the protest filed by Toshiba Business Solutions (USA), Inc., and upholds the awards of contracts under the procurement for a 36-month term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, to ImageNet Consulting of Miami, Inc., as the primary awardee for Item 1 and to Innovative Software Solution, Inc., as the alternate awardee for Item 1, and to Ricoh USA, Inc., as the primary awardee for Item 3 and to ImageNet Consulting of Miami, Inc., as the alternate awardee for Item 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Eleventh Floor 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) William G. Salim, Jr., Esquire Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim and Simowitz, P.A. 800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 (eServed) Eric J. Rayman, Esquire Genovese, Joblove and Battista, P.A. PNC Center, Suite 1110 200 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Albert E. Dotson, Esquire Wendy Francois, Esquire Bilzin, Sumberg, Baena, Price and Axelrod, LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board Tenth Floor 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence addressed at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The request for sealed bids for the construction of the Project was advertised on October 9, 16 and 23, 1991. There were six addenda to the original bid documents which added, deleted or modified provisions of the original bidding requirements, contract requirements, administrative requirements and technical specifications. The original bid documents plus the six addenda will be referred to herein as the "bid documents". The bid documents required that all bids be in full accord with the contract documents. Sealed bids for the Project were opened on October 30, 1991. Wright submitted the lowest lump sum bid for the Project, with Sovran submitting the second lowest lump sum bid and Kellogg submitting the third lowest lump sum bid. At the time of the bid opening, the bid documents listed only four casework manufacturers that were approved to furnish casework for the Project. Empire Custom Cabinets, Inc. (Empire) was not listed as one of the four approved casework manufacturers in the bid documents. The bid documents did not require the bidder to list the casework manufacturer it intended to obtain the casework from, but only that the bidder name the casework subcontractor. The only work item in the bid documents which requires identifying the name of the manufacturer on the subcontractor's list is the metal roof system. Because Empire's bid on the casework was extremely low compared to other bids received by Wright on the casework, Wright called Empire prior to submitting its bid to confirm that Empire's bid was submitted per plans and specifications. Although Wright did not specifically inquire of Empire at this time as to which manufacturer Empire was obtaining the casework from for the Project, Empire did advise Wright that Empire's bid on the casework was according to plans and specifications. Additionally, Empire did not divulge or advise Wright at this time that the bid was based on Empire manufacturing the casework for the Project. Based on this representation from Empire, Wright listed Empire as its casework subcontractor, and calculated its lump sum bid for the Project using Empire's bid. Although Wright listed Empire as its casework subcontractor in its bid, this did not create an irregularity in Wright's bid since Wright's bid was per plans and specification without exception or exclusion. This would require Wright to furnish casework for the Project manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers listed in the bid documents regardless of which subcontractor Wright listed as the subcontractor for casework. By letter dated November 1, 1991, the Board's architect for the Project requested Wright to have Empire submit written certification by one of the four approved casework manufacturers that its casework was being furnished to Empire for the project. By letter dated November 4, 1991, Empire advised Wright that Empire's bid on the casework for the Project was based on casework to be manufactured by Empire. On the same day, Wright furnished the architect for the Project a copy of Empire's letter of November 4, 1991. In response to a request by the Board, Wright, by letter dated November 7, 1991, advised the Board that Wright would furnish casework manufactured by one of the four approved manufacturers listed in the bid documents for the Project. By letter dated December 3, 1991, Empire advised Wright that Empire would need to withdraw its bid if Empire was required to use casework manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers listed in the bid documents. On that same day, Wright furnished the Board a copy of Empire's letter and requested that the Board allow Wright to remove and replace Empire with Steven Ward and Associates, Inc. (Ward), as the casework subcontractor since Ward would be able to furnish and install casework manufactured by LSI Corporation of America, Inc., one of the four approved casework manufacturers. No Action has been taken on that request. The bid documents provide for a subcontractor to be removed and replaced from the list of subcontractors after the bid is opened if there is a showing of good cause and written approval by the Board and the Project architect is obtained. Although Empire's bid on the casework for the Project submitted to Wright was based on Empire manufacturing the casework, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that at the time Wright submitted its bid on the Project it had reasonable grounds to believe that Empire's bid on the casework was based on Empire furnishing and installing casework manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers. After determining that Empire could not perform under its bid, Wright obtained a bid from Ward for furnishing and installing the casework for the Project which was less than Ward's original bid submitted to Wright before the bid opening. However, this bid was substantially more than Empire's bid, and if Wright is allowed to substitute Ward for Empire, Wright will have to absorb the additional costs since the bids were lump sum bids. Wright is neither attempting to furnish casework from a manufacturer that is not approved, nor is Wright requesting an increase in the lump sum bid price. The advertisement for Sealed Bids for the Project required that all bidders be prequalified by the Board prior to the bid date. Sovran and one other bidder were not prequalified by the Board prior to the bid date in accordance with Advertisement for Sealed Bids for the Project. Sovran received the bid documents for the Project approximately one month before the bid date but did not file a Notice of Protest of the prequalification requirement contained in the Advertisement for Sealed Bids for the Project. Sovran holds a certificate as a general contractor licensed in the State of Florida in accordance with Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. As a certified general contractor Sovran, pursuant to Section 489.125, Florida Statutes, was authorized to bid on the Project notwithstanding the Board's prequalification requirement. This was explained by the Board's representative at the bid opening. The bid documents required that a subcontractor list be submitted by all bidders, and when submitted with the bid becomes an integral part of the bid. The purpose of the subcontractor list was to prevent bid shopping, and to allow the Board an opportunity to review the subcontractors to determine if any subcontractor on the list had performed unsatisfactorily on previous Board projects. Neither the statutes relating to competitive bidding nor the bid documents prohibit the listing of the general contractor together with a subcontractor on a subcontractor list. The subcontractor list submitted by Sovran indicated "Sovran Constr/Naples" as the name of the subcontractor for the masonry work and "Sovran/Naples" as the name of the subcontractor for the poured-in-place concrete work. "Naples" is Naples Concrete and Masonry Work, Inc. The bid received by Sovran from Naples was for both labor and materials for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. Sovran neither requested nor did Naples furnish Sovran a bid to provide labor only for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. There was no agreement between Sovran and Naples whereby Sovran would supply the materials and Naples would furnish the labor for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. Sovran did request and receive bids from other companies for furnishing materials only for the poured-in-place concrete and masonry work. Sovran listed itself, the general contractor, along with Naples on the subcontractor list for the purpose of supplying the materials for the poured-in- place concrete and masonry work. Sovran's main reason for supplying the materials was that Naples was not bondable. Without a payment bond from Naples, Sovran would be without protection and could be forced into paying double for the materials in the event Naples failed to pay the material suppliers. Although the Superintendent of the Lee County Schools has recommended to the Board that the Board accept Wright's bid for the Project, the Board has not voted on that recommendation. The fact that Wright used Empire's bid to calculate its lump sum bid in no way excuses Wright for the requirement set out in the bid documents that casework used for the Project (when the time comes) be manufactured by one of the four approved casework manufacturers. Wright gains no economic advantage in this regard since the lump sum bid price remains the same. The advertisement for Sealed Bids on the Project provides that the Board reserves the right to waive any and all irregularities of any bid received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the instant bid protest and awarding to Wright the contract for the construction of Elementary School "C", Job No. 91063. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 13 day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 91-7597B1D The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1 - 3(1,2 and 3 , respectively); 4 - 5(6); 6(4); 7 - 9(5); 12(10); 13(11); 15 - 16(12); 17(13); 18 - 19(16); 20(29); 21(18); 23(19); 24 - 25(20); 26(22); 27(23); 28(22); 29 - 30(29); 32 - 33(25); and 34(26). Proposed finding of fact 10 is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record in that Wright's bid was as per plans and specifications without exceptions or exclusions which included the use of casework manufactured by one of the approved casework manufacturers. Proposed finding of fact 11 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record in that the Board knew of Empire's bid being based on nonconforming materials prior to issuing its Notice of Intent. However, the only information the Board had in reference to Wright's bid before issuing its Notice of Intent was that Wright had bid as per plans and specifications and would be installing casework manufactured by one of the approved manufacturers. The only question was whether Empire could furnish casework manufactured by one of the approved manufacturers. Proposed finding of fact 14 is neither material nor relevant. How the Board's architect interpreted Wright's bid is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed finding of fact 22 is unnecessary to the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 31 is more in the way of an argument than a finding of fact. Proposed findings of fact 35 and 36 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. The timeliness of Kellogg's protest is not an issue and therefore, a finding that it was timely is unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent While not specifically adopting proposed finding of fact 1, where material or relevant or necessary to this proceeding, and supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record the stipulated facts have been adopted. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 2(4,5); 3(9); 4 - 5(7); 7 - 8(8); 10(16); 11(14); 12(31); 13(21); and 15(23). Proposed finding of fact 6 is more in the way of an argument than a finding of fact. Proposed finding of fact 9 and 14 are neither material nor relevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Intervenor See ruling on Respondent's proposed finding of fact Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 2 - 3(21); 4(24); 5 - 6(21); 13(23); 14(24,28); 15(22); 16 - 17(23,24); and 18(28). Proposed findings of fact 7 through 12 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Gurley, Esquire Norton, Gurley & Darnell, P.A. 1819 Main Street, Suite 610 Sarasota, FL 34236 Marianne Kantor, Esquire The School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33901 James M. Talley, Esquire Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A. Post Office Box 712 Orlando, FL 32802 Karl Engel Superintendent Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of the respondent, Department of Corrections (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, Doctors and Physicians Laboratories, Inc. (Doctors), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Background On October 16, 1991, the Department of Corrections (Department) issued invitation to bid number 91-CO-5369 (hereinafter "the ITB"), which sought to secure appropriate services to perform drug tests on certain applicants for employment and existing employees of the Department. The deadline for submitting bids was established as 11:00 a.m., November 7, 1991. At the time of the deadline, the Department had received four bids, including those of petitioner, Toxicology Testing Service, Inc., and intervenor, Doctors and Physicians Laboratories, Inc. (Doctors). Petitioner's bid was $372,000, and Doctors' bid was $315,491.60. Based on its evaluation, the Department ranked Doctors first and petitioner second, with composite scores of 91.67 and 90.38, respectively, and proposed to award the contract to Doctors. Petitioner filed a timely formal written protest to contest the Department's decision, and charged that the Department materially departed from the evaluation criteria contained in the ITB. The Invitation to Bid Pertinent to this case, section 4.7 of the ITB established the evaluation criteria to be used in determining the acceptability of the bids as follows: 4.7 Evaluation Criteria Criteria Point Value 1. References 5 2. Firm Profile 5 3. Firms Qualifications 15 Understanding of Scope of Services 25 Bid Price 50 100 And, section 4.7.5 of the ITB established the following methodology to be utilized in awarding points for the bid price criteria: The award for bid price shall be determined as follows: The Bidder who submits the lowest bid price will be awarded 50 points. All others bidders will be awarded points based on the following formula: Bid Price Points = 50 X [1-A/B] where: A = the difference between the percentage of the bid being evaluated and the low bid(s). B = the low bid. The lowest bid price will be computed by multiplying the unit prices for Items 1, 2 and 3 for all three years by the estimated quantity. The estimated quantity is for bidding purposes only and is not a guarantee. The total annual cost for Items 1 and 2 for all three years will be added to determine the Total Cost for all three years. The vendor with the lowest Total Cost will be awarded the 50 points. Negative points will not be awarded. Pursuant to the provisions of section 5.13 of the ITB, the contract was to be awarded to the bidder that received the highest overall point total under the criteria established by section 4.7 of the ITB. The Department's evaluation and the protest Based on its evaluation of the bids, the Department's evaluation committee awarded petitioner 49.34 points for its technical proposal (items 1-4 of the evaluation criteria) and Doctor's 41.67 points for its technical proposal. Bid price points were then established through a preexisting computer program, which derived 41.04 points for petitioner and 50 points for Doctors. When totalled, petitioner received 90.38 points and Doctors received 91.67 points. Accordingly, the Department proposed to award the contract to Doctors. Petitioner filed a timely protest to contest such award. The gravamen of that protest is petitioner's contention that the Department applied a methodology other than that established by the ITB to derive the bid price points and that had it utilized the methodology established by the ITB petitioner would have received the most points and been the prevailing bidder. 1/ Consistent with petitioner's contention, the proof demonstrates that the computer program used to derive the bid price points and the methodology established by the ITB to derive such points differed with regard to the definition of A in the formula, discussed supra. In the computer program, factor A was defined as the difference between the price of the bid being evaluated and the low bid. In the ITB, factor A was defined as the difference between the percentage of the bid being evaluated and the low bid. The Department was not, however, aware of this dichotomy until the subject protest, believing that its ITB conformed with the methodology it had previously programed for its computer, and, at hearing, offered proof, which is credited, that use of the word "percentage" in the definition of A was a typographical error which should have read "price." Notably, the Department heavily weighed price (50%) in its ITB, and it is apparent the Department intended to use a formula that would create a difference in price scoring that was relative to any difference in the bid prices. Use of the formula, as correctly defined in its computer program, would accomplish such goal. Use of the formula, as incorrectly defined by the ITB and interpreted by petitioner in these proceedings, would not accord any meaningful weight to price. 2/ Under such circumstances, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the Department departed from the essential requirements of law when it declined to apply the methodology as interpreted by petitioner to award the contract. Moreover, for the reasons that follow, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Department's decision to stand by its award based on the correctly defined methodology departed from the essential requirements of law. Here, the proof demonstrates that petitioner, upon receipt and review of the ITB, was well aware that the formula for awarding points based on price was nonsensical, and most likely, in error. 3/ Notwithstanding, petitioner took no action under the provisions of general condition 6 and special condition 4.4 of the ITB to raise any question or seek any clarification or interpretation of the formula from the Department. 4/ Rather, petitioner submitted its best price offer, more likely than not, without reliance on the erroneous formula set forth in the ITB. 5/ Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Department's award of the contract, based on an application of the correct definition of factor A, accorded any bidder an unfair advantage or otherwise departed from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the subject bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of May 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 20th day of May 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services currently leases approximately 22,000 square feet of space from Nelson P. Davis. The space is contained in two separate buildings, both located at 417 Racetrack Road, Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. The Department and Davis were involved in a legal dispute involving the currently leased premises, which concluded in 1986 with the entry of judgment in Davis' favor. While some antagonism remains between the parties related to the legal action instituted by Davis, Davis has been an acceptable landlord in all other respects. The current lease expires February 1, 1989. Davis has been aware, since late February or early March of 1988, that the Department would need space in excess of the currently occupied 22,000 square feet, but was not aware of the actual additional space requirements until the issuance of the invitation to bid. In general, the Department's space requirements have increased annually. In response to the anticipated need for additional space, Davis initiated plans for design of a third Racetrack Road building that could meet the additional need, but did not construct the facility. In response to the space requirements of previous years, Davis has constructed additional space. The Department has occupied the additional space in such proportions as to avoid the competitive bidding process, however, the current need for additional space exceeds the maximum which can be leased without competitive bidding. The Department on May 11, 1988, issued an invitation to Bid for approximately 26,165 square feet of space in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. (HO #1) In response to the invitation, Davis submitted a bid proposal. The Davis proposal, the sole proposal received by the Department, was disqualified by the Department as non-responsive. On June 23, 1988, the sole bid was opened by Joseph Pastucha, HRS District One Facilities Manager, who initially reviewed the Davis bid. Mr. Pastucha identified items of concern related to the responsiveness of the bid and then provided the information to his supervisor, who in turn provided the information to Mr. James Peters. The Department did not contact Davis for further information or to provide the opportunity to correct any defects. James Peters, HRS's District One Manager for Administrative Services has expressed on at least one occasion a desire to avoid entering into business arrangements with Nelson P. Davis. The bases for Peters' opinion is the earlier litigation between the parties. Peters was on the committee which was to have evaluated bids submitted in response to the invitation. However, Peters has stated that his personal opinion would not influence his participation in the bid solicitation process. The evidence did not indicate that Peters based his opinion regarding the Davis bid submission solely on the earlier litigation or that any other person involved in the agency's action permitted personal opinions to affect the decisional process. Davis' bid proposal included the two buildings constituting approximately 22,000 square feet located at 417 Racetrack Road which the Department currently occupies, plus a third building of approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposed square footage and lease cost were acceptable. The third building was to be either a planned, unconstructed building located at the 417 Racetrack Road location or an existing building located "7/l0ths of a mile southeast of the present HRS offices," (the off-site building). However, a memorandum attached to Davis' submission stated that he did not intend to use the off-site building for HRS purposes, (HO #2). Further, Davis had previously indicated in conversation with the HRS manager of the 417 Racetrack Road offices that he planned to utilize the off-site space otherwise. On page one of the bid submittal form Davis indicated the address of the proposed location as 417 Racetrack Road. By letter dated July 5, 1988, the Department notified Davis that his bid offering was deemed non-responsive and that the Department expected to readvertise for space in Ft. Walton Beach. The letter made no mention of any opportunity to protest the determination. The statement, "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes," which is required to be included in the notice of agency decision by Section 120.53(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was omitted by the Department. (HO #3) On or about July 7, 1988, Davis contacted the Department of General Services to express his dismay regarding the disqualification of his submittal. A meeting, held on or about July 19, 1988, between Davis and Department representatives, did not alter the Department's position. On or about July 25, 1988, the written notice of protest and request for hearing was filed. The Department forwarded the request to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The letter dated July 5, 1988, advising Davis that his bid was deemed non-responsive enumerated five reasons for the Department's decision. The reasons stated were: No photograph of the proposed facility was submitted as requested; No floor plan of the facility was submitted as requested; A substituted site was submitted Proposed space was not an existing building and was not measurable; Three buildings in bid proposal constitute three locations and are unacceptable. The letter was signed by Chuck Bates, DHRS Deputy District Administrator, District One. The letter was drafted by James Peters. (HO #3) Mr. Bates relied upon Peters and Pastucha to provide information sufficient to justify the disqualification of the bid, and was satisfied that the action was justified prior to signing the letter. Examination of the bid submittal package reveals that Davis failed to acknowledge by initial the requirements of page seven, but that he did, on that page, appropriately respond to questions related to proposed parking spaces being bid. The Department did not base the disqualification of the bid on the failure to acknowledge the page and did not include the failure to initial the page in the stated reasons for deeming the bid non-responsive. Paragraph 9(a) of the bid submittal form requires the submission of a clear photograph of the exterior front of the building. (HO #2) Davis submitted no photographs. Paragraph 9(b) of the bid submittal form requires the submission of a scaled floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. (HO #2) Davis submitted floor plans for the proposed-to-be-constructed building and for the off-site building, but failed to submit floor plans for the two buildings which the Department currently occupies. The bid also failed to include calculations of net rentable square footage related to the omitted floor plans. The letter to Davis stated that an additional reason for disqualification of his bid from further consideration was the submission of a substituted site, (HO #3). The "substituted site" refers to Davis' inclusion of the off-site building not identified in the bid submission other than by the statement that the building was located seven-tenths of a mile southeast of the present HRS office location. No map, street address, legal description, or other identifying information was submitted. The proposal submitted by Davis included plans to construct a third building at 417 Racetrack Road, which was rejected as not measurable. The invitation to bid states that to be considered, the space must be existing, dry and physically measurable, at the time of bid submitted. (HO #1) The proposed third building clearly fails to meet this requirement. While the Department may permit the correction of minor deficiencies, the deficiencies were adjudged by the Department to be more than minor. The proposal's inclusion of nonexisting space (Racetrack Road building #3) or in the alternative a building, the location of which can not be determined from the bid information and which the bidder apparently intends not to provide, is non- responsive to the specifications of the invitation. As to the fifth enumerated reason for disqualification of the bid (three buildings/three locations) the Department and Petitioner presented extensive testimony related to paragraph 3(b) of page 15 of the bid submittal form. Page 15 of the bid submittal form is titled "Evaluation Criteria" and contains a list of weighted factors which were to be used in the evaluation of bids. (HO #2) Paragraph 3(b) states, as one factor for consideration in evaluation, whether the bid provides for the required aggregate square footage in a single building, and continues, "[p]roposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within yards of each other." (HO #2) The space left for the specification of maximum yardage was erroneously left uncompleted by the Department and the Department did not learn of the error until the bid was submitted. The Department's disqualification of the bid on this basis relies on the Department's assertion that the three buildings included in the Davis proposal constitute three locations and that a responsive bid may contain not more than two locations. The Department's position is that "location" and "building" are synonymous and that paragraph 3(b) of the evaluation criteria prohibits consideration of a bid submission including more than two buildings. The Department's position is rejected as arbitrary. The bid package does not state that proposals including more than two buildings will be disqualified. The sole reference to the number of buildings in a responsive bid submission is as stated and contained on the page of "Evaluation Criteria", wherein it is identified with a weighting factor of five percent of total possible points.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing Case No. 88-3868BID. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3868BID The following constitute rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner: Accepted in part. The use of the word "required in the fourth sentence is rejected. The referenced section relates to evaluation factors, not specific requirements. Accepted. Accepted in part. The third building was proposed as either the off-site building or the planned, non-existent space. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as restatement of testimony. Other testimony indicated that Petitioner planned to use the off-site location for non-HRS purposes. Rejected, immaterial. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted in part. The use of the word "technical" is rejected. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. Accepted as modified. The change between the two invitations to bid was to clarify the obvious confusion related to the use of terms "location" and "building" and was made not to the bid specifications but to evaluation criteria. Rejected as restatement of testimony. Rejected, conclusion of law. Accepted so far as relevant. While the Davis bid was disqualified as non-responsive, the right to reject any and all bids encompasses the disqualification of a bid as non-responsive to the specific requirements of an invitation to bid. Respondent: Rejected, conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Floor plan of the off-site building was submitted showing that the building is essentially a hollow, box-like structure. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, irrelevant. While the usual distance may be 100 yards, the actual bid specifications do not state such. Further the sole reference to the distance between "locations" was contained in evaluation criteria. At no time prior to the June 23, 1988 bid opening did the Department attempt to identify the preferred distance between locations. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. McDonald, Esquire Post Office Box 887, Suite 105 151 Mary Esther Cutoff Mary Esther, Florida 32569 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Acting District One Legal Counsel Post Office Box 8420 Pensacola, Florida 32505-8420 Joseph J. Pastucha 3300 North Pace Boulevard Room 109 Town & Country Plaza Pensacola, Florida 32505 Jan Kline 417 Racetrack Road Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 James V. Peters Department of General Services 160 Governmental Center Fourth Floor, Room 412 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Tom Batchelor Staff Director House HRS Committee The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, 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 26th day of February 1996.
