The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact The invitation for bid regarding Lease No. 590:2169 solicited bids for a 10 year lease of existing office space for occupancy on October 1, 1990. The invitation for bid consisted of 13 pages and solicited bids for approximately 10,633 net rentable square feet located within a prescribed area in Florida City, Florida (the "IFB"). All bids were required to be submitted on a form entitled the "Bid Submittal Form". Any bids not submitted on the Bid Submittal Form were required to be rejected pursuant to the terms of paragraph 1, page 6 of the IFB. The Bid Submittal Form consisted of 24 pages. The Bid Submittal Form at paragraph 22, page 12, required Petitioner to include a certification letter from a licensed heating, ventilation, and air conditioning contractor attesting to the age and condition of the heating or cooling system existing in the proposed lease space, if any (a "certification letter"). No certification letter was required if the proposed lease space had no cooling or heating system in place. A portion of Petitioner's proposed lease space was air conditioned. Petitioner did not submit the requisite certification letter. Respondent had no reasonable basis to know from Petitioner's Bid Submittal Form that the proposed lease space had an existing heating or cooling system. Pictures of the proposed lease space disclosed that part of the proposed lease space was enclosed. The pictures were not a sufficient basis for Respondent to conclude that an existing air conditioning system was in place. Petitioner's proposed lease space was in apparent need of renovation before it was tenable for Respondent's needs. Petitioner's failure to submit a certification letter would have been consistent with a conclusion that no adequate, existing cooling system was in place and that a new cooling ard heating system would be needed as part of the renovation of the proposed lease space. The Bid Submittal Form, at Paragraph 11, page 5, required any bidder with proposed lease space that was partially or wholly occupied, either at the time of the submission of the bid proposal or at the time of the proposed occupancy date (October 1, 1990), to submit written documentation by the tenants indicating each tenant's acknowledgment of the lessor's bid and each tenant's ability to vacate the proposed lease space by the proposed occupancy date (or earlier date if renovation was required). The IFB, paragraph 7, page 13, also listed existing tenant acknowledgments as one of the types of documents required to be submitted by any bidder with lease space occupied by existing tenants. A portion of Petitioner's proposed lease space was occupied by tenants at the time that the Bid Submittal Form was prepared and submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner never physically inspected the proposed lease space. Petitioner's Bid Submittal Form represented that there were month-to-month tenants in the proposed lease space but that the requirement for existing tenant acknowledgments was "not applicable". Contrary to the requirements of the Bid Submittal Form and IFB, Petitioner submitted no existing tenant acknowledgments. Petitioner had control of its proposed lease space within the meaning of the IFB, paragraph 1, page 3. Petitioner had a contractual right to purchase the proposed lease space pursuant to a Deposit and Sale-Purchase Agreement dated March 30, 1990 (the "Purchase Agreement"). A copy of the Purchase Agreement was attached to Petitioner's Bid Submittal Form. The Addendum to the Purchase Agreement provided in relevant part that Petitioner would purchase the proposed lease space subject to the occupancy of any and all tenants in possession. Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid proposal was not responsive because the Bid Submittai Form prepared and submitted by Petitioner failed to include both the certification letter and the existing tenant acknowledgments. Each such omission was determined to be a material deviation from the bid requirements by Samir Elmir, Facilities Management Assistant for Respondent at the time of the bids were opened on April 2, 1990. The initial determination of non-responsiveness by Mr. Elmir was confirmed by Luis Cerezo, Facilities Services Manager for Respondent who was also present at the bid openings. Their determination of non-responsiveness was confirmed by Warner Von Werne, Acting General Services Manager. 1/ Petitioner was advised of the non-responsiveness of its bid proposal at the time of the bid openings by deficiencies noted on the Bid Technical Responsiveness Checklist (the "Checklist"). The Checklist was completed and marked "Non-Responsive" by Mr. Elmir aid delivered to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's written formal protest be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of August, 1990. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T1285 to Intervenor Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. ("K & R").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On May 14, 2008, the Department released its bid solicitation for Contract T1285. The proposed contract was for the construction of a one-way pair through Lake Alfred, including new construction, reconstruction, milling and resurfacing, widening, drainage improvements, lighting, signalization, signing and pavement marking and landscaping on State Road 600 (U.S. 17/92). Polk County, the location of the project, lies in the Department's District 1. Qualified contractors, including Mid-State and K & R, received an electronic disk containing the solicitation, bid blank, plans and specifications for Contract T1285. The letting date for this project was June 18, 2008. Bids were to be submitted on or before that date via Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. No party submitted a protest of the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The work to be performed on Contract T1285 included the installation of limerock road base to be paid for in accordance with line item 0175, Optional Base Group 09 ("Base Group 09"). The bid documents included a set of "Supplemental Specifications." Section 6 of the Supplemental Specification was titled "Control of Materials." Subsection 6-3.3, titled "Construction Aggregates," provided as follows: "Aggregates used on Department projects must be in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-103."2 Under the heading "Developmental Specifications" is a February 15, 2008, revision to the Construction Aggregates subsection that provides: Subarticle 6-3.3 (Page 54) is expanded by the following: 6-3.3.1 Department Directed Source for Aggregates: For this Contract, obtain aggregates for use in limerock base from the following vendor: Vulcan Construction Materials LP. Upon award of the Contract, provide the vendor and the Department a schedule of project aggregate needs. Once a schedule has been provided to both the Department and vendor, the Engineer will issue written authorization, with a copy to the vendor, for the purchase of aggregates from the vendor. This authorization is required before aggregates will be released by the vendor. Pick up the required aggregate such that the project schedule will be maintained. Payment to the vendor by the Contractor will be due upon receipt of the materials pursuant to the Department's Vendor Contract No. BDH50. This rate is the unit price agreed upon by the Department and the vendor and will be made available to bid proposal holders at the time of bid at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/aggregate /aggregate.htm. The Department will make payment to the Contractor for the aggregates on progress estimates as a part of the bid unit price for the appropriate pay items. The rate is subject to change and adjustments for such changes will be made to the bid unit price of the appropriate pay items. Disputes with the vendor concerning aggregate supply will not be cause for Contract time adjustments, time suspensions or monetary adjustments to the Contract amount. The Contractor will be solely responsible for providing the necessary advance notice to the vendor and other coordination to obtain timely aggregate supply for the project. The import of Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 was that all bidders would be required to obtain the limerock needed for Base Group 09 from a single vendor, Vulcan Construction Materials LP ("Vulcan"). The winning bidder would agree to pay Vulcan in accordance with a separate contract negotiated between Vulcan and the Department. The hyperlink provided in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.13 led to a document called "Aggregate Guidance" produced by the Department's State Construction Office. The front page of the Aggregate Guidance document contained "Bidder Information" consisting of a spreadsheet setting forth the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base and limestone coarse aggregate, with the price varying depending on the date and port of delivery. Between January and June 2008, the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base from both the Port of Tampa and Port Canaveral was $16.93. The Aggregate Guidance page contained additional hyperlinks with the following titles: "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," "Aggregate Vendor Contract," "Aggregate Vendor Projects List," "Aggregate Vendor Authorization Letter," "Aggregate Vendor Contract Frequently Asked Questions," and "Aggregate Price Adjustment Sheet." Alvin Mulford is the vice-president of Mid-State who, along with his estimator, put together his company's bid for Contract T1285. Mr. Mulford testified that his company has been bidding on Department work, and that he has never before seen a provision similar to Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Mr. Mulford directed his estimator to obtain clarification from the Department, to be sure that the bidders were required to purchase the limerock base from Vulcan. One reason for Mr. Mulford's concern was the "exorbitant" rate charged by Vulcan in comparison to other vendors. The restriction to a single supplier was so abnormal, and that supplier's rate was so out of line with the market, that Mr. Mulford decided to seek guidance from the Department through the question and response internet bulletin board provided by the Department for its projects. The question posed by Mid-State was as follows: Does the contractor have to use Vulcan materials for the limerock base at a rate of $16.93 per ton as stated in the Developmental Specifications 6-3.3.1? If so from which location is the material to be picked up? Is it also true that payment to the vendor (Vulcan Materials) will be due immediately upon receipt of the materials? I wanted to clarify this issue as it is unusual for the contractor to be limited to the use of only one vendor. The Department's response was as follows: The unit rate for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Pickup locations for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Payment should be issued by the Contractor to the Vendor (Vulcan Construction Materials LP) upon receipt of the materials as defined in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Because the Department's response did no more than redirect him to the Department's website, Mr. Mulford decided to look at the website in more detail. He investigated the hyperlinks, including the Vulcan contract with the Department. When he clicked on the hyperlink titled "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," he found a document that provided as follows, in relevant part: Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage by Districts With the execution of the contract with Vulcan Construction Materials LP, contract number BDH50, Vulcan has committed to provide aggregate in the types and quantities defined in the contract (attached). The process for this contract in Districts 1, 5, and 7, is as follows: Include in the projects identified in the attached spreadsheet the appropriate special provision beginning with the July 2007 lettings. The District Specifications Engineer and District Construction Office will need to coordinate this effort. There are two special provisions for the purpose of notifying construction contract bidders of the Department's intention toward the aggregate. The first special provision is the mandatory version that will direct the bidder to obtain aggregates for the specified work from Vulcan. The second special provision provides the bidder an option to obtain its aggregates from Vulcan. * * * After these projects have been awarded, the contractor is required to notify FDOT and Vulcan a schedule of its aggregate needs for the project. After receiving this schedule, FDOT's Resident Engineer will issue written authorization to the contractor, with copy to Vulcan. This authorization is required before Vulcan will release aggregate to the contractor. Payment to Vulcan will be from the contractor. FDOT will pay cost of aggregate on progress estimates as part of the contractor's bid price for the work. The contractor is required to include in its bid price for the work the cost of the aggregate at the Vulcan rate. The Vulcan rate will be posted on the FDOT State Construction Website showing the rate. When adjustments are made to the Vulcan rate, FDOT will make adjustments in the construction contract unit price. . . . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Mulford testified that he understood the underscored language in the hyperlinked document to be a directive to the bidders and therefore a mandatory requirement of the bid specifications. He did not ask the Department for further clarification because he believed the requirement was clearly stated in the hyperlinked document. David Sadler, the director of the Department's office of construction, testified that the hyperlinked document was developed by his office to offer guidance to the districts as to the concept behind and use of the aggregate vendor contract. The document was not a part of the bid solicitation document. Mid-State's bid price was $7,429,398.44. Mid-State's price for Base Group 09 was $619,645.80, or $19.30 per square yard. This price reflected the Vulcan rate for limerock base of $16.92 plus tax and Mid-State's costs for the work associated with Base Group 09. 19. K & R's bid price was $7,370,505.24, or $58,893.20 lower than the bid price of Mid-State. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $256,848.00, based on a stated unit price of $8.00 per square yard for limerock base. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $362,797.80 lower than that of Mid-State, accounting for more than the differential between the overall bids of Mid-State and K & R. Marcus Tidey, Jr., K & R's vice president in charge of its Florida division, testified that K & R was well aware that the Vulcan price for limerock base was $16.93, and that K & R understands its obligation to pay that price to Vulcan should K & R be awarded Contract T1285. Mr. Tidey testified that at the time of bid submission, he cut K & R's bid price to $8.00 per square yard as a competitive strategy to win the contract. Mr. Tidey made a conscious decision that K & R would absorb the difference between $8.00 bid price and the Vulcan price of $16.93. Mr. Tidey testified that K & R needed to win this job in order not to have its crews and equipment sit idle during the economic downturn, and therefore decided to take all of its markup, roughly $250,000, out of the bid. He could have made the $250,000 cut on any item or items in the bid, but decided on Base Group 09 because the limerock base was a big item and therefore easy to cut by a large amount. Mr. Tidey also testified that the contract provides a $400,000 incentive payment for early completion of the job, meaning that K & R will be able to work "faster and smarter" and make up for the price reduction at the end of the job. Mr. Tidey testified that he obtained the Vulcan prices from the Department's website as instructed by Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. He did not click on the hyperlinks, which appeared to reference the contract between the Department and Vulcan and therefore was of no concern to him. The Department and K & R dispute Mid-State's assertion that the underscored language of the hyperlink set forth in Finding of Fact 15 was a requirement of the bid specifications, based on Mr. Sadler's direct testimony and the underlying illogic and unfairness of requiring bidders to seek out hidden specifications. The Department and K & R concede that if the bid specifications did in fact require the bidders to include in Base Group 09 the full costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan, then K & R's bid is nonresponsive. Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 directed bidders to the Department's webpage for the purpose of obtaining the current Vulcan rate quote. It did not instruct the bidders to investigate the hyperlinks or to assume that the information contained therein was mandatory. Absent an instruction to bidders to review the information contained in the hyperlinks, the Department could not make such information mandatory without placing less curious bidders at a competitive disadvantage. The Department had no intent to play hide-and-seek with the bid specifications in the manner suggested by Mid-State. In addition, K & R points to three line items of the bid specifications in which the Department eliminates competition, instructing the bidders not to bid and inserting a fixed unit price and bid amount for all bidders as to those items. K & R reasonably asserts that the Department was fully capable of treating Base Group 09 in the same fashion, had it intended to require the bidders to pass through to the Department all the costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan. However, the Department supplied the bid quantity (31,106 square yards) and left it to the bidders to determine the price per unit they would bid. K & R's bid was responsive. Nothing in the bid specifications prevented K & R from absorbing part of the cost of the Vulcan limerock base and passing the savings on to the Department, or required bidders to pass on to the Department the full costs of complying with the bid specifications regarding Base Group 09. The sole remaining issue is whether K & R's bid, though facially responsive, was materially unbalanced. The Department routinely conducts reviews of bid line items that appear "unbalanced," i.e., for which there appear to be significant differences between the price bid and the Department's cost estimate, in order to determine whether the price difference is due to a quantity error by the bidder. The Department's review confirms that the bid quantity specified on the bid blank is accurate. If a quantity error is found, the bids are recalculated using the bidders' unit prices and the correct quantities to determine whether the bid rankings would change. A bid for which there is a discrepancy between the bid and the Department's estimate is termed "mathematically unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid that affects the ranking of the low bid is "materially unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid is acceptable, but a materially unbalanced bid affords the bidder an unfair competitive advantage and must be rejected. The Department followed its usual procedure in analyzing the K & R bid to determine whether it was unbalanced. Philip Gregory Davis, the Department's state estimates engineer, testified that there were some unbalanced items in the K & R bid, but no quantity errors that would have changed the ranking of the bids. Richard Ryals, the project designer who conducted the unbalanced bid review, testified that the quantities were correct for Base Group 09. As noted above, K & R's low bid for Base Group 09 was an intentional strategy, not the result of a quantity error. K & R's current bonded capacity qualification with the Department is $258 million in contracts at any one time. K & R posted a bid bond, and has more than enough capacity to comfortably perform this contract. There is no economic danger to the Department in accepting K & R's low bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Mid-State's formal written protest and awarding Contract T1265 to K & R. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2009.
Findings Of Fact In February 1994 the School Board, by and through its design consultants, W. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc., and, more particularly, its project architect, Byron Tramonte, issued plans, specifications, and related contract documents associated with additions, remodeling, and reroofing of John F. Kennedy Middle School, Palm Beach County, Florida. At a pre-bid conference conducted at the project job site attended by representatives of the School Board, its consultants, as well as representatives of Petitioner, Respondent, and Intervenor, among others, Petitioner's Greg Hill questioned the sufficiency of the drawings with respect to the earth work requirements associated with Alternate 1. As a result of this inquiry, the owner's design consultant issued Addendum 2 (including an as-built drawing) dated February 23, 1994, which was ". . . made available for grading estimates." The drawing attached to Addendum 2 had two sets of elevation numbers on it. One set of elevation numbers were underlined. The clearest of the underlined numbers were difficult to read. Many of the underlined numbers were impossible to read. The other set of elevation numbers on the subject drawing were boxed. The boxed numbers were all clear and legible. In view of the purpose for which the drawing was attached to Addendum 2, the most logical interpretation of the drawing was that the boxed elevation figures represented the existing elevations. The drawing attached to Addendum 2 also included some circled handwritten information. In large letters the circled information read: "JFK MIDDLE SCHOOL AS BUILT EXIST. ELEV." Immediately below in smaller letters it read: "Note: The 2 softball fields were not constructed. 2/23/94." The circled handwritten information was to some extent ambiguous. But it was an ambiguity that could be resolved by careful site inspection. Careful site inspection would have revealed that the boxed numbers corresponded to existing site conditions and that the underlined numbers, to the extent they were legible, did not. Petitioner's Vice President Greg Hill was primarily responsible for the preparation of the portion of the Petitioner's bid relating to Alternate 1. Greg Hill visited the job site during the prebid conference and also visited the job site on one other occasion after receiving Addendum 2, but before submitting the Petitioner's bid. Greg Hill is an experienced estimator with respect to matters involving the type of work encompassed by Alternate 1. In spite of his experience and in spite of his two pre-bid site visits, Greg Hill misinterpreted the architect's intent and used the underlined elevations on the drawing attached to Addendum 2 as a basis for estimating portions of the work associated with Alternate 1. As a result of this mistake Greg Hill reached erroneous conclusions about the amount of fill that would be required and substantially overestimated the amount of fill. This mistake caused the Petitioner's bid for Alternate 1 to be somewhat higher than it would have been if Greg Hill had based his estimates on the boxed elevation numbers. A similar mistake was made by CSR Heavy Construction-North, Inc., a company that was seeking work as a subcontractor on Alternate 1. On the last day for submitting bids on the subject project, the Intervenor received an unsolicited bid from CSR Heavy Construction-North, Inc., to perform some or all of the work encompassed by Alternate 1. CSR's bid was much higher than the Intervenor's proposed bid for that work, which caused the Intervenor's President to become worried that perhaps he had misinterpreted the drawings attached to Addendum 2. Intervenor's President called the School Board Architect and asked for confirmation of his interpretation to the effect that the bidders should base their estimates on the boxed elevation numbers on the drawing attached to Addendum 2. The architect confirmed that the Intervenor's President had correctly interpreted the drawing. The architect did not call any other potential bidders to tell them they should use the boxed numbers because he thought it was obvious that all potential bidders should use the boxed numbers. The bids for the subject project were opened on March 3, 1994. The Petitioner was the apparent responsive low bidder for the base bid. The Intervenor was the apparent responsive low bidder taking together the base bid and the bids on Alternates 1 and 2. The School Board published notice of its intent to award a contract to the Intervenor for the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2. The Instructions To Bidders portion of the subject bid specifications included the following provisions: BIDDER'S REPRESENTATIONS: Each Bidder, by making his Bid, represents that he has read and understands the Bidding Documents. Each Bidder, by making his Bid, represents that he has visited the site and familiarized himself with the local conditions under which the Work is to be performed. BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * 3.11 Familiarity with Laws: The Bidder is assumed to be familiar with all Federal, State and Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, that in any manner affect the Work. Public Contracting and Purchasing Process Florida Statute, Section 287.132-.133 (Public Entity Crimes) is applicable. Ignorance on the part of the Bidder will in no way relieve him from responsibility. * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. * * * BID PROTEST PROCEDURES: * * * 10.02 The Bid Documents/"Advertisement tol Bid" will be posted in the office of thel Department of Capital Projects at the time of the solicitation to Contractors. Any person who is affected adversely with respect to the Bid Documents shall file a notice of protest in writing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the Bid Documents, and SHALL FILE A FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE DATE HE FILED THE NOTICE OF PROTEST. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120. It is important to the proper functioning of the public works bidding process that all bidders be treated alike. To this end, important information furnished to one potential bidder should be furnished to all other potential bidders.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of the Petitioner and awarding a contract to the Intervenor for the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following rulings are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings submitted by Petitioner. Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 6: Rejected as not completely accurate. The practices described are common, but not universal. Drawings usually have a legend to explain the difference between existing elevations and elevations to be achieved. Paragraph 7: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting inferences or arguments not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11: Accepted in substance, but with some modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraph 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in part. Accepted that if the Petitioner had used the boxed elevation numbers, it's proposal on Alternate 1 would probably have been substantially lower. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as speculation Paragraph 14: Rejected as not fully supported by competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting primarily argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. To the extent the material in this paragraph purports to be factual, it tends to be contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is to the effect that there were no ambiguities in Addendum 2 that could not have been resolved by careful site inspection. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; careful site inspection would have confirmed that the boxed numbers represented the existing elevations. Paragraph 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as speculative and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 21: Rejected as constituting a proposed ultimate conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact, and as, in any event, a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent. Paragraphs 1 through 8: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constitution a proposed ultimate conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. (The conclusion is warranted, but it is a conclusion nevertheless.) Findings submitted by Intervenor: (No separate proposals; the Intervenor adopted the proposed findings of the Respondent.) COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Alan C. Brandt, Jr., Esquire Leiby, Ferencik, Libanoff and Brandt Suite 400 150 South Pine Island Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Richard B. Warren, Esquire Kelley, Aldrich & Warren, P.A. 801 Spencer Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 23,871 square feet of office space to house some of its social services for indigents in Northern Escambia County. Since HRS desired more than 2,000 square feet of office space, it was required to bid lease number 590:1987 competitively. To that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety public access, ingress and egress availability of public transportation. The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 1000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period during each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the in flux of people. Additionally, many of Respondent's clients utilize public transportation since they do not own or have access to personal vehicles. Because of servicing so many people the above factors received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Additionally, in order to submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor was required to meet one of the following qualifications at the time the bid was submitted: (a) be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas; (b) be the lessee of the space being proposed and present with the bid a copy of the lease with documentation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas; (c) submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas; or (d) submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to, in turn, sublease. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process. On July 21, 1988, HRS received five bids on the lease. Intervenors submitted the apparent low bid which Northside consisted of one building located at the Brentwood Shopping Center in Pensacola, Florida. At the time that the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had a contract to purchase the subject facility; they have since closed on that transaction. This bid package did not include the four acres adjacent to the Brentwood Shopping Center property and no contract to purchase or other documentation was submitted as to the four acre parcel of property. Petitioner submitted the apparent second lowest bid which consisted of one building located at Fairfield Plaza in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's interest in Fairfield Plaza is that of a lessee under a Master Lease with rights to sublet the property. All appropriate documentation was submitted with the bid. This property was the subject of a semi-friendly foreclosure action at the time that the Petitioner's bid was submitted. Petitioner was still in possession and control of the property. Both Petitioner's and Intervenors' property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The other three bids which were submitted by HRS are not in contention The committee members personally inspected the sites offered by the Petitioner and the Intervenors. While at the Intervenors' site, the committee's concern over the property's minimal parking (as compared to Fairfield) and limited safe public access, ingress and egress were raised. The only access to Intervenor's property was from a very busy multi-lane highway. Certain turns onto and off the property were extremely dangerous. In order to make its bid package more acceptable, Intervenors' representative orally amended the bid package to include the southerly four acres contiguous to the Brentwood property. The Inclusion of the southerly four acres would adequately increase Intervenors' parking. The amendment would also create additional and safer public ingress and egress since the four acres abutted on Murray Lane which intersects Highway 29. This amendment substantially worked to Intervenors' advantage and was a material change to the previously submitted bid. The improper amendment cannot be considered here. Following the on-site inspections, the committee members met and rated the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenors according to a Bid Synopsis evaluation sheet which they had been previously provided. The committee members' review of the Intervenors' property included the improper bid amendment. Even with the improper amendment, the unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was to award the lease to the Petitioner and Fairfield Plaza. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Intervenors presented greater problems for ingress and egress due to the congested nature the area. The other consideration was that service to Fairfield Plaza from public transportation was both more frequent and direct. The property offered by the Intervenors had less public transportation service. The stops were less frequent and a significant number of clients would be required to transfer buses to reach Brentwood when utilizing such public transportation. All bus passengers would be required to walk from the bus stop close to Brentwood and attempt at their peril to cross a very busy, dangerous and congested highway. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Petitioner's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Petitioner's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. The District Administrator initially adopted the committee's recommendation and reported that recommendation to King Davis, the Director of General Services for HRS. The Director of General Services later informed the District Administrator that he and his staff were concerned with the fact that the recommendation was to award the lease to the second lowest bidder. The staff's review considered the improper amendment as part of the Intervenors' bid. Over a ten year period the Petitioner's rental cost was $62,381.00 more than the Intervenors'. In addition, the estimated energy consumption for the first year for the Petitioner's property was approximately $4800 more than for Intervenors. King Davis and his staff did not believe that the justifications cited in the recommendation letter would be considered crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder, should the agency get involved in a bid protest over the award. He and his staff did not disagree that the reasons assigned by the committee and Ms. Schembera were legitimate considerations. Their ultimate concern was that the reasons given by the committee and Ms. Schembera would not be given as great a weight by a Division of Administrative Hearings' hearing officer; and therefore, fail to withstand a potential bid challenge. But the conclusion that the lack of ingress and egress and public transportation could not outweigh the cost differences assumed that Intervenors' bid included the four acres. Without the four acres, the problems with ingress and egress, congestion and public transportation become even more important and can outweigh minor price differences in rent and energy. This is especially true when one considers the impact that the influx of at least 1000 people would have on an already congested and unsafe area. Put simply, the conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. Instead of reconvening the committee after receiving the recommendation from King Davis and discussing the same with him, the District Administrator made the determination that the lease should be awarded to the Intervenors. The District Administrator, acquiesced in Mr. Davis' assessment that HRS could not succeed in a bid challenge. She did not like his advice. In fact, even at the hearing Ms. Schembera still believed Petitioner's property was the lowest and best for HRS purposes. However, through circular reasoning she also concluded that Intervenors' property was the lowest and best bid because she chose it. The agency's ability to succeed in a bid challenge which may or may not happen is not covered by any of the weighted bid evaluation criteria contained in the bid package and is not an appropriate reason to prefer one bid over another. The foregoing is particularly true when the reason given (surviving a bid protest) is based on the occurrence of a future event which may not occur. To reject a bid for a reason outside the bid criteria and one based on an unknowable future event is an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of Respondent. A court-appointed receiver was ordered to take control of the property belonging to the Petitioner on September 28, 1988, after the bid award was announced. Petitioner still retains its right of redemption of the property, and such an interest is sufficient to confer standing on Petitioner to maintain this action. Moreover, the evidence was clear that Petitioner had both the ability and wherewithal to perform the lease should it receive the bid award. Perfected ownership or control is not required. With Petitioner's apparent ability to perform, the fact of the foreclosure action and the receiver should not work against the Petitioner in this bid protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:1987 to Eccelston Properties, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 10th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 32,000 square feet of office space to house some of its indigent social services for southern Escambia County. Since the desired office space is greater than 2,000 square feet HRS was required to competitively bid lease number 590:1984. Towards that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety one building to house all its units employee morale moving costs traffic flow within the building public access Many of the above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 17,000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. Employee morale was important because of high employee burn out due to rendering aid to so many people who have so little and supplying a pleasant environment conducive to the work of the employees. Moving costs were important should HRS be required to find other space to operate in while necessary remodeling took place in the selected building, or be required to incur the expense of moving to a new building. 1/ All of the above areas were covered by one of Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task, Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure a cross section of input from people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space under the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individual who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as a persons familiar with the bid process. Ms. Schembera assigned to serve on the committee Charles Bates, Deputy District Administrator; Jim Peters, to provide a fiscal and overall administrative perspective as well as bid expertise; two citizens from the District Advisory Council to assure objectivity and to look at the properties from the perspective of a private citizen; Mamun Rashied, a program manager; Darlene McFarland, a program manager; Cherie Neal, a unit supervisor and program worker; and Stacey Cassidy, a clerical employee. Ms. Schembera did not personally know Cherie Neal or Stacey Cassidy. These staff members were designated by the supervisors upon Ms. Schembera's direction that she wanted persons who were both intelligent and respected by their peers. One private citizen member of the committee did not participate. The committee as constituted showed a great deal of thought on Ms. Schembera's part to ensure the objectivity of the bid process she was engaging in and to ensure the maximum amount of input from persons who had experience relevant to the overall review of the proposed real estate and to the decision they were being asked to make. The selection of the bid evaluation committee members was neither an arbitrary nor capricious act on Ms. Schembera's part. In fact, the evidence demonstrated the merit in constituting the committee as she did for the input she sought. The bid evaluation committee members, minus Mr. Bates, were briefed on their duties by Joe Pastucha, Facilities Services Manager. Mr. Pastucha is part of the staff responsible for the bid process at HRS. He provided these committee members with the weighted bid evaluation criteria found at page 15 in the bid package. He also gave the committee members a copy of Chapter 5 of the HRS manual containing guidelines for the bid process. His verbal instructions on specific procedures to follow in the evaluation process were limited since he did not wish to improperly influence the committee members. On July 20, 1988, HRS received three bids responding to its invitation to bid on Lease Number 590:1984. Bid A was submitted by Phillips and Company, the apparent second lowest bidder and Intervenor in this case. Its property consisted of one multi-story building located at 1740 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida. Bid B was not responsive and therefore was not considered by HRS and is not a part of this litigation. Bid C was submitted by Petitioner Carmon S. Boone, and was the apparent low bid. Mr. Boone's property consisted of two buildings located at 401 and 411 North Baylen Street, Pensacola, Florida. The Boone property is the present location of Respondent's offices. Both Bid A and Bid C were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Once the bids were received the bid evaluation committee began its work. The committee members, minus Mr. Bates, visited the Phillips property. However, the members did not visit the Boone property. There was no need. Four of the members currently worked at the Boone property and the other members had previously visited the Boone property on various other occasions. Mr. Bates was likewise already familiar with both properties. All members were sufficiently familiar with the cogent aspects of each property to allow them to make a rational decision. The bid evaluation committee, minus Mr. Bates, met as a group to evaluate each property in accordance with the weighted bid evaluation criteria. Each individual scored their sheets separately and the general consensus was supportive of recommending the Phillips property. Five committee members scored Mr. Phillips' property higher than the Boone property. The one exception was Mr. Peters who felt that HRS could not support a bid awarded for other than monetary reasons, i.e., he felt the lowest bid had to be accepted. Mr. Bates later reviewed all the bid synopsis sheets of the committee members and discussed the bid award with Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha. Mr. Bates felt that the Phillips property was the lowest and best bid. At about the same time, the staff responsible for providing technical assistance to the committee and the District Administrator were made aware that the general consensus of the committee was leaning towards the second lowest bidder, Phillips and Company, as the lowest and best bid. The staff members, one of whom was a bid committee member, disagreed with the award of the bid to Phillips and Company because the Boone property was the lower bid. The staff members sought to head off the committee's intended recommendation. The staff personnel held a meeting with some of the committee members in order to get them to join in a recommendation to Ms. Schembera of the Boone property. Mr. Boone was invited and attended the meeting. He was allowed to improperly bolster his bid by agreeing to convert the two buildings to one and other lesser additions. /2 The potential decision was discussed, but no committee member changed his or her mind. However, through a total lack of communication, a run away staff somehow rationalized themselves into a position of being authorized to submit a letter for Ms. Schembera's signature which awarded the Boone property the lease. Ms. Schembera became aware of her staff's attempt to subvert the bid process she had established. She refused to sign the letter submitted by the staff. She removed the staff member of the committee as a voting member. The staff member had supported the Boone property. She also removed a committee member who supported the Phillips property as a voting member. Ms. Schembera feared that her staff had improperly influenced this member to such an extent that his objectivity had been affected. Both members could still participate in committee discussions. Ms. Schembera thereby reasonably ensured the ongoing objectivity of the bid evaluation committee. The committee was reconvened, minus one member. It recommended the Phillips and Company property. Every reason given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that the Phillips property was the better property for the money. The Phillips property allowed working units to be located in one area with each such unit having its own access. It provided flat safe parking areas and sidewalks, bigger and more elevators, wide halls and windows which presented a bright, happy and pleasant working environment. The Boone property was in two buildings which could not accommodate co-located working units with their own access no matter how much remodeling took place. Parking and sidewalks are on a hill which is slippery when wet. It had one small elevator and narrow halls which did not adequately accommodate more than one wheel chair, and one ground floor where no windows could ever be remodeled into the building leaving a dark, dingy and unpleasant environment. Importantly, every committee member except for the staff member came to the conclusion that the Phillips and Company property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a particular piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. After reviewing and considering information from the bid evaluation committee, the information on the bid synopsis sheet, and the oral recommendations of Mr. Bates, Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha, Ms. Schembera concluded that the Phillips property was vastly better, even considering costs. She found it to be materially superior in terms of construction, organization, client accessibility, handicap accessibility, repairability (in terms of walls), and maneuverability for clients and staff. She felt the Phillips' building's qualities would offer more "humanity" to the process of serving the Department's clients. Additional facts she considered when making her decision included the morale of the staff and their productivity; the ability of staff and clients to conduct their business in a reasonably pleasant, comfortable, safe, and easy to understand and comprehend environment; and the desire to provide a minimally adequate work space. In addition to other monetary costs, she considered energy costs and life cycle costs as reflected on the bid synopsis sheet. The bid synopsis sheet defined minimal energy and life cycle costs to be anything less than 55 BTU's per square feet per year. In this case, the Boone property reflected 39.5 BTU's per square feet and the Phillips property reflected 53.5 BTU's per square feet. Both properties were under the 55 BTU cutoff established by HRS. Translated into monetary figures (life cycle costs) the Boone property reflected a cost of $26,735.00 and the Phillips property reflected a cost of $41,160.00. It was the difference between the energy figures which caught Ms. Schembera's eye. In her layman's opinion, it was incomprehensible that the two buildings would have such a wide divergence of energy costs. /3 She learned from her staff that the information used to compute these costs was supplied by the bidders who had vested interests in the outcome. Ms. Schembera concluded the cost difference was minimal and not of overriding concern in relation to the physical characteristics of the two buildings and how they compared to each other. She quite correctly felt the two buildings were not comparable. In essence, the two buildings' differences in design location and construction rendered neither building comparable to the other building as a like facility under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. 4/ Based on that information she gave the energy figures relatively little weight. More importantly, however, before the final bid award was made by HRS, the Division of General Services within HRS in its failsafe role in reviewing bids considered the life cycle cost figures of the two bids. The minimal language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, has been interpreted by HRS to mean that anything under 55 BTU's is minimal and except in one instance not applicable here, numerical differences under 55 BTU's are immaterial. The Division, without getting into the issue of the likeness of the facilities, concluded that both bids met the Department's interpretation of the "minimal" language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, and the relative numerical difference in the energy costs was immaterial. Ms. Schembera is entitled to rely on other more expert HRS Division staff to ensure a proper analysis of highly technical bid specifications such as the energy cost analysis required under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. It does not matter that the review took place after Ms. Schembera had made her preliminary decision. What is important is that the review be made either personal or vicariously through staff before the final award is made. A proper review of energy costs was, therefore, made by Respondent before the final award was made. Likewise, Ms. Schembera's ultimate decision that the buildings were not comparable like facilities was a proper review of energy costs even though that conclusion was arrived at through a layman's unsophisticated, but more accurate intuition and common sense. To that extent, the energy cost data had no impact on the ultimate choice made by the District Administrator and were properly considered by the District Administrator. 5/ A letter for Ms. Schembera's signature adopting the committee's recommendation was drafted by Mr. Pastucha. The letter was signed and sent to the Department's Division of General Services for review. The District was requested to provide additional justification for its choice by the Department's Division of General Services. Mr. Rashied was directed to draft the response. He simply reorganized the original memorandum into a format more compatible with the Division's direction, clarified a few points and without significantly changing the content, submitted the response as directed. The Division acquiesced in Ms. Schembera's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing Case NO. 88-4900BID, and awarding lease number 590:1984 to Phillips and Company as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of January, 1988.
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 1976, the School Board of Orange County and ITEL Data Product Corporation (ITEL) entered into a lease agreement providing for the lease of data processing equipment to the Board from ITEL by which ITEL supplied a computer central processing unit (CPU) and related equipment. Concomitantly, by agreement, ITEL provided for servicing and maintenance of the equipment. In October, 1977, IBM announced its new 303X series of computers with delivery schedules to customers for the newly introduced equipment to take up to two years. IBM has had a long-standing policy, well-known in the data processing industry, of filling customer orders for equipment in the sequence in which they are received, called "sequential delivery." With public agency customers, such sequential orders are not envisioned by the agency nor IBM to be a firm order because of the often protracted procurement process, involving competitive bidding, that public bodies typically have to engage in before making such a major purchase. IBM therefore permits public agencies, such as the School Board in this case, to place non-binding orders in anticipation of a future procurement so that a sequential delivery position will be available to the public agency and thus cause no delay in acquisition of the equipment should IBM become the successful bidder upon a particular procurement. On October 6, 1977, the School Board placed a "reservation" for an IBM 3031 CPU and related data processing equipment. In a letter of October 11, 1978, the School Board informed IBM that this equipment would be needed in approximately November, 1979, subject to availability of funds and subject to IBM being selected as a winning vendor in a competitive bidding process. There was no executed contract or other commitment between IBM and School Board at this point in time. Sometime in the summer of 1979, the School Board, which had become dissatisfied with the service and maintenance it had received from ITEL pursuant to the ITEL lease, engaged certain members of its staff in a study regarding its future data processing equipment needs. The School Board staff study resulted in a determination by the staff, and ultimately by the Board, to acquire additional data processing equipment capacity in excess of the capacity supplied under the ITEL lease. On August 28, 1979, the School Board terminated the ITEL lease effective December 31, 1979, and on or about September 5th, notified ITEL of that termination. On or about October 2, 1979, after determining that it wished to lease new and greater capacity equipment, the School Board Issued an "Invitation to bid" to eleven vendors, providing for the leasing, with option to purchase, of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal." In response to this invitation to bid, ITEL, Menrex Corporation, as well as IBM, submitted bids and on November 13, 1979, the School Board rejected all the bids as being not responsive, as it had reserved the right to do in the invitation to bid document. The rejection of these bids on November 13, 1979, provided only slightly over a month during which the School Board would have to acquire equipment by rental or purchase and have it installed, since the ITEL lease would be terminated on December 31, 1979. Accordingly, acting on the advice of counsel, the School Board determined that it could legitimately develop an interim emergency leasing plan for meeting its data processing needs upon the expiration of the ITEL lease starting December 31, 1979. This leased equipment was expected to be in place for approximately three to six months or until such time as a new bidding effort and procedure could be developed. The School Board, upon advice of counsel, determined that under its procurement regulations, it could rent equipment on a month to month basis without engaging in a competitive bidding process if it solicited quotations from at least three vendors. Thus, on November 13, 1979, the School Board solicited quotations from three potential vendors, Comdisco, ITEL and IBM, for purposes of securing an interim rental of an IBM 3031 CPU, "or equal", and related equipment. IBM and the Petitioner herein, NAS, which is the successor in interest to ITEL, responded to the solicitation of quotations and NAS informed the Board that it could not supply the particular equipment specified, but offered a NAS CPU at a monthly charge and suggested other related equipment to the Board that NAS considered to be suitable. The School Board staff informed NAS that the CPU unit itself would be a suitable alternative to the IBM 3031 CPU mentioned in the solicitation of quotations. On November 20, 1979, the School Board elected to select IBM's quotation and entered into the lease arrangement with IBM on a month-to-month rental basis. NAS did not challenge that action by the School Board. This rental agreement was entered into on or about December 7, 1979. It was a standard IBM lease and contained a provision whereby IBM offered the customer an option to purchase the equipment, although there was no obligation imposed therein on the customer to purchase the equipment, which was the subject of the lease. The agreement provided that the customer would be contractually entitled to certain "purchase-option credits" or accruals if it was leasing the equipment on a long-term basis and subsequently elected to exercise the option to purchase that same equipment. IBM grants such purchase-option credits as a general rule in month-to-month rental situations such as this, although they are not always a matter of contractual right on behalf of the customer. In any event, no consideration was shown to have been given at the time of entering this rental agreement to the existence or non-existence of any purchase-option credit provision since the only authorized contract at that time was a month-to- month rental agreement. No purchase or option to purchase which would be binding on either party was contemplated since both IBM and the School Board were aware that before a purchase of this magnitude could be made, that a competitive bidding procedure must be utilized. Equipment was installed pursuant to the rental agreement in December, 1979. Neither at the time of the contracting, nor at the time of the installation of the IBM 3031 CPU, did NAS or Comdisco challenge the award of the month-to-month rental contract to IBM. In early 1980, the rental agreement being only temporary, the School Board began studying various alternatives for making a permanent acquisition of needed data processing equipment. In early May of 1980, upon advice of its attorney and various staff members assigned to study the matter, the School Board determined that it would be more economical for the School Board to purchase a CPU and related equipment and service either by cash or installment payment, than to continue renting a CPU and related equipment or to lease those items with an option to purchase as had originally been contemplated in the October, 1979, aborted procurement effort. Thus, it was that on about April 20, 1980, the School Board appointed a committee of five persons to help draft technical specifications to ultimately be promulgated in bidding invitation documents with a view toward acquiring the required data processing equipment through competitive bidding and ultimate purchase. The committee included School Board employees and outside consultants with knowledge of the field of data processing. The members were: Louis Nall, Education Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; Kim Anderson, Information Systems Consultant with the Florida Department of Education; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations for the School Board; and Craig Rinehart, Director of the Systems Development/Systems Support staff of the School Board. Upon this committee agreeing upon required specifications for the equipment to be acquired, the bidding documents or "invitation to bid" and related supporting documents were developed by the committee in conjunction with assistance of certain other members of the staff of the Board as well as the School Board's attorney. The bid documents were approved by the School Board on May 27, 1980, and they were issued on May 23, 1980, to eight potential vendors, including NAS, IBM, and Amdahl Corporation. The bid documents invited bids for the sale of an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal" (plus service and maintenance) for delivery no later than July 15, 1980. In addition to specifying an IBM 3031 CPU and related equipment "or their equal.," the pertinent specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents provided as follows: The manufacturer of the equipment described in the bid was required to currently manufacture it and offer for sale or lease along with it, an upgradable attached word processor subsystem the same as, or equal to, the IBM 3031 "attached pro- cessor." The Central Processing Unit, or CPU, being bid had to be capable of hosting or accommodating an attached processor. (The purpose of requiring this was so that the School Board could later ob- tain more processing capability if and when it needed it, rather than having to pay for more capacity than it needed at the time of the initial purchase. The vendors were not required by the bidding documents, however, to bid at the time of this procurement for the actual sale of such an attached processor, to be added later.) The School Board reserved the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informal- ity in any bid. The bid documents initially stated that the School Board would not pay any separately stated interest or finance charges in arriving at its total purchase price for all equipment to be bid. Each bidder was required to offer a certain number of support or maintenance personnel in the Orlando area at the time the bid was submitted and the Board would enter into a separate service and maintenance agreement with the successful vendor. NAS did not protest the bid specifications contained in the invitation to bid documents. NAS did request and receive several interpretations and clarifications of the bid documents from the Board in a manner favorable to NAS. These favorable clarifications or interpretations were as follows: The unavailability of serial numbers for data processing equipment at the time the bid was prepared would not adversely affect the bid's validity. NAS could temporarily rent equipment from other manufacturers which it could not itself deliver by the July 15, 1980, date required in the bid documents. (emphasis supplied) NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the requirement that support personnel be present in the Orlando area, provided it had the required support personnel in the area at the time the equipment was actually delivered, rather than at the originally stated time of submission of the bid. The NAS 7000N CPU, which was a computer of greater capacity than the IBM 3031, even after the IBM had the attached processor added, was specifically determined by the Board to be con- sidered as equivalent to the IBM 3031 and thus ap- propiately responsive to that specification and the invitation to bid documents. NAS would be deemed by the Board to comply with the term "manufacturer" even though NAS did not in itself manufacture the equipment, but only marketed it for the maker, Hitachi Corporation. IBM also had a role in determining and securing clarifications or interpretations of the specifications in the invitation to bid from the School Board. Thus, it was that IBM suggested that the Board could save money if it allowed each vendor (not just IBM) to separately state an interest or finance charge in its bid, since IBM was of the opinion that the Internal Revenue Service would not tax as ordinary income to the vendor any separately stated interest charges or financing charges received by such vendor from a public governmental body such as the School Board. Thus, to the extent that vendors could save on income taxes from the total payment, if successful, then the School Board could reasonably expect all vendors to submit correspondingly lower bids in response to the invitation to bid. In response to IBM's request, the School Board amended the bid documents to allow a "separately stated time-price differential" for any item of equipment, not to exceed seven and one-half percent of that item of equipment. At NAS' request, the School Board also amended the bid documents to state that a single central processor (the NAS 7000N), with equivalent power to the IBM 3031 CPU, which was upgradable in the field, would be an acceptable alternative to the requirement that a separate processor must be capable of being attached to the CPU in order to increase data processing capacity. In fact, the NAS 7000N actually has somewhat greater data processing capacity than the IBM 3031. A further amendment to the bid documents provided that in determining the lowest and best bid, the Board would consider each vendor's total charges for service, maintenance and support of the equipment for a one- year period following the award of bids. Additionally, at the request of IBM, an amendment was approved to the bid documents stating that instead of seeking equipment "new and not refurbished," that that requirement would be changed to "new and not refurbished or not more than one-year old." These amendments were sent to all potential bidders. Prior to disseminating the May, 1980, invitation to bid documents, the School Board established an Evaluation Committee to review and analyze bids to be received in response to those documents. The Committee was composed of the following individuals: David Brittain, the Director of the Educational Technology Section, Florida Department of Education; William Branch, Director of Computer Service, University of Central Florida; Louis Nall, Education Consultant, Florida Department of Education; Ronald Schoenau, Director of Northeast Regional Data Center, Florida University System; Craig Rinehart, Director of Systems Development/Systems Support of the Orange County School Board; Mike Staggs, Coordinator, Operations of the School Board; David Andrews, Coordinator, Systems Support, School Board; Dale Brushwood, Director of Production Control, School Board; and David Brown, Attorney for the School Board. The Evaluation Committee was charged with conducting a review and analysis in accord with certain instructions given by the Board and to recommend to the Board the bid the Committee believed was the lowest and best bid. The Committee was instructed that objectivity is of prime importance. Five vendors submitted bids in response to the Invitation documents, as amended. They were NAS, IBM, Amdahl, CMI and Memorex. On June 17, 1980, the bids were opened by the Board. On a recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, the School Board found the bids submitted by CMI and Memorex to be not responsive to the bid documents. The bids submitted by NAS, IBM and Amdahl Corporation were found responsive to the bid document. The Evaluation Committee met for approximately 5 hours evaluating the bids by a number of different criteria, including the consideration of both a one-year and a three-year maintenance cost, as well as an assumption arguendo that the bid documents did not merely call for the IBM 3031 CPU upgradable by the addition of an attached processor, as the specifications actually requested, but instead that the $330,000 (estimated) attached processor was to be bought at the outset from IBM. The result was that the Evaluation Committee reported that the IBM bid was the lowest and best response, even if the cost of a $330,000 attached processor was added to their bid, which was not actually to be the case because the attached processor was not included in this procurement process. Even had that been added to the IBM bid, making it the second lowest dollar bidder, the Evaluation Committee still felt it to be the lowest, best bid. The IBM bid for the 3031 CPU and related equipment was $1,412,643 plus a time-price differential of $58,738 for a total of $1,471,381. The related bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $74,201.34, making a grand total for IBM's bid of $1,545,582.34. The NAS bid for the sale of an NAS 7000N CPU and related equipment was the next lowest bid at $1,575,751 plus a time-price differential of $74,722 for a total of $1,650,473. The accompanying bid for service, maintenance and support for the first year was $64,603. The total of the NAS bid was thus $1,715,076. The Amdahl Corporation's bid was higher than either IBM or NAS. In evaluating and in arriving at the decision that the IBM bid was the lowest and best, the Evaluation Committee was concerned with the previous poor record of maintenance and support provided by NAS's predecessor in interest, ITEL Corporation, as well as by the fact that there were then no NAS 7000N computer systems installed in the United States, so that some knowledge of its performance record could thus be gained. Further, the residual value for NAS' equipment had not yet been proven to the extent that IBM's had. Thus, the Committee determined that the IBM bid would still be the lowest and best even had the attached processor, at an estimated cost at time of $330,000, been added to the bid, making it the second lowest in dollar terms because the IBM bid combined the least risk, with the maximum equipment capacity growth flexibility at maximum benefit to the School Board in terms of financial flexibility. The NAS machine would provide more capacity than the Board needed for several years at higher cost, without the Board having an option regarding when that extra capacity should be obtained. The financial flexibility benefit of the IBM bid in terms of allowing for future capacity growth was borne out because the attached processor, by the time it was actually acquired from IBM in 1982, only cost $172,000, due to price decreases made possible by technological advances. The Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended acceptance of the IBM bid as the lowest and best received, and in official session on June 24, 1980, after hearing presentations by an NAS representative, the School Board unanimously voted to award IBM the contract for the subject equipment. On July 1, 1980, the contract submitted by IBM was executed by IBM and the School Board. It provided for a purchase by the Board of the equipment and services described above, payable in two installments, $600,000 on or before August 15, 1980, and the balance on or before July 5, 1981. On July 16, 1980, NAS filed a petition for administrative hearing with the Board, also filing an emergency motion for stay with the School Board, seeking a stay of all further agency action on the contracts with IBM, including any payment, pending disposition of the case. On July 29, 1980, the School Board, after hearing argument of NAS counsel, denied that petition for Administrative Hearing and motion for stay on the basis that the contract between the Board and IBM had already been executed and that the NAS request for a 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing was not timely. On August 4, 1980, NAS appealed the Board's decision to deny a hearing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal and also filed an emergency motion for stay pending appeal. The emergency motion requested the court to prohibit any further action pursuant to the contract, including payment of any sums pending determination of the issues raised in the appeal. On August 15, 1980, the court granted the emergency motion for stay on the condition NAS post a supersedes bond on or before August 18, 1980. On August 26, 1980, the court vacated that order because of failure to timely post the supersedes bond. The School Board then paid IBM the first installment payment of $600,000, when due, shortly thereafter. On May 6, 1981 the Fifth District Court of Appeal ultimately rendered a decision that NAS ". . . should have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments, pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1980), that its bid was the lowest and best response to the bid document." Thus, the case was remanded to the Board to conduct an administrative hearing, and the Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 4, 1981, NAS filed with the Board a motion for stay to prevent the Board from making the final payment to IBM on the purchase price. After hearing arguments of NAS' attorney, the Board, on June 23, 1981, denied the motion for stay and NAS appealed. On July 3, 1981, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the School Board's denial of the stay. Final payment was thereafter made by the Board to IBM, thus completing the purchase and all performance of the contract.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the School Board of Orange County denying the relief requested by the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 22nd day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Barley, Esquire 630 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William M. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 305 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter J. Winders, Esquire Nathaniel L. Doliner, Esquire Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel E. O'Donnell, Esquire 400 Colony Square, Suite 1111 Atlanta, Georgia 30361 James L. Scott, Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award a contract to Intervenor Xerox Corporation pursuant to Request for Proposal ("RFP") No. 07-015- 040-RFP.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On December 15, 2006, PCS issued the 2007 RFP, entitled "Copier Program--Request for Proposals." The 2007 RFP was intended to provide a comprehensive copier program for the entire Pinellas County School District from the award date of the bid, then anticipated to be February 20, 2007, through June 30, 2012. The purpose of the 2007 RFP was stated as follows in Section 3.1 of the General Information section: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. PCS wishes to partner with a qualified vendor who will continue to improve information sharing, right size number of assets, and reduce the number of device types while lowering the district's cost. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid. . . . (Emphasis added) A statement of the 2007 RFP's "scope" set forth in the Special Conditions similarly provided: [PCS] requests proposals from experienced and qualified vendors to provide a comprehensive copier program countywide which fulfills the priorities and needs expressed by district focus groups. Vendors may propose whatever program they feel best meets these needs and a district evaluation committee made up of participants from the focus groups will evaluate proposals and make the selection it feels best meets these needs based upon a set of criteria published in this document. . . . [Emphasis added] The 2007 RFP provided for proposals to be received no later than January 18, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. The 2007 RFP contained General Terms and Conditions, setting forth the standard boilerplate terms common to all PCS procurements, and Section 1 of "Special Conditions" particular to this contract.1 These were followed by: Section 2, "Personnel Matrix"; Section 3, "General Information"; Section 4, "Program Specifications"; Section 5, "Equipment Specifications"; Section 6, "Cost Proposal"; and Section 7, "Contractor Response." PCS has adopted the General Terms and Conditions as rules, codified in Part A of the PCS Purchasing Handbook. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions, "Freight Terms," provided: All items are to be bid FOB destination with all transportation charges prepaid and included in the bid prices and title transferring to the district at the time of delivery, unless otherwise stated in bid invitation. Any exceptions to these freight terms taken by the bidder must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal. The purchasing department will evaluate any such exceptions and determine if the exception constitutes grounds for rejection of the bidder's proposal. [Emphasis added] Paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Acceptance and Withdrawal of Bids," provided: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. By written request to the purchasing department, the bidder may withdraw from the bid process and ask to have their sealed bid proposal returned at any time prior to the closing date and time for the receipt of bid proposals. Paragraph 14 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Variance to Bid Documents," provided: For the purpose of bid evaluation, bidders must clearly stipulate any or all variances to the bid documents or specifications, no matter how slight. If variations are not stated in the bidder's proposal, it shall be construed that the bid proposal submitted fully complies in every respect with our bid documents. Paragraph 30 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Errors and Omissions," provided: In the event an error or obvious omission is discovered in a bidder's proposal, either by the purchasing department or the bidder, the bidder may have the opportunity of withdrawing their bid, provided they can produce sufficient evidence to document that the error or omission was clerical in nature and unintentional . . . This privilege shall not extend to allowing a bidder to change any information contained in their bid proposal; however, in the event of a minor omission or oversight on the part of the bidder, the purchasing department (or designee) may request written clarification from a bidder in order to confirm the evaluator's interpretation of the bidder's response and to preclude the rejection of their bid, either in part or in whole. The purchasing department will have the authority to weigh the severity of the infraction and determine its acceptability. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions, "Basis of Award of Bids," provides: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." The standard form cover sheet to both the 2006 and 2007 RFPs contained a "Note to Bidder" that stated: "A signed bid submitted to the School Board obligates the bidder to all terms, conditions and specifications stated in this bid document, unless exceptions are taken and clearly stated in the bidder's proposal." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP included a provision titled "Acceptance of Vendor Responses," which stated: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested. Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." (Emphasis added) The Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP also included a provision entitled "Integrity of Bid Documents," which stated: Bidders shall use the original Bid Proposal Forms provided by the Purchasing Department and enter information only in the spaces where a response is requested. Bidders may use an attachment as an addendum to the Bid Proposal form if sufficient space is not available on the original form for the bidder to enter a complete response. Any modifications or alterations to the original bid documents by the bidder, whether intentional or otherwise, will constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. Any such modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose must be clearly stated in the bidder's proposal response and presented in the form of an addendum to the original bid documents. Both Xerox and IKON timely submitted proposals in response to the 2007 RFP. Evaluations of the responses to the RFP were based on a two-step procedure. First, a focus group of individuals from the Pinellas County School District would analyze the bids and award points based on the specifications and the Proposal Evaluation Form set forth in the RFP. The maximum award was 100 points, with 80 points constituting the threshold for further consideration. Second, those vendors which met the 80-point threshold would compete solely on price. Those bidders who did not score 80 points in the first stage would not have their price bids opened. By January 24, 2007, the focus group had finalized its evaluations, and the cost proposals were to be opened on January 26, 2007. Both IKON and Xerox scored above the 80 point level. IKON received a score of 87 points from the focus group and Xerox received a score of 81 points. Xerox's proposal included, among 15 unnumbered appendices, an appendix titled "Xerox Clarification Addendum to the RFP." This Addendum contained four "clarifications" of portions of the General Terms and Conditions, seven "clarifications" regarding the Program Specifications portion of the Special Conditions, and 12 items under the heading "Other Xerox Service Terms" that purported to set forth contractual provisions regarding service, personnel, risk of loss, limitations on liability, payment schedules, and other standard contract terms. PCS's purchasing department conducted a responsiveness review of the proposals prior to sending them to the focus group for substantive evaluation, but did not notice the Xerox Addendum. Mark Lindemann, the director of purchasing for PCS, testified that it is not customary for bidders to submit such an addendum, and, therefore, his staff was not looking for it when conducting their responsiveness review. On January 30, 2007, after the focus group had performed its evaluation of all the bids, and the cost proposals had been opened and the bid tabulations had been posted on the PCS website, Colin Castle of IKON brought to the attention of the PCS purchasing department the presence of the Xerox Addendum. Geri Pomerantz is the Xerox employee responsible for public sector solicitations in the Southeast United States. She is responsible for understanding the terms and conditions of a solicitation, for pricing the solution based on the customer's requirements, and for ensuring that Xerox submits a responsive proposal. Ms. Pomerantz signed and submitted Xerox's proposal in response to the 2007 RFP. Ms. Pomerantz believed that the Xerox Addendum complied with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision of the Special Conditions, quoted above. By submitting the Addendum, Xerox sought to clarify areas of the RFP, to explain how Xerox was meeting the requirements of the RFP, and to propose new items where Ms. Pomerantz believed the RFP was silent on important terms. Ms. Pomerantz testified that, to comply with the "Integrity of Bid Documents" provision, Xerox included the proposed clarifications in the body of its proposal, where that was possible, then further called them to the attention of PCS by placing them in the Addendum. Though unnumbered, the Xerox Addendum is clearly identified in the Table of Contents at the front of the Xerox proposal and on a separate tab on the side of the proposal. Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor, i.e., Section 4, the Program Specifications portion and Section 5, the Equipment Specifications portion. Xerox incorporated clarifications to the following Program and Equipment Specifications: Section 4.3.1-–Equipment Build Status; Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2 and 5.3.13 –-Price Offering; Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5-–Inspection and Acceptance; Section 4.10.2-–Response Time; Section 4.10.3-– Uptime; Section 4.10.4--Electronic Meter Reads; and Section 4.17–-Insurance Specifications for Contractors. The General Terms and Conditions did not call for a vendor response, and Xerox's clarifications or proposed modifications to those were made only in the Addendum. The introduction to the Xerox Addendum provides as follows: We have reviewed your Invitation to Bid ("Bid")[2] for a Copier Program, and have prepared a proposal that we believe addresses your requirements. However, some of the Board's requirements require that we make some limited clarifications to the terms and conditions included in your Bid. These clarifications are set forth below and are part of our Proposal. In addition, we have included some additional terms and conditions, which are also included as part of our Proposal. Should there be a conflict between the terms and conditions of the various documents the order of precedence will be this Addendum, followed by your Bid. Please note that if any of the terms or clarifications are inconsistent with Florida law or otherwise unacceptable to you, Xerox agrees to negotiate a reasonable alternative that is acceptable to both parties. Our team is also prepared to discuss the Xerox Proposal in greater detail and, if required, adjust our offering based on your final requirements, which may include a modification to our proposed equipment, support services, terms and conditions, and/or price offering. The Xerox Addendum expressly proposed clarifications or modifications to four provisions of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 1(g), set forth in full above, contains PCS's standard freight terms and describes the process by which a vendor may take exception to those terms: exceptions must be clearly stated in the proposal, and the purchasing department will determine whether the exceptions constitute grounds for rejecting the vendor's proposal. The Xerox Addendum proposed to transfer to PCS the cost of any "non-standard delivery or removal expenses, such as additional costs where additional time or resources are required to disassemble equipment due to lack of adequate facility access, or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to deliver equipment to upper floors of buildings.3 Ms. Pomerantz justified this variance by asserting that the 2007 RFP was silent regarding the issue of "non- standard delivery", and that Xerox was merely offering a clarifying solution to this problem. Mr. Lindemann believed this clarification to be salutary, based on disputes PCS has had with its current vendor, IKON, regarding unusual delivery issues. Paragraph 1(g) of the General Terms and Conditions specifically allowed the vendor to propose exceptions to the standard freight terms, provided those exceptions were clearly stated and the vendor understood that its exceptions could be grounds for rejection of its proposal. Thus, it is found that the Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum also proposed modification of paragraph 11 of the General Terms and Conditions, which states that PCS has "sole and exclusive property" rights to any discovery, invention or work product produced under the contract. Xerox proposed that any work developed under this contract would be of a generic nature and would remain the sole property of Xerox. Mr. Lindemann reasonably opined that this was not a material deviation because there was no intellectual property involved in this RFP. The Xerox Addendum did not materially deviate from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 41 of the General Terms and Conditions. Paragraph 41 provided that unless otherwise specified in the Special Conditions, all items requested "must be new, the latest model manufactured, first quality, carry the manufacturer's standard warranty and be equal to or exceed the specifications" listed in the RFP. In this instance, the Special Conditions did provide otherwise. Section 4.3.1 of the Program Specifications provided, in relevant part, that vendors "may propose all used, all new or a combination of new and used equipment, but all equipment must meet the minimum standards outlined later in this section. To assure ease of operation for end users, if used equipment is proposed it should all be of the same brand and model within any given Group of copiers, within any given facility." The Xerox Addendum simply provided clarification regarding the company's terminology for its equipment. The equipment provided by Xerox would be either "Newly Manufactured," "Factory Produced New Models," or "Remanufactured," internal Xerox distinctions regarding the use of new, reconditioned or recycled components, and Xerox disclaimed any intent to use reconditioned, recycled, refurbished or used equipment as defined by industry standard. In this instance, Xerox submitted a clarification that did not deviate from or attempt to modify the Program Specifications. The Xerox Addendum proposed modification of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions, the limitation of liability provision, which provided: The bidder guarantees to save [PCS], its agents and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind for use of any copyrighted or non-copyrighted materials, secret process, patented or unpatented inventions, articles or appliances, furnished or used in performance of the contract for which the contractor is not the patentee, assignee or licensee. The Xerox Addendum to paragraph 44 provided as follows: Xerox agrees that it will indemnify the Board from all copyright and patent information that is included in Xerox- branded equipment/software. However, Xerox will not indemnify the Board, its directors, officers, employees, volunteers, and agent [sic] for any patent infringement caused by complying with the Board's requirement to use, or the Board's use of, the Xerox- branded/supplied equipment with equipment or software not provided by Xerox. Mr. Lindemann testified that this modification of the limitation of liability provision would most likely require PCS to purchase additional contingent liability insurance, which would be a cost essentially passed on from Xerox to PCS. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. The Xerox Addendum proposed a second limitation of liability provision in the section titled "Other Xerox Service Terms," which was essentially a list of standard terms and conditions that Xerox proposed to take precedence over similar provisions in the 2007 RFP. This second limitation of liability proposal provided as follows: Excluding personal injury (including death), property damage, and intellectual property indemnification on Xerox branded equipment, Xerox will not be liable to you for any direct damages in excess of $100,000 or the amounts you've paid to Xerox, whichever is greater. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any special, indirect, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to this Agreement, whether the claim alleges tortious conduct (including negligence) or any other legal theory. Any action you take against Xerox must be commenced within two (2) years after the event that caused it. Ms. Pomerantz testified that when she read the RFP she focused on the indemnification language in paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions regarding copyright and patent issues. She thought the RFP was silent on broader indemnification issues, and she sought to clarify it with this proposed language. Mr. Lindemann testified that the $100,000 limitation of liability could result in costs to PCS in the event of a judgment against PCS and might require the purchase of additional liability insurance. Mr. Lindemann believed this proposed limitation on liability was a material deviation and formed the basis for his request to Xerox to withdraw the Addendum. Paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions states: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." (Emphasis added) It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. 34. Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program/Equipment Specifications related to the vendors' cost proposals provide: 4.3.4 Whatever type of pricing methodology is proposed, it shall include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to: all imaging devices, any peripheral equipment (file servers, etc.), delivery, removal, installation, training, dedicated technician(s), all supplies needed to operate the imaging devices except paper, delivery of supplies and removal of the equipment upon termination of this contract. * * * 5.3.2 Pricing should include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all imaging devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technicians and all supplies except paper needed to operate the imaging devices. * * * 5.3.13 Pricing must include all costs associated with the administration of the service, including, but not limited to all copier devices, delivery, removal, installation, training, certified technician(s), all supplies except paper, end-user training and semi-annual customer satisfaction surveys. The three quoted provisions state that price proposals must include all costs associated with the administration of the service in question, except for paper, delivery of supplies, removal of equipment upon contract termination, end user training, and customer satisfaction surveys. The Xerox Addendum sets forth a monthly minimum and cost-per-copy charge that would cover standard equipment, supplies, maintenance, delivery and removal, installation and user training, but would require PCS to pay for "optional accessories," "non-standard operating supplies," "excess rigging" needed due to inadequate site access or the need to use stair creepers or cranes to install or remove equipment,4 overtime service coverage, and expenses associated with site preparation. The Xerox Addendum attempted to vary the quoted Special Conditions that require the vendor's price to include all costs associated with delivery, removal, and installation and, thus, materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP. Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 of the Program Specifications required the vendor to "provide and pay for all material, labor, tools, transportation and handling, and other facilities necessary for the furnishing, delivery, assembly plus inspection before, during and after installation of all items specified herein." The Xerox Addendum to Sections 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.17.1 of the Program Specifications required acceptance testing for each imaging device and accessory, including a period of four consecutive business days, each containing seven hours of operational use time, in which the equipment maintains a 95 percent level of performance. The Xerox Addendum to Section 4.17.1 attempted to limit Xerox's obligation to inspect the devices by stating that they are "deemed accepted" upon installation unless PCS specifically requires an inspection. It is found that the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the provisions of the RFP as to this variance. Section 4.10.2 of the Program Specifications provided requirements regarding service calls and response times. This condition defines "response time" as the interim between the user's call to the repair office and the appearance of a certified technician on-site who is prepared to effect repairs. Section 4.10.2 provides that the response time cannot exceed four hours. PCS would have the option of charging the contractor $50.00 per failure to meet this four-hour response time requirement. The Xerox Addendum proposed that service response times be averaged quarterly according to a formula by which "target response time" would be divided by "average service response time," which is measured by dividing the sum of all service call response times during the quarter by the total number of service calls. Xerox proposed that the $50.00 charge be imposed based upon Xerox's failure to meet "the 90-day 4 hour average unit response time commitment." IKON also proposed to calculate the response time using a quarterly average, providing for an average response time "of 2 to 6 hours for all customer service calls located within 30 miles of an IKON service center, and 4 to 8 hours for all customer service calls located 30 miles or more from an IKON service center." IKON's proposal did not clearly state how far IKON's nearest service center is located from any Pinellas County school site. Another section of IKON's proposal discusses the company's recent consolidation of its "customer care centers," which "provide direct customer support" and house "the field service call center and inside sales function for a geographical region," into four central locations, the closest to Pinellas County being in Atlanta, Georgia. In this instance, both Xerox and IKON have proposed material deviations from the RFP requirement. Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions set forth a simple response time requirement that PCS itself could monitor and enforce without input from the vendor. Both Xerox and IKON attempted to substitute complex formulas arriving at quarterly averages for response time. IKON's proposal further attempted to make its compliance with the four hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers. Section 4.10.3 of the Special Conditions requires a guaranteed uptime of 95 percent per machine for any 90-day period, and further requires that machines failing to maintain 95 percent uptime must be removed and replaced with an identical or comparable model at no cost to PCS. The Xerox Addendum announced an uptime objective of maintaining an average 95 percent equipment uptime performance based on a three-month rolling average, a variation in the wording of Section 4.10.3 that does not materially change the RFP requirement. Xerox also offered slight variations in the definition of "downtime" that are in the nature of clarifications rather than amendments to Section 4.10.3. The Xerox Addendum also contained 12 "Other Xerox Service Terms," essentially Xerox's standard terms and conditions dealing with service guarantees, personnel, substitution of equipment or software, risk of loss for equipment, treatment of confidential information, compliance with laws, vendor liability for customer-supplied items, the limitation of liability provision discussed above, force majeure, payment upon 45 days of invoice, breach of contract and remedies thereto, and a procedure for amendment of the contract. The 2007 RFP's General Terms and Conditions contain requirements for breach of contract, limitation of liability, standards of conduct for vendor personnel, and equipment substitution. Thus, the Xerox Addendum violated the following language in paragraph 31 of the Standard Terms and Conditions: "A Bidder who substitutes its standard terms and conditions for the district's, or who qualifies its bid in such a manner as to nullify or limit its liability to the district will be considered nonresponsive." In summary, the Xerox Addendum materially deviated from the requirements of the 2007 RFP in the following ways: it varied from the limitation of liability requirements of paragraph 44 of the General Terms and Conditions; it offered a cost proposal that was not all-inclusive, in contravention of Sections 4.3.4, 5.3.2, and 5.3.13 of the Program Specifications; it attempted to limit inspections after installation and acceptance testing, in contravention of Sections 4.7.4, 4.7.5, and 4.17.1 of the Special Conditions; it varied from the response time requirements of Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions; and it attempted to substitute several of Xerox's standard terms and conditions for those of PCS, in violation of paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions. After learning of the Xerox Addendum from Mr. Castle on January 30, 2007, PCS reviewed the Addendum and concluded that it included material deviations to the terms and conditions of the RFP solicitation and that either the Addendum or Xerox's bid must be withdrawn. Negotiations commenced between PCS and Xerox. On February 2, 2007, Xerox offered PCS a revised Addendum. PCS rejected the revised Addendum and informed Xerox that the Addendum must be withdrawn in its entirety. On February 5, 2007, Xerox notified PCS by letter that it was withdrawing the Addendum from its proposal. Also on February 5, 2007, PCS posted its notice of intent to award the contract to Xerox. IKON's protest complained that Xerox's letter did not accomplish a complete withdrawal of the deviations included in the Xerox Addendum, because many of those deviations remained in the main body of the Xerox proposal. As noted above, Xerox incorporated its clarifications in the main body of its proposal in those places where the 2007 RFP requested a response from the vendor. These clarifications were included in Section 7.1.4 of the Xerox proposal, "Proposed Work Plan, Transition Plan." When Xerox withdrew its Addendum, it did not also submit a revised proposal that deleted the Addendum provisions from those places where they had been incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Nevertheless, both Xerox and PCS understood that withdrawal of the Addendum accomplished the complete withdrawal of the materials included in the Addendum, including where they were incorporated into the main body of the Xerox proposal. This understanding was reasonable under the circumstances. However, IKON raises a related objection that is more pertinent. Xerox was allowed to withdraw its Addendum, and then was awarded the contract. Thus, the winning proposal is different than the proposal that was reviewed and scored by the PCS focus group. IKON argues that it is very likely that Xerox would not have passed the 80-point threshold without the Addendum provisions that were incorporated into the main body of the proposal. Mr. Lindemann of PCS believed that Xerox's score would probably have been higher without the Addendum provisions. The salient point is that both sides are free to speculate about what the score of the winning bid might have been, because PCS proposes to award a contract on a proposal that was never reviewed or scored in the manner prescribed by the 2007 RFP. PCS argues that the withdrawal of the Xerox Addendum was entirely in keeping with the RFP, citing paragraph 3 of the General Terms and Conditions, quoted in full above and relevant portion of which provides: A bid (or amendment thereto) will not be accepted by the purchasing department after the time and date specified for the bid opening, nor may a bid (or amendment thereto) which has already been opened in public be withdrawn by the bidder for a period of sixty (60) calendar days after the bid opening date and time, unless authorized by the purchasing department. [Emphasis added] PCS contends that the emphasized language grants the purchasing department authority to allow a bidder to withdraw a portion of its bid after the bids have been opened. This is correct, if the portion in question is a timely submitted amendment to the original bid.5 In their arguments, both PCS and Xerox equate the terms "amendment" and "addendum," and assume that the Xerox Addendum could be withdrawn as an "amendment" to the Xerox proposal. However, the Xerox Addendum was not an amendment to the Xerox proposal; it was an integral part of that proposal. The Addendum did not amend anything contained in the Xerox proposal; rather, it attempted to "amend" the terms of the RFP. The underscored portion of paragraph 3 anticipates the late withdrawal of an entire bid or an amendment to a bid, not a wholesale grant of authority to the purchasing department to allow a bidder to save a nonresponsive proposal by withdrawing the objectionable provisions. PCS argues that Xerox was given no economic or competitive advantage in being allowed to submit and then withdraw its Addendum. Ms. Pomerantz testified that none of the items in the Addendum would have affected the price bid by Xerox, because they were essentially items of overhead that Xerox cannot "cost out" to include in a price proposal. However, the testimony by Mr. Lindemann convincingly made the point that some of the variations from RFP terms offered by Xerox would affect PCS's costs regardless of their impact on Xerox's price proposal. Passing on costs to the agency that have been absorbed by IKON and the other vendors in their proposals works to Xerox's economic advantage and to the detriment of PCS. Xerox had an obvious competitive advantage in being granted the opportunity to amend its proposal after the substantive proposals were opened and evaluated and the price proposals had been opened and posted. Xerox was also granted the option, afforded to no other bidder, of simply declining to withdraw its Addendum and thereby walking away from the procurement after submitting a proposal that, under the terms of the RFP, is supposed to bind the vendor for a period of 90 days. Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant part: In a protest to an invitation to bid or request for proposals procurement, no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered. . . . The PCS rules and RFP provisions, correctly understood, do not contravene this statutory requirement. They grant the purchasing department the flexibility to allow a bidder, under special circumstances, to withdraw from a given procurement after submitting a bid, and they allow PCS to waive slight variations or minor irregularities in a bid. To the extent that PCS interprets its rules and RFP to allow Xerox to substantially amend its proposal after the opening,6 as occurred in this procurement, then PCS has violated its governing statutes in a fashion that is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. PCS argues that even if the Xerox Addendum contained material deviations, the RFP and PCS's rule permitted bidders to submit addenda with material deviations. PCS based this argument on that portion of Section 3.1 of the Special Conditions stating that bidders "may propose whatever program they feel best meets the district's needs and are not restricted in any way other than to meet the basic equipment specifications, terms and conditions outlined in this bid." When read within the context of the Special Conditions in their entirety, this language clearly contemplates allowing the vendors to offer creative solutions within their field of substantive expertise, i.e., the establishment of a comprehensive copier program countywide. It was rational for the drafters of the RFP to assume that a company such as Xerox enters the process in possession of more knowledge and experience in the field of copier installation, service, and repair than the school district possesses. PCS conducted focus groups to determine the top priorities of the school personnel who use the copiers and presented the bidders with specifications broad enough to allow maximum flexibility in crafting proposals responsive to the listed priorities. However, there are rarely "creative solutions" to boilerplate RFP terms such as shipping, limitation of liability, the requirement that cost proposals be all-inclusive, inspection of equipment prior to acceptance, and response time for repairs. These are areas in which the purchasing department of PCS may be presumed to have at least as much expertise as Xerox or IKON. Variations from the RFP's requirements proposed by a bidder regarding these items are likely to be self-serving efforts to protect the bidder's interests or pass on costs to the agency. Paragraph 31 of the General Terms and Conditions recognizes this reality by stating that a bidder that substitutes its standard terms and conditions for those of PCS will be considered nonresponsive.7 PCS is correct that the "Integrity of Bid Documents" paragraph of Section 1 of the Special Conditions of the 2007 RFP allows bidders to submit addenda that clearly state "modifications or alterations that a bidder wishes to propose." However, contrary to PCS's treatment of Xerox in this procurement, the RFP does not state that the bidder may propose modifications of the RFP terms without risk.8 The cited paragraph clearly warns bidders that proposed modifications or alterations constitute grounds for rejection of a bid. The paragraph does not, and under Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), could not, state that bidders will be given the opportunity to withdraw those portions of their proposals deemed nonresponsive after bid opening. PCS also emphasizes the first sentence of the "Acceptance of Vendor Responses" paragraph of the Special Conditions: "The purchasing department reserves the right to accept proposals from multiple vendors, and to accept or reject portions of a proposal based upon the information requested." However, the next sentence of that paragraph states that the remedy is not after-the-fact withdrawal of the rejected portion of the proposal, but rejection of the proposal: "Vendors may be excluded from further consideration for failure to fully comply with the requirements of this RFP solely at the purchasing department's discretion." Both PCS and Xerox raised the issue of the 2006 RFP in an effort to show that IKON was now attacking a process from which it earlier benefited. In the 2006 procurement, IKON was allowed to withdraw portions of an addendum after a competitor filed a protest. PCS ultimately rejected all of the 2006 Proposals because of confusion on the part of the bidders, partly related to the fact that IKON was allowed to withdraw its addendum but a competitor was not given the same opportunity. PCS then issued the 2007 RFP in December 2006 to procure the same copy services sought by the 2006 RFP. The 2006 RFP is relevant only to show that PCS has allowed the withdrawal of amendments in at least one previous procurement, a moot point because PCS has freely stated its position that it has the authority to reject an addendum without rejecting the entire proposal. Xerox's original proposal, including the Addendum, was nonresponsive for the reasons set forth above. PCS's effort to save Xerox's low bid by allowing it to withdraw the Addendum violated Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), as well as the terms of the RFP. The remaining question is whether IKON's proposal was responsive and may therefore be awarded the contract. As already found above, IKON's proposal materially deviated from Section 4.10.2 of the Special Conditions by substituting a complex formula for the simple response time requirement of the RFP and by making compliance with the four- hour response time requirement contingent upon the location of IKON's service centers.9 Section 7.1.3 of the Contractor Response portion of the 2007 RFP, "Proposed Models and Equipment Configurations," provides the following: The respondent must provide a comprehensive description of its proposed standard models and equipment configurations for each of the various grade levels (elementary, middle, high school). Consideration should be given to the stated needs of the focus groups (Section 3), particularly "ease of operation", "accessibility" to machines and "reliability". Vendors should provide detailed, technical product literature for each piece of equipment proposed including all options. The respondent should also describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment as program needs change and how that will effect the amount billed according to the cost proposal plan proposed. [Emphasis added] Section 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, "Cost Proposal," provides the following: Respondent must include a complete, detailed cost proposal which encompasses all costs associated with the proposed program. The cost proposal must allow for flexibility to add or delete equipment as program needs change. The district will not entertain any proposals to purchase or lease any equipment. [Emphasis added] IKON's proposal contained the following paragraph within its response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions: As requested by PCS in Section 7.1.7 of the Invitation to Bid, IKON's cost proposal allows for flexibility. IKON will permit PCS to add or delete equipment as PCS' needs change by permitting PCS to upgrade or downgrade equipment at the beginning or at the end of its fiscal year. Under this program, PCS may replace upgraded or downgraded equipment with additional equipment that addresses PCS' needs. Specifically, IKON will permit PCS to identify up to [three] percent of the overall equipment fleet value procured by PCS from IKON, including models and specifications that are representative of the entire fleet population, as flexible equipment that may be upgraded or downgraded at the beginning or at the end of the fiscal year, while all other equipment may be canceled only in the event of a non- appropriation or termination for cause. The flexible equipment may also be relocated or otherwise used to facilitate a rightsizing program, as directed by PCS. PCS may utilize this flexibility program in its own discretion. In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages. Xerox contends that by limiting PCS to a three percent change in the overall equipment fleet value, IKON's proposal materially deviates from Sections 7.1.3 and 7.1.7 of the Special Conditions, which required that PCS have the flexibility to increase or decrease the size of the copier fleet to meet its needs. However, Section 7.1.3 did not prescribe the amount of "flexibility" required in the vendors' bids; rather, it expressly requested the vendors to "describe what flexibility will be allowed for adding or deleting equipment." IKON's bid described the allowed flexibility as three percent of the overall equipment fleet value and was thus responsive on its face. The evidence presented at hearing was insufficient to determine whether a three percent limit would be so restrictive of PCS's needs to add or delete equipment as to render IKON's proposal nonresponsive. More problematic is the last sentence of the quoted paragraph: "In no event shall either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special or consequential damages." Xerox cogently argues that if its own proposed limitation of liability is a material deviation, then this similar limitation of liability included in the IKON bid must also be found a material deviation. IKON responds that it is clear from the context that this limitation of liability provision, unlike that in Xerox's proposal, applies only to Section 7.1.3. For this reason, IKON contends, PCS determined that IKON's bid was responsive. IKON argues that its own limitation of liability provision is implicated only in the event that PCS requires additional equipment and that it does not limit any direct liability of IKON to PCS and concerns only a distinct class of damages: indirect, special or consequential damages. The position of the quoted sentence, at the end of the final paragraph of IKON's response to Section 7.1.3 of the Special Conditions, supports IKON's contention that the limitation of liability applies only to that section. However, the wording of the sentence ("In no event . . .") indicates a broader intended application. IKON also failed to explain why the requirement of additional equipment, and only the requirement of additional equipment, raised concerns within IKON that indirect, special or consequential damages might be claimed by either party to the contract. At best, this provision is ambiguous in the scope of its application and, in any event, seeks to limit the liability of IKON beyond the limits provided by the RFP. If Xerox's limitations of liability constitute material deviations, then so must IKON's. IKON's proposal thus contains two material deviations from the RFP, one regarding response time and one regarding limitations of liability. IKON's proposal is nonresponsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that PCS enter a final order that (a) declares Xerox's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rescinds the proposed award to Xerox; and (b) declares IKON's bid to be materially nonresponsive and, accordingly, rejects the same. Because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation as to whether PCS should award the contract to the next-lowest responsive bidder or reject all bids and start over. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the award of a bid for the sale of scrap metal to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition or the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 2011, the Department issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-Apalachee-8252. The ITB was a revenue- generating contract for the sale of scrap metal at Apalachee Correctional Institution in Sneads, Florida. Since the contract would generate revenue to the State, the Department’s purpose was to award the contract to the highest responsive bid and developed bid specifications and criteria to accomplish that goal. The specifications for the ITB stated in relevant part: Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material.[emphasis added]. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 1.10 Responsive Bid: A bid submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. * * * 4.3.1 Submission of Bids Each bid shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise delineation of the bidder’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this ITB, fancy bindings, colored displays, and promotional material are not desired. Emphasis in each bid must be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the review of bids, it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5), with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements. Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Material Deviations The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. As indicated, Section 5 of the specifications outlined the contents of the bid. Section 5 stated in relevant part: SECTION 5 - CONTENTS OF BID This section contains instructions that describe the required format for the submitted bid. Bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked “Bid - ITB#- Apalachee-8252”. . . . . [T]he following paragraphs contain instructions that describe the required format for bid responses. Responsiveness Requirements The following terms, conditions, or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to this ITB. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements may cause rejection of a bid. [emphasis added]. Bidder shall complete, sign and return the ITB Bidder Acknowledgement Form (page 1 & 2). The bidder must return either the original or a copy of both pages with an original signature on page one (1). The bidder shall complete, sign, date, and return (all) pricing pages, entitled Cost Information Sheet, which consists of page 28. By submitting a bid or bids under this ITB, each bidder warrants its agreement to the prices submitted. The Department objects to and shall not consider any additional terms or conditions submitted by a bidder, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a bidder’s response. In submitting its bid, a bidder agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect. Any qualifications, counter-offers, deviations, or challenges may render the bid un-responsive . . . . * * * 5.3 Certificate of Insurance Bidders shall return a fully executed Certificate of Insurance . . . . In this case, Section 5.1 contains two bid specifications essential to a bid's responsiveness. Those two requirements were submission of a signed and completed, original or copy, of the bidder acknowledgement form and submission of a completed Cost Information Sheet. The Cost Information Sheet is not at issue here. The bidder acknowledgement form is a double-sided Department of Management Services form containing general boilerplate contractual language. The back of the form is a continuation of standard contractual terms from the front. Oddly, signatures acknowledging these terms and the terms of the ITB are on the front page (page 1) of the form. By signing the front page of the bidder acknowledgement form the bidder agrees to abide by all conditions of the bid. The remainder of Section 5 of the ITB contains bid specifications that are not considered essential to determine the initial responsiveness of the bid at the bid opening, but are to be returned at some later point in time after the bid's are opened. However, the language of Section 5 effecting that intent is unclear. In particular, the bid specification contained in Section 5.3 requires the bidder to "return" an "executed" Certificate of Insurance. The Certificate of Insurance provides the Department with proof of a variety of required insurance coverage of the vendor. However, later in the ITB Section 7.14 clarifies that the Certificate of Insurance need only be supplied with the later-signed contract documents. Section 7.14 states, in relevant part: 7.14 Contractor's Insurance The contractor shall not commence any work in connection with this ITB . . . until he has obtained all of the . . . types of insurance and such insurance has been approved by the Department. The Department shall be furnished proof of coverage of insurance by Certificates of Insurance . . . accompanying the contract documents and shall name the Department as an additional named insured [emphasis added]. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that the Department has long interpreted these provisions to require a winning bidder to provide Certificates of Insurance at the time a contract is entered into and not as part of the essential requirements of the bid due at bid opening. While the Department could (and probably should) clarify this provision, its interpretation of its bid specifications is not unreasonable under these facts. In this case, five bids were timely submitted in response to the ITB, including those of K & M and Cumbaa. On March 8, 2011, the Department opened bids for the ITB. Cumbaa submitted the highest bid for the contract, at $22,197.48. K & M submitted the next highest bid at $20,001.00. At the bid opening, Cumbaa's bid included a Cost Information Sheet, a copy of the signed front page of the bidder acknowledgement form, and the Contact for Contract Administration form known as Attachment 1. However, the bid did not contain the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form or a Certificate of Insurance form at the time the bid was opened. K & M's bid contained the same documents as Cumbaa's bid, as well as the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form and a number of certificates of insurance for K & M. The evidence showed that Cumbaa did not include the Certificate of Insurance form in its sealed bid upon the advice of the Department that the form was not required at bid opening. However, Cumbaa had insurance coverage in place at the time of the bid opening and faxed its certificates of insurance to the Department on March 10, 2011. Given these facts and the Department's reasonable interpretation of its ITB, the omission of Cumbaa's certificate of insurance was neither required at the time of the bid opening, nor material to the award of the bid. The omission of the second page of the bidder's acknowledgement form was not noticed by anyone reviewing the bids until its omission was pointed out by K and M in this bid protest. Cumbaa faxed a copy of the back side of the document to the Department on April 11, 2011. Clearly, this lack of notice demonstrates the immateriality of the back side of the bidder's acknowledgement form. Additionally, since the signatures of both bidders were on the front page of the form submitted by them and those signatures bound the bidders to the terms of the ITB, there was no evidence that demonstrated why submission of a copy of the back side of the form was material to the award of this bid. Ultimately, the Department reviewed the bids for responsiveness and determined that Cumbaa was the highest responsive bid. On March 11, 2011, the Department posted its intent to award the bid to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. As indicated, there was no evidence that the omission of these two documents from the Cumbaa bid were material deviations from the bid specifications since neither omission impacted the ultimate contract requirements and did not materially impact the integrity of the bid process. Indeed, the insurance certification was not required for responsiveness under Section 5.1 of the bid under a long-standing and reasonable interpretation of that requirement by the Department. For these reasons, this bid protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order dismissing the Protest of K & M Pine Straw. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eldridge K and M Pine Straw 20583 John G Bryant Road Blountstown, Florida 32424 Edith McKay, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Edwin G. Buss, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact During the month of March 1996, the Pinellas County School Board, pursuant to an advertised invitation for bids, (IFB), solicited bids for the construction of a new facility for John H. Sexton Elementary School (Sexton school). Each party submitting a bid was required to do so on a bid proposal form which was contained in the bid documents prepared by the project architect, Mr. Hoffman, and furnished to each prospective bidder who requested the bid package. One section of the bid proposal form related to "dewatering" potentially required at the construction site, and consistent with that potential two sentences were contained on the bid proposal form relating to dewatering of footings and of utilities, both of which provided for election by checking of an affirmative or a negative, and both of which had been pre-checked in the affirmative by the Board. It was the position of the Board that the pre- checked sentences as to dewatering on the bid proposal form constituted an acknowledgment by each bidder that that bidder's submittal included dewatering in the base bid. In addition to the check, the dewatering section also included blanks for the insertion by the bidder of figures representing lineal feet of header pipe and unit price per foot which figure would constitute a credit given by the bidder to the Board against the total bid price if dewatering were found not to be necessary, both as to footings and to utilities. Even further, the form also contained blanks to be filled in by the bidder for unit prices to be charged the Board in the event additional dewatering was required by virtue of the Board's later inclusion in the project of additional footings or utilities. Prior to the time for bid submittal, the Board conducted a meeting of all prospective bidders at which the project was explained and bidders given an opportunity to ask questions raised by the bid package. Johnson did not ask any questions regarding dewatering or that portion of the package relating thereto. Numerous bids were submitted in response to the proposal, including those from Johnson and Ellis. By stipulation at the hearing, the parties agreed that in all ways other than in that section of the bid proposal form for this project relating to dewatering, Johnson was and is a responsive and responsible bidder, as is Ellis. The bid proposals were opened by the Board at 2:00 PM on April 11, 1996 and the base bid prices on each proposal were read aloud to all in attendance by a Board representative. The project architect was present at the opening and tabulated and reviewed the bid proposals as opened. Johnson submitted the lowest base bid with a price of $7,965,000. The next lowest bid was that of Ellis, whose base bid price was $7,945,200. At the time of opening, no Board representative indicated anything was wrong with Johnson's bid Mr. Hoffman, the project architect, immediately noticed that Johnson had altered the Board's pre-checked bid proposal form by striking out the pre- checked "is" space regarding inclusion of dewatering in the base price of the two dewaterings, and making an X in each of the "is not" spaces. Mr. Hoffman considered that alteration by Johnson as a material alteration of the Board's solicitation which rendered Johnson's bid non-responsive. It must be noted that each change bears the initials, R. Y. Reza Yazdani is Johnson's president who initialed the changes and signed the bid proposal form for the company. In addition, Johnson also inserted a "0" in those spaces which dealt with amount of credit and cost of additional dewatering in the event additional work is required by the Board. In that regard, Hoffman opined that had Johnson not changed the check marks, but inserted the "0" figures as it did, the bid would have been responsive and Johnson would still have been lowest responsive bidder. The reason for this is that the bid form specifically notes that "the unit costs described in A & B above shall in no manner influence the School Board's selection of a firm to whom to award the Contract." The Board now recognizes that there is no part "B", as referenced in the proposal form. Since the "0's" would not influence the selection, use of an unmodified Board form, along with the lowest submitted base price would, in Hoffman's opinion, probably have meant that Johnson would have been awarded the contract. Johnson's representative, Mr. Mohme, who drafted the company proposal, specifically indicated he did not believe dewatering was a potential in this project. He recognized that such dewatering as was necessary was required by other provisions in the project specifications and he could not figure any way to recognize this and yet accurately reflect his belief that dewatering would not be necessary, other than to strike the pre-checked block and insert the check in the alternative block. He felt that by doing so, he was more accurately reflecting Johnson's bid. This reasoning is rather obscure. By letter dated April 12, 1996, written to the Board after the bids were opened, Mr. Mohme reiterated Johnson's position that dewatering is not necessary on this project, but further stated that if dewatering were to be necessary, Johnson would do so solely at its own risk and without any risk of additional cost to the Board. Bids may be clarified by a bidder, but such clarification must take place before the bids are opened. Bids may not be modified after bid opening. Before that letter was written, however, when the bids were opened and Mr. Hoffman observed what he considered was Johnson's alteration of the bid form, Hoffman consulted with a representative of the Board's purchasing department, Ms. Maas, who also reviewed Johnson's bid. Ms. Mass was of the opinion that Johnson may have attempted to qualify its bid, and she and Mr. Hoffman thereafter met with Mr. Rivas, the Board's director of facilities design and construction, to explain the problem. Mr. Rivas took the problem to two other Board personnel to see if there were some way Johnson's bid could be deemed responsive so that the Board could benefit by Johnson's low bid price. Within the context of those aforementioned discussions, Hoffman took the position that the alteration might leave the Board open to a possible change order and additional liability if dewatering were to be required and the Board had accepted Johnson's bid indicating that process was not included in the base price. Mr. Rivas, after consulting with the Board's attorney, also concluded that Johnson's alteration expressly excluded dewatering as an included factor and its exclusion constituted a serious and material deviation from the Board's solicitation. It was deemed material in that the deviation apparently gave Johnson a competitive advantage over other bidders who did not amend the form. This appears to be a valid conclusion and is adopted herein. The decision to recommend rejection of Johnson's bid and acceptance of Ellis's as the lowest responsive bid was ultimately reached by the Board's administrative staff. The Ellis bid was responsive to the solicitation whereas the determination was made that Johnson's was not responsive because of the alteration. It was not the actual act of alteration that caused that determination but rather the potential effect of the alteration. This was consistent with long standing Board policy not to accept a bid which does not conform to a bid solicitation and not to accept bids from bidders who alter the Board's bid proposal form or otherwise attempt to qualify their bids. It is the opinion of the Board personnel that such consistency in bidding procedure has resulted over time in more qualified bidders submitting bids for Board work which, in turn, has resulted in more competitive prices for the work let for bid. This is a reasonable policy. Mr. Gottschalk, Johnson's expert architect, who has designed schools for the Board, offered an alternative disposition to this dilemma. While admitting that Johnson's shifting of the risk of loss as a result of possible dewatering was a material matter, he suggested the Board could have disregarded the dewatering clause on every submittal and thereafter awarded the contract to Johnson, the lowest bidder, whose bid was responsive to the solicitation except for the dewatering provision. Recognizing this solution would have placed each bidder on an equal footing and allowed award to the lowest bidder at a substantial savings to the Board, he nonetheless also understood the decision made by Mr. Hoffman and the Board staff here and could not fault it. He agreed that reasonable men could differ on the issue of responsiveness here and how to deal with it. It is so found. After a review of the evidence submitted, including the testimony indicating the remoteness of the likelihood that extensive dewatering would be required, there appears to be no evidence that the Board, or its staff, acted dishonestly, fraudulently, illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting Johnson's bid on this project and recommending award to Ellis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order denying and dismissing G. H. Johnson Construction Company's protest and awarding a contract for the construction of Sexton Elementary School to Ellis Construction Company, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1942BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Johnson's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted but not a proper Finding of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. Rejected. Accepted but not a proper Findings of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. &11. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted as a literal statement of what appears in the specifications. Second and third sentences accepted but not probative of any material issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not Finding of fact but argument. Ellis' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3.-6. Accepted. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted but word "certain" is changed to read "likely." 17.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23.&24. Accepted. 25.&26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27.-29. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not relevant to any material issue of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jawdet I. Rubaii, Esquire Clearwater Executive Suites, No. 213 1345 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942 E. A. Mills, Jr. Esquire Dale W. Vash, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601 Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Avenue, S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942
