The Issue Whether the bids of Unisys and NCR were responsive to the Invitation to
Findings Of Fact Overview Invitation to Bid VH-2 (ITB) sought bids for full service hardware maintenance for approximately 3,500 computer terminals, printers, microcomputers and associated components and peripheral devices, located throughout the state. Upon acceptance of the lowest responsive bid, the State would enter into a six- month contract, renewable for two twelve-month periods. HRS officials considered whether to acquire the services through a Request for Proposal process or through an Invitation to Bid. The decision was made to pursue an ITB. The ITB was prepared by Harriet Parker, who, at the time, was the administrator of the HRS Data Center in Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Parker's employment with HRS ended after the bidder's conference and after she had answered bidder's questions which came in after the bidder's conference. Ms. Parker was not employed by HRS when the bids received in response to the ITB were received. HRS issued the ITB on January 22, 1988. After a bidder's conference was held, HRS, on March 1 and 9, 1988, issued addenda to the ITB, which contained changes to the ITB. Additionally, the addendum issued on March 1, 1988 contained written responses to questions submitted by potential bidders. The ITB and addenda were reviewed by the Information Technology Resource Procurement Advisory Council. Five companies submitted bids: RAM Systems, Inc., Data Access Systems, Inc., Instrument Control Services, Inc., NCR, and Unisys. The bid of RAM Systems, Inc. was rejected as untimely. The remaining four bids were timely filed. Ms. Parker appointed three HRS employees to serve on the bid evaluation committee which reviewed the bids received in response to the ITB. The three employees were: Vincent C. Messina, a Data Communications Specialist III, James R. Hall, a Data Processing Manager II, and Hilda Fowler Moore, an administrative assistant. All three committee members were employees at the HRS Data Center in Jacksonville, Florida. At its first meeting, the committee reviewed the four bids to determine if they were in the format requested in the ITB. This review was solely as to form, instead of content. After the meeting, each committee member prepared cost extension sheets for each bid, in accordance with the method set forth in the ITB, to determine which bidder was the lowest. At the next meeting, the committee members compared the cost extension sheets each had prepared. While there were differences between them, each member had the bids ranked in the same order. The committee determined that Data Access Systems, Inc. was the lowest bidder, NCR the next lowest, then Unisys and, finally, Instrument Control Services, Inc. After further review, the bid of Data Access Systems, Inc. was rejected as nonresponsive. The committee then decided to concentrate their review on the bids of NCR, now the lowest bidder, and Unisys, now the second lowest bidder. The bid of Instrument Control Services, Inc. was laid aside, since it was the high bidder. After reviewing the content of the NCR and Unisys bids, the committee determined that both bids were responsive. Since NCR was the lowest bidder, the committee decided NCR should be awarded the bid. The Notice of Intent to award the bid was posted on April 5, 1988. Unisys timely filed its notice of intent to protest, and its formal written protest and request for a hearing. Review Standards Used by Committee The committee was not given any direction on how to evaluate the bids, and no instructions on how to determine a bid was responsive. The committee members never discussed the meaning of the terms "minor irregularity or "material deviation" and were never told the meaning of these terms. Finally, the committee members neither sought nor received legal advice on how to evaluate certain provisions contained in the bids. Mr. Messina interpreted his role on the committee to be to compare the items in each bid with the ITB. Reviewed his role as determining whether the wording of the bid would be sufficient to supply the State with a viable service agreement. His determination of whether a bid was responsive was not based on a word for word comparison of the bid with the ITB, but on an overall impression of what each bid contained. Mr. Hall reviewed the bids to make sure that each bidder was meeting what the ITB required. His main focus in reviewing each bid was whether the wording of the bid gave that bidder an advantage over another bidder. At the time of reviewing the bids, Ms. Fowler Moore's understanding of what constituted a "material deviation" was that it would be a major change which would affect an issue or an item in some way. She understood a "minor irregularity" to be a lesser difference. The committee as a group believed that there would be further review of their decision and that some differences between the bids and the ITB would be worked out later by others. The committee members did not think that their decision would be the final decision. The ITB, General Provisions The ITB, including attachments and the two addenda consisted of over 150 pages. The ITB contained a number of mandatory requirements. The ITB explained these as follows: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Introduction 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 indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this (sic) Invitation To Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potential significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. Material deviations cannot be waived. The words "should" or "may" in this Invitation To Bid 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 in original) On page 5, the ITB provided that "any Bid which fails to meet the mandatory requirements stated in this Invitation to Bid shall be rejected." On page 1, the ITB provided that "Bids containing terms and conditions conflicting with those contained in the invitation to bid shall be rejected. On page 6, the ITB, in describing the format to be used, provided that "there is no intent to limit the content of the Bid. Additional information deemed appropriate by the bidder should be included." The addendum issued on March 1, 1988, contained the following: Q. Can a bid contain options that HRS will consider, providing all mandatories are met? If all mandatories are met, bidder may submit options for HRS consideration. These need to be clearly identified in a separate section of the bid. The bid price should not be based on HRS acceptance of options. The ITB contained the standard language that "Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing . . . for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening," and gave bidders the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness, necessity and competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB. On page 3, the ITB provided: Contractual Mandatories A bidder's response to this Invitation To Bid shall be considered as the bidder's formal offer. The signing of the contract by the Department shall constitute the Department's written acceptance of the successful Bid and a copy of the signed contract shall be forwarded to the successful bidder. The contract for services required by this Invitation To Bid is contained herein. The contract included in the -ITB incorporated and made part of the contract both the ITB and the successful bidder's bid. Comparison of the NCR Bid with the ITB The NCR bid contained numerous changes to the provisions of the ITB. These changes are set forth below. Supplemental Bid Sheets Pages 146 and 147 of the ITB consisted of a form which each bidder was to complete and return as part of its bid. The form stated that "each designated paragraph in this Invitation to Bid must be addressed. The bidder must initial the designated item indicating concurrence." The form set forth 47 items. The layout of the form, showing the first two items for illustration purposes, was as follows: TITLE RESPONSE INITIALS Introduction Understood and Agreed Mandatory Requirements Understood and Agreed The NCR bid contained initials in the appropriate place for all items. On thirteen of the items, NCR's bid contained the words "as per Bidder's Proposal" typed under the words "Understood and Agreed" as shown in the following example: TITLE RESPONSE INITIALS Introduction Understood and Agreed as per Bidder's Proposal Mandatory Requirements Understood and Agreed as per Bidder's Proposal The words inserted by NCR related to the items in the line directly above the inserted words. The committee members interpreted the insertion of the words "as per Bidder's Proposal" in different ways. Mr. Messina interpreted it to mean that NCR was agreeing to the terms of the ITB and was offering the State something better and different which the State could accept or reject. He thought the differences would be worked out later; that the differences were more a "legal matter" than something the committee could solve. Mr. Hall interpreted it to mean that NCR agreed to the provisions of the ITB as some of the provisions had been changed by NCR. Ms. Fowler Moore interpreted it to mean that the items for which "as per Bidder's Proposal" was added were qualified and the ones where nothing was added were not qualified. Limitation of Remedies The addendum issued on March 1, 1988 contained two new pages which became part of the contract section of the ITB. These new pages were numbered 23A and 23B. In its bid, NCR changed the wording of page 23A. The relevant portions of page 23A of the NCR response are set forth below: Limitation of Remedies Contractor's entire liability and the State's exclusive remedy shall be as follows: In all situations involving performance or non-performance of machines or programming maintained or serviced [furnished] under this Agreement, the State's remedy is (1) the adjustment or repair of the machine or replacement of its parts by Contractor, or, at Contractor's option, replacement of the machine [or correction of programming] errors, or (b) if, after repeated efforts, Contractor is unable to install the machine or a replacement machine, model upgrade or feature in good working order, or to restore it to good working order, or to make programming operate, [all as warranted,] the State shall be entitled to recover actual damages to the limits set forth in this Section. * * * Contractor's liability for damages to the State for any cause whatsoever, and regardless of the form of action, whether in contractor or in tort including negligence, shall be limited to the greater of $100,000 or the actual amount laid by the State to the Contractor for the services provided under this Agreement [appropriate price stated herein for the specific machines that caused the damages or] that are the subject matter of or are directly related to the cause of action.... Contractor shall hold and save the State harmless for any and all suits and judgements against the State for personal injury or damage to real or personal property up to the value of the Agreement at the time this Agreement is terminated caused by Contractor's tortious conduct in the performance of this Agreement.... (Underlined words were added by NCR, brackets indicate words NCR struck through). The committee members felt that these changes either were necessary, enhanced the language in the ITB, or would not have much of an effect on the contract. From a legal standpoint, however, the committee was not sure what the changes meant. The committee members felt that they were not qualified to determine whether the changes constituted a material deviation and believed that decision would be made by someone else after the committee was finished. The changes made by NCR to the first paragraph help to clarify the document to meet the provisions of the ITB. The ITB was not for the purchase of machines or programming, but for the servicing of hardware. The changes made to the second paragraph enhance HRS's position and help to clarify the language. HRS's position is enhanced because under the ITB language the limitation would have been the greater of $100,000 or $0 since the ITB did not contain prices for specific machines. Again, the stricken language would apply to a purchase agreement and not to a service contract. The change to the third paragraph has the effect of nullifying the hold harmless clause, since "the value of the Agreement at the time this Agreement is terminated" is zero. Bid Bond On page 3, the ITB required bidders to submit a bid bond or bid guarantee in the amount of $10,000. If the successful bidder failed to execute a contract within ten days after notification of award, the bid guarantee was to be forfeited to the State. The bid bond submitted by NCR contained the following language: NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of the obligation is such that, if the said principal shall be awarded the said contracts and shall within (*) days after receiving notice of the award enter into a contract. . . *to be negotiated between said principal and said obligee. Since NCR's bid bond left the period of time within which to enter into a contract to be negotiated, the bid bond was not in compliance with the ITB's requirements. Invoicing On page 21, the ITB set forth certain requirements for invoices. One of the requirements was that "the invoice will include a detail list of costs for parts replaced listed on each malfunction incident report." This information was important to Ms. Parker in order for HRS to know what it was paying for, even though the contract price included both parts and labor. NCR's bid had the quoted language stricken through. On page 12, the ITB required that "Invoices for payment must be submitted to the State monthly, with at least the same level of detail found in Attachment A." Page 13 of NCR's bid, under the caption "Invoices," stated that "NCR agrees to conform with the existing payment plans as established in previous agreements between NCR and the State of Florida Comptroller's Office." The committee members did not think that the requirement that the invoice contain the cost of replacement parts was important. They assumed that they would not receive this information from the winning bidder, since they were not receiving it from the existing contractor. The committee members did not know what the previous agreements were between NCR and the Comptroller's Office. The committee assumed that NCR's response would be sufficient to meet HRS's needs. Configurations The addendum issued on March 1, 1988, contained a new page 26 for the ITB, which contained the following language: Full service maintenance for microcomputers will include the following configuration: Up to 768KB RAM plus up to one memory expansion card, up to two 5 1/4 inch 360KB or up to two 1.2MB floppy disk drives, up to 20MB hard disk, enhanced graphics capability, monochrome or color monitor, and an ICC card if required for network communications. This full service maintenance configuration was developed to include features that are basic to microcomputers connected to the HRS Data Communications Network and are, therefore, the maintenance responsibility of the Data Center. Machine features that are not included in this configuration are not covered by the maintenance contract resulting from this ITB. Enhancements that may be on a microcomputer covered by the maintenance contract but would not themselves be covered include, but are not limited to: local area network (LAN) cards, 40MB hard disk, 3 1/2 inch floppy disk drive and Bernoulli Boxes. Maintenance of these enhanced features are the responsibility of the user. (emphasis added) NCR, in listing its price for servicing certain equipment, assumed configurations that are less than those stated in the ITB. For example, NCR did not include hard disks in its configuration for some equipment. Hard disk drives are some of the more expensive items to repair and replace in computers. The committee members did not compare the configurations in the NCR bid with those in the ITB. Therefore, they did not take into account the differences between the two in determining that the NCR bid was responsive. Termination of the Contract Page 11 of the ITB provided that: The State reserves the right to cancel maintenance coverage for any single piece of equipment or any number of pieces of equipment or the entire contract upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Contractor. NCR in its bid provided that: Withdraw/Termination Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of this agreement, or of any contract entered into pursuant to it unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the other party shall have first given written notice describing with reasonable detail the condition which it perceives to be a default as outlined in Attachment D and the Bidder's Proposal, and within sixty (60) days following receipt thereof, the party receiving such notice shall have failed or refused to correct such condition. Both parties shall make all reasonable efforts to correct any problems which may lead to termination of the agreement. The evaluation committee noticed this difference, and felt that this was an area to be looked at by other persons who would do a final review. Engineering Changes The ITB, on pages 12 and 13 stated that: Cost of maintenance shall include installation of all announced engineering changes applicable to any piece of equipment covered by this contract. All engineering changes which the manufacturer considers mandatory or engineering changes which the manufacturer or the Contractor considers necessary for safety reasons must be installed as soon as possible. Contractor shall notify the State in writing of all mandatory and safety related engineering changes. Engineering changes which the manufacturer recommends but which are neither mandatory nor for safety reasons must be installed within a reasonable period of time after the Contractor has notified the State of such changes and the State has authorized the installation of such changes . . . It is the Contractor's responsibility to determine what engineering changes are available, whether they are mandatory changes, safety changes, or other changes. Furthermore, it is the Contractor's responsibility to initiate the installation of all such changes. (emphasis added) Page 9 of NCR's bid provided that: Engineering Changes should a reliability modification released from an OEM be deemed necessary by NCR, the modification will be performed during the prime shift of maintenance at no additional charge to the State of Florida. The original equipment manufacturers with whom NCR has agreements are responsible for providing notification to NCR on any engineering changes. NCR will make HRS aware of engineering changes when the necessary. information becomes available to NCR. (emphasis added) The committee assumed that if a manufacturer considered an engineering change to be mandatory, NCR would deem it to be necessary and would make this change. Therefore, the committee determined that the NCR language was responsive and would result in the State receiving the service it expected. Malfunction Incident Reports Page 10 of the ITB required that the winning bidder furnish HRS with a written--malfunction incident report upon completion of each maintenance call. The ITB went on to describe ten items which had to be included in the reports. Page 12 of the NCR bid provided the following: Reports NCR has the ability to provide monthly service reports to HRS which summarize the maintenance activity of the account. Such records may include a listing of all equipment covered in the maintenance agreement accompanied by the dates of service calls, number of service calls received per equipment type, description of problem and solution, and the time spent for repair. NCR maintains a comprehensive equipment history file to meet your reporting needs. Reporting procedures will be jointly defined by NCR and HRS. (emphasis added) One member of the evaluation committee did not consider the reports to be an important item. Another member of the committee assumed that HRS would get the information it needed from the reporting procedures to be jointly defined by NCR and HRS once the contract was awarded. Additional Equipment Page 11 of the ITB required that the contractor would be responsible for maintaining all the equipment owned by the State which is of the type set forth in the ITB, regardless of whether the specific piece of equipment is listed in the ITB or subsequently purchased. Equipment of a type not described in the ITB is not part of the agreement. NCR's bid is consistent with this requirement. Also, NCR's bid gives HRS the option of adding equipment of a type not described in the ITB, after NCR evaluates the equipment and agrees to accept it. Principal Period of Maintenance Page 9 of the ITB provided that the "Principal period of maintenance shall be at least from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time at each site, Monday to Friday, exclusive of holidays observed by the Department." Also, page 17 of the ITB provided that, "Principal Period of Maintenance (PPM)" shall be defined as at least nine consecutive hours per day (usually between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; local time at the site) as selected by the State, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays observed at the site." Finally, page 19 of the ITB contained language similar to the language in page 9 of the ITB. In the industry, "principal period of maintenance is that period of time during which a customer is buying services, including parts and labor, at a flat rate under a contract with the service provider. Page 8 of NCR's bid provided that "NCR's Principal Period of Maintenance (PPM) is Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., including a one hour meal period." NCR's bid did not change the language contained in page 19 of the ITB, noted above, which became part of its bid. Finally, in its Attachment to the contract provided in the ITB, NCR's bid stated that "the 'Principal Period of Maintenance' shall be defined as Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., exclusive of a one hour meal period, excluding holidays." The evaluation committee discussed the differences in the language between the NCR bid and the ITB dealing with principal period of maintenance and decided that the NCR bid was responsive. Response Time, Loaner Equipment and Penalties Page 9 of the ITB required the following: 5. Contractor must provide on site response within four (4) hours in metro areas and six (6) hours in all other areas at a 95 percent response level. Metro and non-metro locations are listed in Attachment B. If the response level falls below ninety-five percent (95 percent) overall for the State on a monthly basis, the Contractor will forfeit ten percent (10 percent) of the monthly maintenance cost per unit for each incident in the month of the occurrence. 7. The Contractor will have the equipment repaired and accepted by HRS Data Center staff or the Contractor will install an equivalent substitute device within six (6) hours after the maintenance begins. Maintenance begins when the Contractor arrives at the site and takes control of the equipment. If the equipment is not repaired or the Contractor does not install equivalent working equipment, the Contractor shall forfeit ten percent (10 percent) of the monthly maintenance cost per unit for each incident in the month of the occurrence. The NCR bid, on pages 8-9, provided the following: Response Time A firm commitment to response time and a stringent set of escalation procedures will be an integral part of NCR's service program for HRS. NCR has a commitment to arriving on-site within four (4) business hours of receipt of call during NCR's Principal Period of Maintenance, for equipment located within metropolitan areas. For non- metropolitan equipment sites, the average response commitment is six (6) hours. NCR understands the State of Florida's objectives to make system availability as high as possible, and we have an internal commitment to help the State meet the goal. Should NCR fail to meet its response and escalation standards as outlined herein, NCR will entertain future negotiations relative to credits and penalties. Because of NCR's response time, repair and escalation procedures, NCR generally does not provide loaner equipment. (emphasis added) The NCR bid then continues, on pages 10-12, under the heading "Escalation/Problem Resolution," to explain the procedures NCR personnel will follow when a machine cannot be restored to good operating condition within set periods of time. The evaluation committee interpreted NCR's bid to mean that NCR would respond within six (6) hours in the non-metro areas, even though the NCR bid stated that "the average response commitment is six (6) hours." The evaluation committee believed that the ten percent (10 percent) penalties set forth in the ITB were irrelevant and not necessary, since the penalties were too low. Therefore, the committee felt that NCR's proposal to negotiate a system of penalties and credits made sense. The committee also believed that, under NCR's escalation procedures, coupled with the statement on page 8 of the NCR bid that "Periodically, a whole unit swap philosophy may be utilized to maximize system uptime," the machines would be fixed within six (6) hours or an equivalent working device (loaner) would be installed. Probationary Period Evaluation Page 145 of the ITB set forth the evaluation criteria which HRS would use to evaluate the contractor's performance during the initial 6-month term of the contract. NCR's bid added language to five of the criteria, as follows: Is the response level of ninety-five (95 percent) maintained consistently each month in all major areas of the State? On the average. Are adequate spare parts available for equipment repair within six (6) hours? Spare carts are generally available within six (6) hours; maximum of twenty- four (24) hours. Is an equivalent substitute device installed if parts are not available or if repair is expected to require more than six (6) hours? Compliance in the following manner: NCR's repair and escalation procedures may result in utilizing a substitute device to maximize system uptime. Are the changes in priorities easily accomplished? As stated, not a quantifiable standard; would prefer substitute language. Are malfunction incident reports received on a timely basis? Compliance defined in Reporting section of Bidder's Proposal. (Underlined words were added by NCR) The committee noted that the NCR bid contained changes to the evaluation language. Implementation of Contract The NCR bid, in Appendix C, contained an implementation schedule calling for service to certain equipment to begin five weeks after the contract was awarded and to the remainder of the equipment nine weeks after the contract was awarded. The ITB, while not explicitly stating when the new contractor was to begin services, appears to contemplate that full service would begin immediately, since it provides for HRS to begin paying maintenance charges on the effective date of the contract. Under the terms of the ITB, the effective date of the contract would be no later than ten days after the award was posted. One member of the evaluation committee, Mr. Hall, believed the new contractor would begin service immediately, which to him meant within a month after the award was made. Execution of Contract The ITB contemplated that the successful bidder execute the contract provided in the ITB within ten days of notification of the award. The NCR bid provided that "Upon mutual agreement of the terms and conditions between our organizations, NCR agrees to execute a contract within ten (10) days." Also, the implementation schedule set forth in Appendix C of the NCR bid provided for the contract to be negotiated and executed between the second and fifth week after notification of the award. Assignment of Contract Page 22 of the ITB provided that "This Agreement is not assignable without the prior written consent of the Customer. Any attempt to assign any of the rights, duties or obligation of this Agreement without such consent is void. In its bid, NCR struck through the word "Customer" and inserted the word "parties." Site Rules and Regulations Page 23 of the ITB stated that: The Contractor shall use its best efforts to assure that its employees and agents, while on the State's premises, shall comply with the State's site rules and regulations. The NCR bid in its attachment to the contract, under the heading "The Rules and Regulations," provided that "Execution of a contract by NCR is contingent upon NCR's review of the State's site rule and regulations." REVIEW OF THE UNISYS BID As stated earlier, the Unisys bid was found to be responsive by the evaluation committee. Unisys agreed to all the performance mandatories of the ITB. The Unisys bid did not contain any deviations from the ITB and was consistent with all the terms and conditions of the ITB. Bid?
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS issue a final order finding NCR's bid to be nonresponsive and awarding the contract under the Bid No. VH-2 to Unisys. DONE and ENTERED 26th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 26th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-22525Bid The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO " UNISYS' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1.-14. Accepted. 15.-18. Accepted as set forth in RO34. Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion. But see Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 21.-45. Accepted. 46. Rejected as irrelevant. 47.-52. Accepted. 53. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 54.-58. Accepted. 59. Accepted except for last two phrases which are rejected. The evidence is inconclusive on whether NCR would have an advantage over other bidders and whether the price of the contract was affected by this provision. 60.-63. Accepted. 64.-65. Rejected. The evidence is inconclusive as to the effect the NOR bid's language would have. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 66.-69. Accepted. Rejected. Since, there is no way of knowing the result of the negotiations, one cannot determine if this would result in an unfair advantage or would have an economic impact. Rejected. Delay can occur in any contract. Under the ITB, undue delay would be penalized. 72.-75. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. The statement may be true, but that is not the situation here. 78.-79. Accepted. 80. First phrase, rejected. NCR did not agree to anything. Second phrase, accepted. 81.-83. Accepted. 84. Rejected as a conclusion and an assumption, since no one knows what the jointly defined procedures would be. 85.-86. Accepted. Accepted as what the committee felt. However, the provisions of the NCR bid dealing with additional equipment are consistent with the ITB. Rejected as contrary to facts found. 89.-90. Accepted. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. Accepted. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 94.-97. Accepted. 98. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected; the evidence does not show what is included in the payment plans with the Comptroller. 99-102. Accepted. Rejected. The evidence is inconclusive on whether this item affected the price of the bid. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. The NCR bid states that NCR would prefer substitute language. 108.-112. Accepted to the extent they restate the ITB and the NCR bid. However, the implicit conclusion that this is at variance with the ITB is rejected as not supported by competent evidence. 113.-119. Accepted. 120. The introductory paragraph is rejected as a conclusion of law. Subparagraphs A. through are accepted. HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1.-7 Accepted Accepted. Accepted. True but unnecessary. Accepted generally. Accepted. Accepted generally. Accepted generally. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence is true as to what the evaluation committee believed. However, the overall service to the State is affected by the NCR bid. True that this is what the evaluation committee determined, believed and concluded. However, the findings of fact made in this RO differ from what the evaluation committee believed. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. While the cost of the services may be the same, less services are provided for in the NCR bid than are called for in the ITB. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. HRS may wish to accept the NCR bid; if it does so, however, it will agree to a different agreement than called for in the ITB. There can be no meeting of the minds when items are left to be negotiated and where the evaluation committee members did cot understand all the provisions of the NCR bid. Rejected. See RO41. Rejected as irrelevant. See also Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Supported by competent evidence, but unnecessary to the decision reached. Also, the fact that this was the first ITB that Ms. Parker ever prepared does not mean that HRS can now disregard its mandatory provisions. Rejected as irrelevant. NCR's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1-6. Accepted Subparagraphs a) through s) are accurate representations of what the ITB contained. However, the first phrase to the effect that the ITB recognized and incorporated concepts of variability is rejected. The ITB was rigid and precise. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence, true but irrelevant. Second sentence accepted. RO2. Third sentence, true but irrelevant. Fourth sentence rejected; the ITB is neither ambivalent nor flexible. Fifth sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by competent evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Third and fourth sentences rejected as argument and conclusions. First three sentences are accepted as what they are: the evaluation committee's views, beliefs and understandings. Fourth sentence is rejected. The ITB reserved the right "to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." It did not reserve the right to waive any proposed additions or changes which are unacceptable, regardless of how material they may be. Also, the ITB did not provide for further negotiations prior to contract finalization. Fourth sentence rejected; the evidence is inconclusive on what the NCR language means. Rest of paragraph accepted. First, second and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and the words of the ITB. Fifth sentence rejected as irrelevant; while the NCR proposal may be more beneficial to the State it is inconsistent with the ITB. First, second, fourth and seventh sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant. Fourth sentence accepted. Fifth sentence rejected as irrelevant; while NCR's view may be useful, the ITB did not contemplate it. Sixth sentence accepted, but this only refers to controlling and installing the engineering change and not to deciding whether the change should be made. First, and seventh sentences accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Third through sixth sentences reflect what NCR proposed, but this is contrary to the requirements of the ITB. Seventh sentence rejected as argument. First three sentences accepted. Fourth sentence rejected as argument. First and second sentences accepted, noting that the four week training period ended eight weeks after the notice of award. Third sentence accepted, but ITB appeared to contemplate immediate service under the contract since it provided for payments to begin upon execution of the contract. Fourth sentence accepted, but the ITB language speaks to ongoing training of the contract and not training specific to this contract. Fifth sentence accepted. Sixth sentence accepted; however, it is unclear whether the ITB contemplated a nine week delay for full implementation of the contract. First, third and sixth sentences accepted. Second, fourth and fifth sentences rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Last sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. The evaluation team considered the malfunction incident reports unimportant and did not know what the existing payment plans with the Comptroller's office were; therefore, the committee could not know if these plans met HRS's needs. Rest of paragraph accepted, except to note that there is no evidence to show that the payment plans with the Comptroller's office would meet HRS needs, and that, while HRS may now decide that parts costs are not needed, this was a mandatory requirement of the ITB. Rejected as irrelevant. If NCR or any other bidder had a problem with the ITB they could have asked for clarification or could have challenged the ITB for restricting competition. Rejected as irrelevant. 21.c. First and second sentences accepted. Third, fourth and fifth sentences irrelevant; NCR could have asked for clarification or challenged the ITB. Fourth sentence irrelevant. Sixth sentence rejected as irrelevant. Seventh sentence irrelevant and not supported by competent evidence; it is impossible to now determine what NCR would have bid. Accepted. Accepted. The first sentence being the one following the quoted material, which is accepted. First sentence rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. Second sentence accepted. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant; this is the number of calls made in the past. Fourth and fifth sentences rejected as assumptions. Fifth sentence accepted. First, second and third sentences accepted. Fourth and fifth sentences rejected as irrelevant; while these statements may be true, the NCR bid's provisions conflict with the ITB. First sentence accepted. Rest of paragraph rejected as argument and conclusion. First and second sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant. Fourth sentence rejected; while the addendums issued to the ITB maintained February 8th as the last day for submissions and inquiries, the ITB's general conditions stated that inquiries could be sent in 10 days prior to bid opening. The limitation of remedies form was sent to bidders on March 1, 1988; bids were not due until March 29, 1988. Fifth through ninth sentences accepted. Tenth sentence rejected; the language in the NCR bid is clear and does limit NCR's liability. Eleventh and twelfth sentences rejected as irrelevant. Thirteenth sentence rejected; the NCR language does not refer to the value of the remaining contract but to the value at the time of termination, which is zero at all times. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the person was licensed at the time the bid bond was countersigned. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The evidence shows that Unisys agreed to the ITB provisions requiring a Jacksonville office. Rejected as irrelevant. Unisys agreed to the provisions of the ITB and will be penalized for failure to comply with them. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; this is clearly a proper option under the terms of the ITB. Rejected. See ruling on proposed finding of fact 21e. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles R. Holman, Jr., Esquire Unisys Corporation 4151 Ashford, Dunwoody Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30319 Elaine New, Esquire Assistant General Counsel, HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building I, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gary P. Sams, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Robert J. Beggs, Esquire NCR Corporation 1700 South Patterson Blvd. Dayton, Ohio 45479 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On March 16, 1989, Respondent sent invitations to bid to actuaries who had been listed by the State of Florida, Department of General Services and with whom Respondent had some familiarity. These invitations pertained to two projects. The first project was one in which Respondent sought the services of qualified actuaries for the rendering of expert services in the area of rating requirements and procedures and the review of rate filings for health maintenance organizations and long term care insurance, Bid 119. The second invitation to bid was associated with the attempt to gain services from qualified actuaries pertaining to the review of health insurance filings, Bid 120. Respondent also gave public notice of the invitations to bid in the two projects that have been described. This notice was given in the Florida Administrative Weekly in its publication of March 17, 1989. On March 17, 1989, Petitioner obtained a copy of the bid materials in Bid 119. On March 20, 1989, he obtained a copy of the bid materials associated with Bid 120. In both Bid 119 and Bid 120 there are set out general conditions which are the same for both invitations. Within the general conditions is found paragraph 5 which states: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of the opportunity to ask questions concerning the conditions and specifications set forth in the two bid instruments Petitioner, by correspondence received by Respondent on March 20, 1989, submitted a separate list of questions for the two projects, Bid 119 and Bid 120. On March 21, 1989, Respondent offered its answers to the Petitioner. Copies of these questions and answers may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, pertaining to Bid 120 and Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 6, pertaining to Bid 119, admitted into evidence. No one took advantage of the opportunity set out in paragraph 5 to the general conditions in each invitation to bid, to dispute the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitations to bid within the prescribed time frame which is set out in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. That time requirement is to make known objections within 72 hours of becoming apprised of the terms and conditions in the invitation to bid. It was only at the point in time at which Petitioner had been found unresponsive in the two bid circumstances and offered his formal written protest on April 11, 1989, that he attempted to advance claims associated with the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid. He made further attempts to criticize those terms within the invitation to bid through presentation at hearing and in the course of the proposed recommended orders. All these efforts were untimely. The significance of Petitioner's failure to timely challenge the terms within the invitations to bid, that is the conditions and specifications, means that the facts in dispute are considered on the basis of whether the Petitioner and others who offered their responses to the invitations to bid have complied with those conditions and specifications as written, not as Petitioner would have them be. Bid 119 was responded to by the Petitioner and Touche Ross & Company. Petitioner's response was timely. By committee review of the responses to the invitation to bid performed by the Respondent and approved by the Assistant Director of Administration, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, one Bruce Brown, a decision was reached to reject all bids. Petitioner and Touche Ross were made aware of this rejection. Petitioner made a timely challenge to the rejection of his bid in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, leading to the present hearing. Touche Ross did not challenge that decision and did not seek to participate in this hearing, although it was noticed of the pendency of these proceedings. Petitioner and Wakely timely responded to the invitation in Bid 120. The review committee with the concurrence of Mr. Brown found Wakely to be responsive and Petitioner to be unresponsive to the terms of the invitation. Petitioner made a timely request to be heard on this decision by the agency leading to the present hearing. Wakely was noticed of the pendency of this hearing as well as the agency's choice to change from a position of accepting the Wakely bid to one of rejecting all bids and has not participated in the process. The reason why the Respondent has chosen to reject the Wakely bid is based upon its belief that to do so would expedite the process of gaining the actuarial services which it seeks under Bid 120 and based upon some concern that if it sought to contract with Wakely, whom it believes to be the only responsive bidder in Bid 120, it would be met with disapproval by the State of Florida, Department of General Services. This resistance by the sister agency is premised upon the opinion that to contract with Wakely would constitute the use of a sole source contract in a setting in which there are numerous choices of actuaries who might be able to perform the work, and General Services who controls sole source purchases would not allow this. Within Bid 119 are various special conditions. Among those is the stated purpose found in paragraph 1.0 and it says: The Division of Insurance Rating (hereinafter "Division") within the State of Florida's Department of Insurance (hereinafter "Department") is seeking one qualified actuary for the rendering of expert services in the area of rating requirements and procedures and review of the rate filings for Health Maintenance Organizations (hereinafter "HMO") and Long Term Care Insurance (hereinafter "LTC"). It is anticipated that the contract will be effective from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, although the precise dates will be dependent upon the date the contract is signed and the schedules of department personnel. By this Invitation to Bid (hereinafter "ITB"), the Division is requesting interested actuaries (hereinafter "respondent") to review the general and specific criteria outlined in this ITB and to present a bid. Other instructions in Bid 119 at paragraph 3.0 state: Emphasis on each bid must be completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the evaluation of proposals, it is essential that bidders follow the instructions contained herein. * * * Bidder shall complete the attached Bid Sheet in its entirety. By affixing manual signature on this bid sheet the bidder states that he/she read all bid specifications and conditions and agree to all terms, conditions, provisions, and specifications. Respondent's Credentials and Capabilities Proposals must include substantial evidence of the ability of the respondent to undertake the work required within the parameters and time frames referenced in this ITB. The respondent must be a member of both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries. Furthermore, the respondent must convincingly demonstrate his or her expertise in both the HMO and LTC areas. Such demonstration must include at least the following: HMO Significant consulting assignment or other work responsibility involving HMO ratemaking in 1988 or 1989. Particulars must be provided, including the specific work product requested, hours spent on the job, the results of the job, and the respondent's precise role. Convincing evidence of familiarity with the Health Maintenance Organization Amendments of 1988 to the Federal Health Maintenance Organization Act. Such evidence might include a completed or ongoing consulting assignment in which knowledge of the new legislation was critical, an article published on the new legislation, or a speech to a professional organization. Public demonstrations of the respondent's expertise in the HMO area, such as speeches, published articles, positions held in HMO professional organizations, or prior full-time employment by an HMO. Assistance in the preparation of HMO rate filings for review by the Department. Assistance in the preparation of rates for federally qualified HMOs. LTC Significant consulting assignments or other work responsibility involving LTC ratemaking in 1988 or 1989. Particulars must be provided, including the specific work product requested, hours spent on the job, the results of the job, and the respondent's precise role. Public demonstrations of the respondent's expertise, such as speeches, published articles, or positions held in professional organizations relative to LTC (i.e., committee assignments) OTHER The respondent should also include a description of prior work assignments involving consulting or other services to state insurance departments. This prior work need not be restricted to HMO or LTC. Note: Evidence of the respondent's expertise must be verifiable. Referenced consulting assignments must include the name, address, and telephone number of an employee of the client who can verify the nature of the assignment. Copies of published articles must be provided, along with the name and date of the periodical in which it was published. Also, copies of speeches must be provided, along with the name of the organization to which the speech was given, a contract person, and the date of the speech. * * * (f) Respondent's Bid In preparing a bid, the respondent should make sure that he or she has submitted at least the following information: A demonstration that all requirements in the "Respondent's Credentials and Capabilities" section are met; An explicit statement as to the proposed hourly rate; A clear statement that the respondent is able to perform the required tasks in the prescribed time frames, as described in "Specific Work Product Required". Such information must be provided together with the bid sheet provided in Section 11. A suggested format is shown in Section 10. In both bid invitations, at paragraph 4.0 of the special conditions, bidders are reminded that bids which do not meet the mandatory technical requirements set out in 3.0 and its sub-parts will not be considered for selection and that the bids that are deemed responsive will be evaluated on the basis of cost and the award made to the lowest responsive bidder at an hourly rate of charges. Both invitations at Paragraph 4.1 indicate that the state has reserved its opportunities to reject all bids if that is felt to be in its best interest. Paragraph 5.2 of the invitation is a further reminder to bidders that any bidder desiring to file a protest arising out of the invitation to bid shall do so in a setting in which Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes controls. Another specification found in both invitations at paragraph 10.0 entitled, "Respondent's (referring to the bid respondents) Credentials and Capabilities." Under that category it is stated that it is recommended that the format found on that page in the bid specifications be used in supplying the information needed to respond to paragraph 3.0 of the bid specifications for both invitations. Under that paragraph 10.0 there is a place for the respondent's name, the name of his employer, membership year in the AAA, membership designation in the 50A: FSA and ASA and year the 50A designation was awarded. In Bid 119, beyond paragraph 10.0 are found paragraphs 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, these paragraphs recapitulate those items and the various sub-parts to paragraph 3.0 and provide space for answers to be given to those inquires concerning the Petitioner's credentials and capabilities. There is a paragraph 11.0 in both invitations entitled "Bid Sheet." It has lines related to the hourly rate, vendor name, name of actuary to render services, mailing address, city, state and zip code, authorized signature both manual and typed, telephone number, and the date of submission. This particular paragraph reminds the bidder that by affixing the signature, this is a verification that all bid specifications and conditions have been read and that the terms and conditions, provisions and specifications are agreed to and that certification is made that the services will be provided at the hourly rates stated. Otherwise the basic format for Bid 120 in terms of special conditions is the same as described for the pertinent paragraphs in Bid 119 that have been set out before with the exception of Paragraphs 1.0, and 3.0 (c). They state the following: 1.0 PURPOSE: The Division of Insurance Rating (hereinafter "Division") within the State of Florida's Department of Insurance (hereinafter "Department") is seeking one qualified actuary for the rendering of expert services pertaining to review of Health Insurance rate filings. It is anticipated that the contract will be effective from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, although the precise dates will be dependent upon the date the contract is signed and the schedules of department personnel. * * * 3.0 (c) RESPONDENTS CREDENTIALS AND CAPABILITIES. Proposals must include substantial evidence of the ability of the respondent to undertake the work required within the parameters and time frames referenced in this ITB. The respondent must be a member of both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries. Furthermore, the respondent must convincingly demonstrate his or her expertise in rating the filing with the Department the following products: Individual Major Medical Medicare Supplement Long Term care Other types of coverage depending upon the needs of the Department and skills of the respondent. Such demonstration must include at least the following: A high degree of familiarity with Chapter 4-58 of the Regulations of the Florida Department of Insurance. Such familiarity should be demonstrated by the respondent providing evidence that he or she submitted at least twenty- five Health Insurance rate filings to the Department which were approved between January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989. The consultant should demonstrate familiarity with Individual Major Medical, Medicare Supplement, and Long Term Care policies. Such familiarity should be demonstrated by the consultant providing evidence that he or she submitted at least three filings to the Department in each of those areas which were approved between January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989. NOTE: Only those filings actually certified by the actuary, as provided in 4-58, may be counted in meeting the above requirements. Bid 120 has paragraph 10.1 that refers back to sub-parts within paragraph 3.0(c) and provides space for answering the request for information concerning credentials and capabilities. In both bids Respondent is critical of the Petitioner for not using the format suggested in the various portions of paragraph 10, in essence filling out the specification sheet in the space provided for the answers which the petitioner would give. Having reviewed these materials associated with each bid invitation, the format idea is not a mandatory requirement, it is a suggested requirement. What is incumbent upon the Petitioner is to comply in substance with the requirements set out in the invitations to bid. In that respect the Petitioner is deficient in a material manner. A copy of the requirements Bid 119 may be found in Respondent's exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's response to the invitation to bid in Bid 119 is found within Respondent's No. 4 admitted into evidence. In his statement of credentials and capabilities, Petitioner has not utilized the spaces provided in paragraphs 10.1 through 10.3. Instead he has enclosed a letter that includes a statement of work history and professional experience. Under the category of health maintenance organization, the special conditions of paragraph 3.0(c), there is no statement of a consulting assignment or other work responsibility that would involve HMO rate making in the years 1988 or 1989. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence of familiarity with the health maintenance organization amendments of 1988 to the Federal Health Maintenance Organization Act. There is no reference to public demonstrations of the Petitioner's expertise in the HMO area to include speeches, published articles, positions held in an HMO professional organization or prior full-time employment by an HMO. While there is an indication of experience in rate review from the regulatory point of view in Florida and Massachusetts, there is no indication as required by the specifications and conditions of the preparation of rate filings to be reviewed by a regulator. Finally, under the category of HMO there is no indication of assistance in the preparation of rates for federally qualified HMOs. In the long term care component of the credentials and capabilities portion of Bid 119, Petitioner has offered no explanation of his background. Under the category "other" Respondent has included a description of prior work assignments involving consulting or other services to state insurance departments. On the other hand he has failed to evidence in more specific terms as the note to paragraph 3.0(c) requires, names, addresses and telephone numbers. A copy of the requirements of Bid 120 may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. A copy of Respondent's reply to the invitation to bid may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. As with the previous Bid 119, in Bid 120 Petitioner did not utilize the space available in writing his answers in paragraph 10.1 which relates back to the requirements for credentials and capabilities as announced in paragraph 3.0(c). Instead Petitioner attached a letter in which he attempts to state his compliance with the requirements of the bid. He sets out comments about his work history and professional experience which do not pertain to rating and filing with the Respondent the products of individual major medical, Medicare Supplement, long term care and other types of coverage depending upon needs of the Respondent and skills of the Petitioner. Within Bid 120 in the requirement for familiarity with Chapter 4-58 Florida Administrative Code Petitioner has indicated some involvement with that regulation. However, he has not shown where he had submitted at least twenty- five health insurance rate filings to the Respondent which were approved between the January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989. In Bid 120 on the topic of demonstration of familiarity with individual major medical, Medicare Supplement and long-term care policies, Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had submitted at least three filings with the Department in each of those areas which were approved between January 1, 1988, and February 28, 1989. By contrast the Wakely response to the invitation to bid, a copy of which is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence, has adequately responded to the requirements of the Bid 120 in the areas where the Petitioner has been deficient, as well as other areas. As alluded to before Petitioner has failed to make timely challenge to the conditions and specifications associated with the two invitations to bid. Moreover, while allegations in the formal written protest of April 11, 1989 and further remarks of April 20, 1989 addressed to the Insurance Commissioner, together with the proposed recommended order suggest problems with the conditions and specifications associated with the two invitations to bid, proof at hearing submitted by Petitioner did not confirm these allegations. Except in those areas preferred to in the factual discussion above Petitioner's bid responses are adequate to meet the terms of the invitations to bid.
Findings Of Fact Lee County School District (District) Invitation to Bid #4908 (ITB) was provided to the vendors on December 9, 1992. The ITB sought bids for 61 hardware and tool items to be used in the District Supply Department. The District maintains an inventory of hundreds of miscellaneous hardware items. Quantities of available materials are monitored through a computerized system which is used to generate a list of items which need to be replenished. The District has historically utilized ITB's to acquire hardware items in order to maintain appropriate inventory levels. Eight sealed bids were opened on January 6, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. Bids were submitted by Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware, W.W. Grainger, Action Bolt & Tool, Biscayne Electric & Hardware Distributors, Bob Dean Supply, Scotty's, Shadbolt & Boyd, and the Petitioner. The ITB states that the School District of Lee County: reserves the right to waive minor variations to specifications, informalities, irregularities and technicalities in any bids; to reject any and all bids in whole or in part with or without cause, and/or to accept bids that in its judgement will be in the best interest of the District. The District further reserves the right to make awards on a multiple, lump sum, or individual item basis or combination as shall best serve the interest of the District unless otherwise stated. Three of the vendors bid on all 61 items. The remaining vendors bid on some but not all of the items. The bids were tabulated by personnel in the Purchasing Department. The information in the bids is set forth in tabulation sheets which facilitate comparison of buds. On January 7, 1993, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Respondent stating that there were only "two authentic submissions: Ace Hardware and S.W. Supply, Inc." The tabulation sheets and additional materials included in the bid responses were forwarded to the Supply Department where supply personnel reviewed the submissions and made recommendations to the Purchasing Department as to which vendors should receive awards. As part of the evaluation of the bid proposals, the District determined that the cost of the total bid award would be lower if the awards were made on an individual item basis. The District considered prompt payment discounts in making this determination. The total amount of the proposed awards to the eight vendors is $7,104.55. Were the Petitioner to receive awards for all items, the total amount of the award would be $7,965.00, accounting for the Petitioner's proposed prompt payment discount. The Purchasing Department posted a Notice of Intention to Award on January 15, 1993. The proposed awards were made on an individual item basis. All eight vendors received awards. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner timely filed a notice of protest. Subsequent to the January 15 posting, the Petitioner discovered several errors in determining the proposed awards. In the Petitioner's formal protest, four awards are identified as incorrect. Despite the Petitioner protest, the first item identified was correctly awarded because the Petitioner failed to account for the prompt payment discount offered by the winning vendor. A second item protest was based on clerical error and was withdrawn by the Petitioner. The two remaining items were resolved and were addressed in a corrected Notice of Intention to Award posted February 16, 1993. There is no evidence that the errors were other than mistakes made in calculation or transcription of bid data from the vendor's documents to the bid tabulation form. No further specifically challenged items were identified by the Petitioner prior to the hearing. General condition 1.d. of the ITB states as follows: For purposes of evaluation, the bidder must indicate any variances from specifications, terms and/or conditions regardless of how slight. If variations are not stated in the proposal, it will be assumed that the product or service fully complies with the specifications, terms and conditions herein. (emphasis supplied) General condition 6 of the ITB states as follows: Use of brand names, trade names, make, model, manufacturer, or vendor Catalog Number in the specifications is for the purpose of establishing a grade or quality of material only. It is not the District's intent to rule out other competition; therefore, the phrase OR APPROVED EQUAL is added. However, if a product other that specified is bid, it is the vendor's responsibility to submit with the bid brochures, samples and/or detailed specifications on item(s) bid. The District shall be the sole judge concerning the merits of bids submitted. If a bidder does not indicate what he is offering in the proper blank and if the bidder is successful in being awarded the item(s) then the bidder shall be obligated to furnish the specified item(s). If packing is different from that specified, the bidder must note manner and amounts in which packing is to be made. (emphasis supplied) Only one vendor, Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware, proposed to supply all items exactly as specified in the ITB. The remaining vendor proposals included at least some items which varied in some respects from the items identified in the ITB. Where a vendor fails to identify that a product bid is "not as specified", the proposal is evaluated as if all specifications have been met, in which event, price is the determining factor in determining the award. Where a vendor identifies a variance related to a specified item, the proposal is evaluated as if all specifications other than the identified variance are met. If the product is determined by the Supply Department to be the equivalent of the product identified in the ITB, price is again the determining factor in determining the award. Where the ITB specifies a brand name followed by the word "ONLY", the vendor may not bid another brand. Where the ITB does not qualify the brand name as "only", the vendor may propose an equivalent product. Where a vendor does not identify the brand name of the item to be supplied, the vendor presumed to be bidding an item which will meet the specifications. If the vendor delivers goods which are not as specified, the District rejects delivery and cancels the order. The evidence establishes that, where bid items were not as specified in the ITB, the District had access to sufficient information to permit a determination of equivalency and an award of bids. The evidence fails to establish that, except as stated herein, the Petitioner should have received an award other that as set forth in the February 16, 1993, Notice of Intent to Award. General condition 5 of the ITB states as follows: Cash discount for prompt payment of invoices will be considered in making awards. The District prefers cash discount items which allow at least twenty (20) days for approval and payment of invoices. Four vendors included proposals for prompt payment discounts in the responses. One vendor offered a 2 percent discount for payment within 20 days, one offered a 1 percent discount for payment within 15 days and one offered a 1 percent discount for payment within 10 days. The Petitioner offered a 12 per cent discount for payment within five days, but only if the Petitioner received the award for all items bid. The District preference for a 20 day payment period reflects the time needed to accept delivery, process invoices and make payment for goods received. The District has accepted a five day prompt payment discount when the purchase was for a single item and the delivery date was specified. Such payment is otherwise difficult and results in other vendor payments being delayed. There is no evidence that based on the costs of goods involved in this bid, the savings are of such event as to warrant such extraordinary treatment of deliveries and invoices. General condition 16 of the ITB states as follows: Any and all special conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Special condition 1 of the ITB states as follows: A SAMPLE OR COMPLETE SPECIFICATION SHEET MUST ACCOMPANY EACH BID ITEM THAT IS NOT "AS SPECIFIED." IF AN ITEM CANNOT BE EVALUATED, IT WILL BE DISQUALIFIED. Parker-Mahn Ace Hardware submitted product brochures or other materials related to items bid. The Petitioner submitted an extensive selection of photocopies pages from a hardware product catalog. W.W. Grainger submitted an index of part numbers and identified where such parts could be located in the Grainger catalog, which was on file with the District. Action Bolt and Tool included product information by brand name and model number in the ITB response. The remaining four vendors (Biscayne Electric & Hardware Distributors, Bob Dean Supply, Scotty's, and Shadbolt & Boyd) attached no specification sheets or other descriptive materials for items bid. As stated previously, the ITB directed vendors to submit specification sheets for "not as specified" items. The request for such information was intended to facilitate the review of the bids by eliminating the need for District personnel to consult vendor product catalogs already in the District files. The ITB also provided for disqualification where an item could not be evaluated. The Petitioner asserts that the failure to submit such product information materials with the bids is a material defect which cannot be waived and which renders the bids nonresponsive. The evidence fails to support the assertion. Of the four vendors which included no specification sheets, all four had product catalogs on file in the Purchasing and/or Supply Departments of the Lee County School Board. The District had sufficient information to evaluate the bids submitted by the vendors with catalogs on file. The Petitioner asserts that it was disadvantaged by the District's decision to waive the failure to attach specification sheets where catalogs were on file, because it was allegedly not possible to compare his bid to those submitted by the other vendors. The evidence does not support the assertion. The relevant catalogs are on file in the Purchasing and Supply Departments of the District and are available for public inspection. There is no evidence that the Petitioner sought at any time to reference the materials on file. The fact that the omitted specification sheets made such a comparison less convenient than it would have been had such sheets been attached to the bids does not render the bid proposals nonresponsive. At hearing, the Petitioner challenged many of the individual intended awards announced by the District. Prior to the hearing, the Petitioner had not asserted that such items were inappropriately awarded. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would be entitled to an award of any of the additional items challenged at hearing. In the case of individual items, a bidder other than the Petitioner would be entitled to the award if the Petitioner's challenge succeeded. None of the other bidders challenged the proposed bid awards. No vendors intervened in this proceeding. Accordingly the Petitioner is not affected by such individual awards and is without standing to challenge the items first identified at hearing. The Petitioner asserted that if the low bidder for each identified product is disqualified, and the next lowest bid included in the total bid calculation, the Petitioner's total bid, including the prompt payment discount, would be lower than the total of individual bids, and that accordingly, he would be entitled to an award of all items. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The Petitioner identified one item at hearing for which the Petitioner should have received the award. The ITB sought bids to supply 24 galvanized one quart metal funnels, item #58115. One of the vendors proposed to supply a plastic funnel at a cost of .56 each. The next lowest bidder was the Petitioner which proposed to supply the metal funnel requested at a cost of $1.44 each. On a previous bid, a plastic funnel was proposed by a vendor and rejected by the District as not meeting the specifications. Although in the instant case, purchasing personnel were informed by supply personnel that a plastic funnel would serve the same purpose and was acceptable, the vendors were not provided the opportunity to bid on the provision of the plastic funnels. General condition 9.c. of the ITB states as follows: If the material and/or services supplied to the District is found to be defective or does not conform to specifications, the District reserves the right to cancel the order upon written notice to the seller and return the product to the seller at the seller's expense. In other words, the District has the right to reject delivery and cancel orders for items which are not as specified in the ITB and for which no variance was identified by the successful vendor. A vendor delivering goods which are not as specified in the vendor's proposal will not be invited to participate in the ITB process for an indeterminate period of time. At hearing, the Petitioner asserted that item #58800 (a plastic sheet of twelve garden hose washers) was mistakenly awarded to a vendor whose proposal was for individual washers rather than the sheet. The Respondent acknowledged that accordingly the proposed vendor's bid was not the lowest. The next two lowest bids (one of which is an "as specified" bid) were received from vendors other than the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore would not receive this award. The Petitioner asserts that some bidders did not complete "drug-free workplace" forms. Although correct, the assertion is irrelevant. Such forms are used to determine award winners where there are identical bids ("ties"). There were no tie bids related to this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The School Board of Lee County enter a Final Order directing that the District Purchasing Department refrain from purchasing item #58115 pending the next invitation to vendors to submit bids for miscellaneous hardware supplies and otherwise DISMISSING the Petitioner's Notice of Bid Protest. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 2nd day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 93-1260BID The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 7. Rejected, irrelevant. Item #58038 does not require that ONLY an Ace Hardware item may be bid. Based on the ITB, it is clear that the item bid by Action Bolt & Tool meets the specifications set forth in the proposal. 11-12. Rejected, irrelevant. 14. Rejected, irrelevant. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner attempted to obtain the materials used by District personnel to evaluate the bids. 16-17. Rejected, irrelevant. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 9. Rejected, immaterial. 23. Rejected, irrelevant. 28. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. James A. Adams Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988 Garey F. Butler, Esquire Humphrey & Knott 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Marianne Kantor, Esquire School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
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.
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
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 5th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, PFO, is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Petitioner's principal office is located in West Palm Beach, Florida. At all times material to the claims of this case, Petitioner had fewer than 25 full-time employees. At all times material to the claims of this case, Petitioner had a net worth of less than $2 million. On May 22, 1995, the Department provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry to a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. At that time the Department issued an intent to award the Palm Beach County (Intrastate) CSE contract to a third party. This dispute evolved into DOAH case no. 95-3138BID or "the bid case." The Department was not a "nominal party" in the bid case. A recommended order was entered in the bid case on September 5, 1995. Except for a minor point not relevant to the issues of this matter, the Department adopted the findings and conclusions of the recommended order and entered its final order on December 1, 1995. The final order in DOAH case no. 95-3138BID awarded the Palm Beach County (Intrastate) contract for CSE legal services to Petitioner. Such award was based upon the conclusions that the third party's proposal was nonresponsive and that aspects of the evaluation process were arbitrary. No appeal was timely filed against the final order. Petitioner is, therefore, a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner timely filed its request for attorneys' fees and costs in the instant case pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The total amount of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in the bid case was $63,495.25. Of that amount, at least $15,000 was reasonable and necessary for Petitioner to incur in the preparations for, and attendance at, the hearing in the bid case. The solicitation package for the bid case contained mandatory requirements with which all applicants were to comply. The final order in the bid case concluded that the successful applicant had failed to satisfy all mandatory requirements. Its bid was, therefore, nonresponsive to the solicitation. Additionally, the final order determined that the instructions regarding how the proposals were to be evaluated were unclear and that points were inappropriately assigned to the successful applicant. The overall conclusion of the final order found that the Department had acted arbitrarily in the intended award to this third party applicant. All of the material deficiencies relied on in the recommended order and the final order to reach the conclusion that the Department had acted arbitrarily were known to the Department at the time of its initial review and evaluation of the proposals. For example, the Department knew that the applicant had not identified two attorneys who would be expected to perform services under the contract, and had not included certificates of good standing from the Florida Bar for them. Additionally, the applicant had not provided references from three persons as specified in the solicitation package. This was evident upon the opening of the proposal. Nevertheless, the Department scored the nonresponsive proposal and awarded it sufficient points to be the apparent winner among the applicants. An award of attorneys fees' and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, is capped at $15,000. The agency has not disputed the reasonableness nor the amount of fees claimed in connection with the bid case. The agency has not offered evidence to specify each item of cost or fee in dispute. Discovery requested by the Department sought information for the period September 1995 through January 1996 which included runner logs of Petitioner's counsel, itemized bills regarding another party (not a party to the bid case nor this case), and the deposition of Don Pickett. None of the requested discovery addressed the issue of whether the Department's actions in the bid case were substantially justified. None of the requested discovery addressed facts which the Department had placed in issue by its response to the petition. None of the discovery addressed the issue of whether there are special circumstances which would make an award of reasonable fees and costs unjust. Moreover, the parties have stipulated that there are no special circumstances which would make an award of reasonable fees and costs unjust. No new information pertinent to the claim for fees and costs herein which was unknown to the Department as a result of the bid case proceeding was discovered from the deposition of Don Pickett. No new information pertinent to the reasonableness or amount of the fees claimed was discovered from the deposition of Don Pickett or the other discovery requested. The factual circumstances argued in Respondent's Proposed (sic) Recommended Order, ie. that the agency had relied on findings and conclusions from an unrelated DOAH case in connection with the review of the underlying bid case, were not set forth in the response filed by the agency in the instant case and have not been deemed credible in determining the issues of this case. The proposal submitted by the third party in the bid case was nonresponsive. The Department has stipulated that the award of a contract to a nonresponsive bidder is arbitrary.
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
The Issue The issues are whether Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool (MPP), is the lowest qualified bidder on Contract No. R- 2119 or whether Suwannee Valley Medical Personnel Corporation (Suwannee) is entitled to the award of Contract No. R-2119 or is entitled to have all bids rejected and the contract relet for bids.
Findings Of Fact The ITB on Contract No. R-2119 was developed jointly between the Department's Central Office and the Region II contracting staff. The Region II staff sent a draft of the ITB to the Central Office, where it was reviewed by Gerald Ellsworth, the Department's Human Service Program Specialist. Mr. Ellsworth is responsible for reviewing the Department's contracts and plans, as well as for development of the Department's proposed invitations to bid and other related types of documents. Mr. Ellsworth has considerable experience in drafting and reviewing governmental contracts for purchasing of services at the state, local and federal government levels. The ITB was also reviewed by the Department's legal office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Correctional Medical Authority, with regard to both the specifications and the contract language in the ITB. The Department properly published the ITB on or about June 28, 1989. The ITB was published under cover of a formal State of Florida Invitation to Bid for Contractual Services, Form PUR: 7031 (Rev. 10/18/88), containing the State of Florida standard general conditions for bids for contractual services. Among those conditions were detailed requirements regarding the sealed nature of bids, requirements for the execution of bids, requirements regarding the opening of bids and conditions regarding prices, terms and payment, interpretations and disputes, conflict of interest, awards, governmental restrictions, default, legal requirements, advertising, assignment, liability, facilities, cancellation and public records. The same general conditions on the first page of the ITB specifically provided an exclusive mechanism for the bidders to resolve questions and disputes regarding the conditions and specifications of the ITB: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis added.) The body of the ITB stated that the Department was soliciting bids for registered and licensed practical nurse services in the Department's Region II, on all shifts, for the care and treatment of inmate patients, as further defined in the ITB's section entitled "Responsibilities of Successful Bidder; Scope of Work." The ITB also contained detailed requirements regarding Nurse Professional Qualifications, Quality Management Standards, Scheduling of Nurses, Records, Invoicing, Insurance, Legal Requirements, Conflict of Interest, Unsatisfactory Performance, Brokering of Contract, Subcontracts, Verbal Instructions, detailed procedural requirements regarding the submission, review and evaluation of the bids, a description of the institutions covered and a copy of the sample contract. One of the procedural requirements in the body of the ITB repeated that: All inquiries from Bidder's [sic] concerning this Invitation to Bid shall be submitted in writing to the office identified on the cover of this Invitation to Bid. Such inquiries shall be received by the office on or before the date indicated above in the Calendar of Events as the "Last Day for Written Inquiries" [July 10, 1989]. (Emphasis added.) The ITB contained a "Bid Price Sheet" which contained separate blanks for RN and LPN services, separate blanks for each service for weekdays and weekend/holidays, and separate blanks for each of these categories for each of the three geographic areas of Region II, in each of the three years of the contract. That Bid Price Sheet stated that prices quoted "shall be firm net prices regardless of travel involved. . . " The body of the ITB specified that bidders must submit "all costs in the format specified on the Price Quote Sheet provided." (Emphasis added.) Further, the "Proposal Evaluations" section of the ITB specified that the figures to be inserted in the blanks on p. 15 were to be "hourly rates" for each type of nursing service. The next paragraph of this section of the ITB, however, stated that "Total cost, and cost breakouts on the Price Quote Sheet shall be clearly stated." The undisputed testimony of Gerald Ellsworth established that the intent of these provisions of the ITB was to require the bidders to state the total cost (i.e., net firm price) for each hour of nursing services in a particular geographic area at a particular point in time. Even though the ITB set forth an estimate of the hours that would be required under the contract, this information was clearly only in the nature of an estimate, and it was never the intent of the ITB to require the bidders or the Committee to project or evaluate, respectively, the total cost of the contract (as opposed to the total cost of each hour of service) by multiplying the bidders' bid costs for each hour of service by the corresponding estimate of hours needed over the three- year life of the contract for each of those categories. The primary reason for this focus upon the cost of an hour of service, rather than the cost of the entire contract, is that the estimated hours needed, as indicated by the ITB, are only estimates. Actual demands for service and workloads are likely to vary considerably, both by type of nursing position and geographic area. These demands could also vary as a result of factors such as the vacancy levels in the Department's own staff of employee nurses or changes in administrative personnel at a given institution. The ITB called for a mix of both objective and subjective evaluation of materials submitted by the bidders. The cost data, submitted in response to p. 7, para. E; p. 12, para. F.2.e; and p. 15, para. 7 was entirely objective, as was the Committee's role in evaluating that data. On the other hand, the information required from bidders under p. 12, para. F.2.a ("Project understanding and statement of work and reference from clients"), and p. 12, para. F.2.b ("Nurse Professional Qualifications"), called for a mix of both subjective and objective information and evaluation. The former, referred to throughout the testimony as "Criterion A," required the bidder to submit "a narrative statement of work to be performed, and references from clients in accordance with the specifications appearing at p. 4, para. 2.A. The latter, referred to in the testimony as "Criterion B," required bidders to: submit professional qualifications, experi- ence, and CPR certification for Department reviewers which documents the Bidders [sic] capability to provide registered and licensed practical nurse personnel that meet the training specifications. as set forth at pp. 4-5, para. 2.B. Within Criterion B, for example, an entirely objective requirement is the proof of the bidders' nurses' CPR qualification. A subjective element of this same criterion would be the quantity and quality of documentation of available nurses. The ITB required the Committee to award points to the respective bidders based on a formula which takes into account each of these objective and subjective criteria. That Formula, at its first level, assigned a point value of 20 points for Criterion A (Project understanding and statement of work, and references from clients), 30 points for Criterion B (Nurse Professional Qualifications) and 50 points for Criterion C (Bid Cost). Specifically as to Criterion C (Bid Cost), this criterion was entirely objective and did not require any subjective analysis by the Committee. The ITB specified that the lowest bidder "shall" be awarded 50 points, based on the average of the three years' quotes for cost of hours of nursing services. The ITB specified that the remaining bidders "shall" be awarded points for bid cost based on the following formula: Points Awarded Equals 50 x (1-A/B) where A equals the difference between the respective bidders' average bid and the lowest average bid, and B equals the lowest bidder's average bid. Unlike Criterion C, the Committee members' evaluation of the bidders' responses to Criteria A and B was left to their judgment and discretion. While the ITB set forth factors that were to be taken into consideration by the Committee members under these criteria, there was no required method by which an evaluator was to assign points for Criteria A and B. Specifically, there was no requirement in the ITB that the evaluators rank the bidders under Criteria A and B. An evaluator was free, for example, to give all bidders full point credit under either criterion, or to assign them any variation of points. This type of point system for mixed weighing of subjective and objective criteria is not unusual in governmental purchasing contracting and competitive bidding and is, in fact, normal procedure. The bid criteria set forth in the ITB, as well as the system set forth therein for evaluation of those bids by a mix of subjective and objective criteria, is rational. Further, and specifically, the ITB's requirement that costs be quoted as a rate per hour of service, by geographic area and point in time, is rational. It would be irrational to evaluate bid cost under this ITB by multiplying each bidder's price quotes for individual hours of service, broken down by geographic area and point in time, by the corresponding estimates of hours needed, set forth at p. 3 of the ITB, and then comparing the resulting "total cost" of the contract under each bid, since the estimated hours were intended to be no more than estimates, and the Department recognizes that these hours are subject to significant variation over the term of the contract. This probable variation would make the latter calculation entirely meaningless and baselessly speculative. It was not the intent of the ITB to find the "lowest and best" bidder. Instead, the intent of this ITB was to find the lowest bidder who met the qualifications and specifications set forth in the ITB. This is not the same as "lowest and best." The Bidders and Their Bids Medical Personnel Pool MPP, the successful bidder on Contract No. R-2119, timely submitted its bid for that contract. MPP's bid showed that MPP is a nationally recognized health care provider, with over twenty years of experience in serving the health care needs of both home health clients and facility clients. Its franchise office in Gainesville, Florida, is one of four offices operated in the Region II area by Mr. Ed Bixby, a former vice president of MPP's parent company, Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Bixby personally has over fifteen years of experience in medical staffing. All MPP offices follow the same national corporate standards for quality assurance, office operation and general business practice. Further, MPP is a financially sound and viable business, with an ongoing corporate recruitment program that regularly attracts new employees. MPP's client service representatives are on-call and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet the Department's staffing needs. The agency has been managed since October 1987, by Mr. Duane Gorgas, who has seventeen years of experience in facility clinical laboratory medicine, and who is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a clinical laboratory supervisor. MPP demonstrated compliance with Criterion B of the ITB by showing that each of its nurses is carefully and personally screened and tested for nursing skills prior to being sent into the field. In addition, MPP personally verifies all nurses' licenses with the Department of Professional Regulation, as well as their CPR certifications. A minimum of one year's documented current clinical experience is required prior to a nurse's being sent into the field. Further, MPP is itself an approved provider of nursing and other professional continuing education programs (DPR Provider No. 27M0938) and provides continuing education directly to its employees on a regular basis. MPP's Gainesville franchise already provides RN's and LPN's to correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes throughout sixteen counties in north central Florida. A list of the prisons and county jails currently and historically staffed by MPP in both Regions II and III was included in the bid, and includes thirteen corrections facilities in those two regions. A broad range of references from these and other clients, both institutional and personal, was included as Attachment II to MPP's bid. Copies of the licenses of 48 experienced MPP nurses, qualified and available to provide the services called for under Contract No. R-2119, were attached to the bid as Attachment III. Suwannee Suwannee's bid was also timely submitted. Whereas Suwannee now protests that the Department's manner of determining bid costs as net cost per hourly unit of service is irrational, that contention is belied by Suwannee's own bid. In the first place, Suwannee did not quote cost as a multiplication of hourly rates times total estimated hours anywhere in its bid, even though its president, Mr. Fortner, now contends this is the only rational way to quote or determine bid cost under the ITB. Further, Mr. Fortner expressly conceded that the ITB did not call for any such calculation of "total cost" by multiplication of rates by estimated hours. Even so, Suwannee has waived any objection or question it may now have as to the method of determining bid cost. Mr. Fortner conceded that he was fully aware of the standards set forth at pp. 1 and 11 of the ITB, requiring that questions or objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB be submitted in writing in a timely manner prior to July 10, 1989. Mr. Fortner nevertheless conceded that he failed to submit any such questions or objections regarding the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, until the filing of his protest after the award of the bid to MPP, and long after July 10, 1989. Having failed to file any timely written objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, therefore, Suwannee has waived any objections to the Department's method of calculating bid costs by averaging each bidder's unit net price for an hour of service by geographic area and point in time, as opposed to Suwannee's after- the-fact preferred method of multiplying these rates by estimated hours to determine Suwannee's definition of "total cost." Suwannee's bid, as supported by its president's testimony, showed that Suwannee was only incorporated in late July 1988, less than a year before the ITB was published. Prior to that time its then-22-year-old president's business experience consisted of operating a video store. Mr. Fortner conceded he had no prior experience whatsoever in providing any sort of nursing or medical services. Prior to the bid letting, Suwannee's sole experience in attempting to staff a correctional facility was at Baker Correctional Institute. Mr. Fortner testified that his first client was Lake City Medical Center, yet no reference from that facility appears in his bid. On the other hand, MPP's bid contains a highly favorable reference from Lake City Medical Center's director of nursing, indicating a completely satisfactory contractual relationship with MPP since 1987. Whereas MPP directly provides continuing education to its nurses under its own provider number, Suwannee takes the position that continuing education requirements are the nurses' responsibilities, and that they must meet these requirements at their own expense. Further, while Mr. Fortner stated that he believes Suwannee tests its nurses, he admitted he did not know how, and Suwannee's bid was silent on this aspect of Criterion B of the ITB. Suwannee's bid was also silent on screening of new nurse applicants. Suwannee has only recently hired a full-time director of nursing. Whereas MPP submitted qualifications for 48 nurses to staff the estimated hours under contract, Suwannee proposed to staff the same number of estimated hours with only 31 nurses. Mr. Fortner testified that the number of licenses in Suwannee's bid constitutes the full complement of nurses he deems necessary to provide the number of hours of service estimated in the ITB. The Bid Evaluation Process Objective Evaluation of Criterion C Initially, because of a confusing misprint in the ITB regarding the mathematical formula for calculating points to be awarded to bidders, other than the lowest average cost bidder, under Criterion C (bid cost), some of the four Bid Evaluation Committee members calculated the ranking of bidders under that criterion differently. That calculation was corrected by Dr. Rechtine, the Committee chairperson, however, in consultation with officials of the Region II office. The correction did not alter the ultimate overall ranking of the bidders, although it made slight differences in the points awarded individual bidders by some members of the Committee, and in one case the second and third bidders under Criterion C were reversed on one evaluator's tally sheet. All four of the Committee members testified that they agreed with the corrected calculation of points to be awarded each of the bidders under Criterion C. At no time was any other part of any Committee member's points awarded altered or changed. Subjective Evaluation of Criteria A and B Steven Smith Committee member Steven Smith, Regional Health Services Administrator for Region II, responsible for assisting institutions in the region with health service issues, including contracting for health services, evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Mr. Smith thoroughly reviewed the entire bid document of each bidder and made judgments as to the merits of each bid. His evaluations were based on how the bidders presented their respective documents, including the presentation and content of the narratives. While he did not assign any greater weight to either MPP's or Suwannee's references, Mr. Smith felt that MPP better articulated its understanding of the nature of the work. Mr. Smith was particularly impressed with MPP's understanding of the Department's court-ordered duty to improve access for inmates' to nursing services, which Mr. Smith felt was indicative of MPP's understanding of the contract's service requirements. He was also impressed with MPP's documentation of its 24-hour coverage. In sum, Mr. Smith felt MPP's bid was much clearer than Suwannee's. Cynthia Vathauer Committee member Cynthia Vathauer is a Department accountant, in charge of the inmates' welfare fund, who has previously served as an evaluator of competitive bids. Ms. Vathauer evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Ms. Vathauer reviewed the ITB and next performed a detailed analysis of whether the bid components called for by the ITB under Criteria A and B were present in each bid. Her review of the bids under Criteria A and B consisted of listing all of the required components under each criterion and then checking off whether each bidder had adequately provided the required components, making notes where there was partial or questionable compliance and deducting points from the total allowable for each criterion which was missing or incomplete. Whereas Suwannee contends Ms. Vathauer made "no analysis" of the bids under Criteria A and B, simply because Ms. Vathauer stated that she did not read these components of the bids in detail for comparative content, this allegation is not supported by the weight of the competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Vathauer's detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the factors called for by the ITB, supported by her contemporaneous notes, shows that Ms. Vathauer made a rational and reasoned analysis of the bids under those criteria, fully supporting her allocation of points to the bidders under those criteria. She admitted candidly that she was not familiar with the clinical or operational aspects of health service provision. Thus, for example, rather than attempt to compare the relative quality of nurse evaluations (which, incidentally, was not required under the ITB), Ms. Vathauer based her judgment of compliance with this criterion on the presence or absence of valid copies of actual licenses. Dianne Rechtine, M.D. Dianne Rechtine, M.D., is the medical executive director at North Florida Reception Center and acting medical services director for Region II. Dr. Rechtine also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids under the standards of the ITB. Dr. Rechtine read the respective bids and, with respect to Criteria A and B, assigned points based on her evaluation of those bids. Her notes of how she allocated points under these criteria appear as Joint Exhibit No. 4D and show that Dr. Rechtine actually scored Suwannee higher than MPP under Criterion A and the same as MPP under Criterion B. Suwannee has not been heard to assert that Dr. Rechtine's analysis under these criteria was other than rational and reasoned. Thus, it is found that Dr. Rechtine's analysis and evaluation of the bids was in fact rational and reasoned. Peggy (Richardson) Patray Since Peggy (Richardson) Patray was not called to the witness stand, MPP offered into evidence, without objection, her deposition testimony, taken prior to MPP's intervention and without benefit of cross-examination by MPP or its counsel. Nevertheless, that deposition and Ms. Patray's own evaluation notes appearing as Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate that Ms. Patray, a registered nursing services consultant employed by the Department and previous nursing supervisor at New River Correctional Institute, carefully reviewed the ITB and analyzed and evaluated the bids under Criteria A, B and C prior to awarding points to the bidders. Ms. Patray looked at the types of facilities from which references were obtained and considered, for example, related jail-type experience to be a positive factor. Ms. Patray actually scored Suwannee superior to MPP under Criterion A for reasons related to the bidders' statements of understanding of work. She scored the two bidders evenly under Criterion B, even though she was favorably impressed by one (at the time of her deposition, she could not recall which) bidder's emphasis on pre-employment screening and in-service training, when contrasted with the other bidder's leaving of this responsibility to the individual nurses. Finally, Ms. Patray testified that she was favorably impressed with MPP's sources of references, as opposed to Suwannee's, and that there was not enough information in Suwannee's bid, in her opinion, regarding nurse professional qualifications. In sum, Ms. Patray's testimony and notes in Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate clearly that she also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids of the parties under the terms and conditions of the ITB. Suwannee's Allegations There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support Suwannee's allegations that political or media pressure adverse to Suwannee influenced the decision to award Contract No. R-2119 to MPP. Each Department witness who testified in this proceeding testified that no such political pressure was brought to bear upon them or even attempted. The competent, substantial and unrebutted evidence of record demonstrates clearly that no such pressure or influence occurred or was attempted. In the same vein, Suwannee has alleged that the Committee improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors or information outside of the ITB and the bid documents. The only evidence of record of Committee members having considered information outside of the ITB or the bids was the testimony of several of the Committee members that they either were aware of or considered allegations of past difficulties with MPP, not Suwannee. For example, Mr. Smith testified that he was aware of one past problem with MPP, but none with Suwannee. In any event, he did not consider anything outside of the bid documents in his review. Ms. Vathauer said nothing relating to this issue. Dr. Rechtine testified that she was aware of, and had considered, past problems with MPP, that she had received favorable input as to Suwannee and, to the extent that this knowledge affected her evaluation, she agreed that it did so to the advantage of Suwannee (scored 20 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B), and to the disadvantage of MPP (scored 12 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B). Finally, even Ms. Patray testified that she had received some negative reports on MPP, whereas she mentioned no such information regarding Suwannee. In sum, there is no evidence of record to support Suwannee's allegations that the Committee members improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors outside the bid documents. Any error which may have occurred in this regard was entirely harmless as to Suwannee, and if it had any effect at all, it worked to Suwannee's benefit. Results of the Bid Evaluation Process The result of the bid evaluation process was that MPP received 88 overall points under the formula set out in the ITB, Suwannee received 85.62, Quality Care received 73.05 and Upjohn received 58.87. MPP was also the low bidder on cost, i.e., Criterion C. The weight and preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that Contract No. R-2119 should have been awarded to MPP, as it was, and that there is an ample, rational, reasoned and logical basis in the record supporting the decision of the Department to award the contract to MPP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding Contract No. R-2119 to Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Office 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 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4566BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Suwannee Valley Medical personnel Corporation 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (page 5). Proposed findings of fact 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6, 17, and 19 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Corrections Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3); 3 (19, 25); 4 (page 5); 6 (11); 7 (12); 8 (16); 9 (46); 14 (44); and 15 (45) Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, and 10-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Medical Personnel Pool Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 16-50 (1-35) and 53-63 (36- 46) Proposed findings of fact 12-15 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 51 is included on page 5 of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 52 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Older COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Attorney at Law Haben & Culpepper 306 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Drucilla E Bell Perri M. King Attorneys at Law Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Thomas D. Watry Attorney at Law Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
