Findings Of Fact In June 1987 The School Board of Lee County, Florida invited the submission of sealed bids for grading and drainage improvements at the new Multipurpose Building at Fort Myers High School. In addition to requiring grading, the project involves the erection or placement of structures in the nature of a drainage system consisting of culverts, pipes, and concrete inlets with grates, to be tied into the existing drainage system off School Board property across a county right-of-way into a culvert for discharge across the street, and which on School Board property attaches to and becomes a part of an existing building. Sealed bids were submitted by Systems Technologies Co. of Ft. Myers, Inc. (hereinafter "Systems Technologies") and by Ledo Lines, Inc. Respondent determined Systems Technologies to be the lowest responsible bidder and advised Ledo Lines, Inc., that it would be awarding the contract to Systems Technologies. Warren W. Hunt is the president and the qualifying agent of Systems Technologies. Hunt has an underground utilities contractor's license which has been inactive since it was obtained by him in March, 1986, being inactive therefore both at the time that Hunt submitted the bid on behalf of Systems Technologies and at the time of the final hearing in this cause. The inactive status results from Hunt's failure to complete the license process with the State of Florida. Since Hunt's license was inactive due to being incomplete at the times material to this cause, neither Hunt nor Systems Technologies was a licensed contractor and Systems Technologies was not a responsible bidder at the time that the bid was submitted. The contract specifications set forth the method by which the bids would be evaluated. Paragraph numbered 2.9 on page PD-4 provides as follows: Comparison of Proposals - Proposals will be compared on the basis of total computed price for each division of work. Total computed price equals the sum of the prices for the lump sum Contract Item, plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price Contract Items for each Division of work. The total price for each unit price Contract Item will be obtained by multiplying the estimated quantity of each item by the correspond- ing unit price set forth in the Proposal form[.] That provision, accordingly, requires that the bids be evaluated based upon the sum of all line items rather than based only upon their total or "bottom line" figure. Respondent's Director of Facilities Planning admitted that he failed to comply with this provision of the contract specifications in evaluating the two bids submitted to him and in determining that the bid should be awarded to Systems Technologies. In Systems Technologies' bid, the sum of the prices for the lump sum contract items plus the sum of the total prices for the unit price contract items amounts to $30,109.60. However, in submitting its bid Systems Technologies incorrectly added its column of figures and incorrectly computed its Total Contract Price (Estimated) to be $29,768. Since the contract specifications envision a unit price bid rather than a lump sum bid, the amount of the bid of Systems Technologies is in fact the amount of $30,109.60. The bid of Ledo Lines, Inc., is for $29,913.84. Ledo Lines, Inc., is, therefore, the low bidder on this project. The contract specifications when read in their entirety clearly require that the low bid be determined by adding the unit price and lump sum components rather than relying on the lump sum "bottom line" figure shown for Total Contract Price (Estimated). Employees of the consultant who Prepared the specifications testified that they expect to be able to hold the bidders to the unit prices but not to the Total Contract Price (Estimated) because the estimated quantities may change. Thus, the evidence is uncontroverted that the determination of low bidder pursuant to the contract specifications is based upon the total of the unit price provisions and not by the single figure at the bottom of the page which adds those individual prices and which was added erroneously in this case by Systems Technologies. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated that the School Board is subject to mandatory competitive bidding for this project. They further stipulated that where there is mandatory competitive bidding, the contract must be awarded to the lowest qualified, responsive bidder. Since Systems Technologies is neither a qualified, responsive bidder nor the lowest bidder, it is clear that Ledo Lines, Inc., is the lowest responsive bidder for the project in question.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining Ledo Lines, Inc., to be the lowest responsive bidder and awarding the contract for grading and drainage improvements to the Multi- purpose Building at Fort Myers High School to Ledo Lines, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James E. Melvin, Superintendent School Board of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 E. G. Couse, Esquire Post office Drawer 1647 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Harry A. Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact Nine bids were received for Contract E4571, Project/Job No. 99004-3516 ("E4571"). Petitioner's bid was timely received. Respondent opened bids on December 13, 1991. Respondent posted its intent to award E4571 to J & D Tropical Landscape Design on December 20, 1991. Section 1.2 of the Bid Specifications for E4571, as modified by the Special Provisions, states: A contractor's bid shall be in the form of a unit price for each unit expected to be accomplished. The Special Provisions to E4571 require each bidder to submit a single unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. Item 4 in the Special "Provisions provides: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to submit to the Department A SINGLE unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. The Contractor shall be responsible for his/her method of averaging. Failure to comply shall result in the Contractor's Bid Proposal being declared "Irregular" and such Bid Proposals will be rejected. (emphasis added) Petitioner's Bid Proposal was properly declared irregular and rejected by Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Item 4 in the Special Provisions by failing to submit a single unit price for each pay item, by failing to correctly average a unit price, and by failing to state the unit price in words. The Unit Price Sheet on page 23 of the Bid Proposals contains the following table listing item numbers A582- 2 through A584-4. Petitioner listed item number A583 as follows: ITEM PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE $ AMOUNTS NUMBER QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE (IN FIGURES) (Exten- (IN WORDS) sion Price) 3/ A583 4 200.000 TREES (8' TO 20, 85 20400 PLANT ' HEIGHT OR CLEAR TRUNK) @ DOLLARS CENTS The actual extension price 4/ for 200 trees at $85 per unit is $17,000 rather than the $20,400 stated by Petitioner in the table on page 23. The "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the table is $37,013.20. The "Contract Total" that should have been stated if Petitioner intended the extension price of item number A583-4 to be $17,000 would have been $33,613. The "Contract Total" listed by a bidder on the Unit Price Sheet is the unverified contract price. The actual contract price is determined by Respondent pursuant to the formula given in Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications. Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications foil E4571 states: The contract price is defined as the sum of the unit bid price times the planned work for each item as shown on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner would have been the lowest successful bidder irrespective of whether Respondent had replaced the extension price for item number A583-4 and the "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner with the actual extension price for item number A583-4 and the actual "Contract Total" . However, Respondent is precluded from doing so by Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications For Road ,and Bridge Construction ("Standard Specifications"), published by the Florida Department of Transportation (1991) and by the Special Provisions for E4571. Respondent follows "Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications for the purpose of evaluating bid proposals. Section 3-1 is used, in part, to determine the extension price for item numbers listed on the Unit Price Sheet. Section 3- 1 provides in relevant part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price of any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, In which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Petitioner did not show the unit price in words for any item number on the Unit Price Sheet, including item number A583-4. There is a discrepancy in the three entries for item number A583-4 on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner failed to show the unit price for item number A583-4 in words, and the unit price and extension price are not in agreement. Under such circumstances, Respondent interprets Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications as requiring that Petitioner's bid be declared irregular and rejected. Respondent's interpretation of Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications is reasonable and is consistent with the mandate in Item 4 of the Special Provisions for E4571. See Finding 4, supra. Furthermore, in practice, the correct unit price of a pay item is necessary to process payment under the contract and the contractor must submit invoices based upon the pay items and unit prices listed in its bid. The bid specifications for E4571 provide that a bidder is responsible for his or her own averaging of a stated unit price, and that if a bidder fails to provide a single unit price for each pay item on the Unit Price Sheet the bid shall be declared "Irregular" and will be rejected. The requirement to provide a single unit price for each pay item was emphasized by Respondent at the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Petitioner's representative attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. No challenges were made to the bid specifications by any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (964) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T1285 to Intervenor Kamminga & Roodvoets, Inc. ("K & R").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On May 14, 2008, the Department released its bid solicitation for Contract T1285. The proposed contract was for the construction of a one-way pair through Lake Alfred, including new construction, reconstruction, milling and resurfacing, widening, drainage improvements, lighting, signalization, signing and pavement marking and landscaping on State Road 600 (U.S. 17/92). Polk County, the location of the project, lies in the Department's District 1. Qualified contractors, including Mid-State and K & R, received an electronic disk containing the solicitation, bid blank, plans and specifications for Contract T1285. The letting date for this project was June 18, 2008. Bids were to be submitted on or before that date via Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. No party submitted a protest of the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the solicitation pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The work to be performed on Contract T1285 included the installation of limerock road base to be paid for in accordance with line item 0175, Optional Base Group 09 ("Base Group 09"). The bid documents included a set of "Supplemental Specifications." Section 6 of the Supplemental Specification was titled "Control of Materials." Subsection 6-3.3, titled "Construction Aggregates," provided as follows: "Aggregates used on Department projects must be in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-103."2 Under the heading "Developmental Specifications" is a February 15, 2008, revision to the Construction Aggregates subsection that provides: Subarticle 6-3.3 (Page 54) is expanded by the following: 6-3.3.1 Department Directed Source for Aggregates: For this Contract, obtain aggregates for use in limerock base from the following vendor: Vulcan Construction Materials LP. Upon award of the Contract, provide the vendor and the Department a schedule of project aggregate needs. Once a schedule has been provided to both the Department and vendor, the Engineer will issue written authorization, with a copy to the vendor, for the purchase of aggregates from the vendor. This authorization is required before aggregates will be released by the vendor. Pick up the required aggregate such that the project schedule will be maintained. Payment to the vendor by the Contractor will be due upon receipt of the materials pursuant to the Department's Vendor Contract No. BDH50. This rate is the unit price agreed upon by the Department and the vendor and will be made available to bid proposal holders at the time of bid at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/aggregate /aggregate.htm. The Department will make payment to the Contractor for the aggregates on progress estimates as a part of the bid unit price for the appropriate pay items. The rate is subject to change and adjustments for such changes will be made to the bid unit price of the appropriate pay items. Disputes with the vendor concerning aggregate supply will not be cause for Contract time adjustments, time suspensions or monetary adjustments to the Contract amount. The Contractor will be solely responsible for providing the necessary advance notice to the vendor and other coordination to obtain timely aggregate supply for the project. The import of Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 was that all bidders would be required to obtain the limerock needed for Base Group 09 from a single vendor, Vulcan Construction Materials LP ("Vulcan"). The winning bidder would agree to pay Vulcan in accordance with a separate contract negotiated between Vulcan and the Department. The hyperlink provided in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.13 led to a document called "Aggregate Guidance" produced by the Department's State Construction Office. The front page of the Aggregate Guidance document contained "Bidder Information" consisting of a spreadsheet setting forth the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base and limestone coarse aggregate, with the price varying depending on the date and port of delivery. Between January and June 2008, the Vulcan price per ton for limerock base from both the Port of Tampa and Port Canaveral was $16.93. The Aggregate Guidance page contained additional hyperlinks with the following titles: "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," "Aggregate Vendor Contract," "Aggregate Vendor Projects List," "Aggregate Vendor Authorization Letter," "Aggregate Vendor Contract Frequently Asked Questions," and "Aggregate Price Adjustment Sheet." Alvin Mulford is the vice-president of Mid-State who, along with his estimator, put together his company's bid for Contract T1285. Mr. Mulford testified that his company has been bidding on Department work, and that he has never before seen a provision similar to Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Mr. Mulford directed his estimator to obtain clarification from the Department, to be sure that the bidders were required to purchase the limerock base from Vulcan. One reason for Mr. Mulford's concern was the "exorbitant" rate charged by Vulcan in comparison to other vendors. The restriction to a single supplier was so abnormal, and that supplier's rate was so out of line with the market, that Mr. Mulford decided to seek guidance from the Department through the question and response internet bulletin board provided by the Department for its projects. The question posed by Mid-State was as follows: Does the contractor have to use Vulcan materials for the limerock base at a rate of $16.93 per ton as stated in the Developmental Specifications 6-3.3.1? If so from which location is the material to be picked up? Is it also true that payment to the vendor (Vulcan Materials) will be due immediately upon receipt of the materials? I wanted to clarify this issue as it is unusual for the contractor to be limited to the use of only one vendor. The Department's response was as follows: The unit rate for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Pickup locations for the Material can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/construction/ Aggregate/Aggregate.htm Payment should be issued by the Contractor to the Vendor (Vulcan Construction Materials LP) upon receipt of the materials as defined in Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. Because the Department's response did no more than redirect him to the Department's website, Mr. Mulford decided to look at the website in more detail. He investigated the hyperlinks, including the Vulcan contract with the Department. When he clicked on the hyperlink titled "Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage," he found a document that provided as follows, in relevant part: Aggregate Vendor Contract Usage by Districts With the execution of the contract with Vulcan Construction Materials LP, contract number BDH50, Vulcan has committed to provide aggregate in the types and quantities defined in the contract (attached). The process for this contract in Districts 1, 5, and 7, is as follows: Include in the projects identified in the attached spreadsheet the appropriate special provision beginning with the July 2007 lettings. The District Specifications Engineer and District Construction Office will need to coordinate this effort. There are two special provisions for the purpose of notifying construction contract bidders of the Department's intention toward the aggregate. The first special provision is the mandatory version that will direct the bidder to obtain aggregates for the specified work from Vulcan. The second special provision provides the bidder an option to obtain its aggregates from Vulcan. * * * After these projects have been awarded, the contractor is required to notify FDOT and Vulcan a schedule of its aggregate needs for the project. After receiving this schedule, FDOT's Resident Engineer will issue written authorization to the contractor, with copy to Vulcan. This authorization is required before Vulcan will release aggregate to the contractor. Payment to Vulcan will be from the contractor. FDOT will pay cost of aggregate on progress estimates as part of the contractor's bid price for the work. The contractor is required to include in its bid price for the work the cost of the aggregate at the Vulcan rate. The Vulcan rate will be posted on the FDOT State Construction Website showing the rate. When adjustments are made to the Vulcan rate, FDOT will make adjustments in the construction contract unit price. . . . (Emphasis added.) Mr. Mulford testified that he understood the underscored language in the hyperlinked document to be a directive to the bidders and therefore a mandatory requirement of the bid specifications. He did not ask the Department for further clarification because he believed the requirement was clearly stated in the hyperlinked document. David Sadler, the director of the Department's office of construction, testified that the hyperlinked document was developed by his office to offer guidance to the districts as to the concept behind and use of the aggregate vendor contract. The document was not a part of the bid solicitation document. Mid-State's bid price was $7,429,398.44. Mid-State's price for Base Group 09 was $619,645.80, or $19.30 per square yard. This price reflected the Vulcan rate for limerock base of $16.92 plus tax and Mid-State's costs for the work associated with Base Group 09. 19. K & R's bid price was $7,370,505.24, or $58,893.20 lower than the bid price of Mid-State. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $256,848.00, based on a stated unit price of $8.00 per square yard for limerock base. K & R's price for Base Group 09 was $362,797.80 lower than that of Mid-State, accounting for more than the differential between the overall bids of Mid-State and K & R. Marcus Tidey, Jr., K & R's vice president in charge of its Florida division, testified that K & R was well aware that the Vulcan price for limerock base was $16.93, and that K & R understands its obligation to pay that price to Vulcan should K & R be awarded Contract T1285. Mr. Tidey testified that at the time of bid submission, he cut K & R's bid price to $8.00 per square yard as a competitive strategy to win the contract. Mr. Tidey made a conscious decision that K & R would absorb the difference between $8.00 bid price and the Vulcan price of $16.93. Mr. Tidey testified that K & R needed to win this job in order not to have its crews and equipment sit idle during the economic downturn, and therefore decided to take all of its markup, roughly $250,000, out of the bid. He could have made the $250,000 cut on any item or items in the bid, but decided on Base Group 09 because the limerock base was a big item and therefore easy to cut by a large amount. Mr. Tidey also testified that the contract provides a $400,000 incentive payment for early completion of the job, meaning that K & R will be able to work "faster and smarter" and make up for the price reduction at the end of the job. Mr. Tidey testified that he obtained the Vulcan prices from the Department's website as instructed by Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1. He did not click on the hyperlinks, which appeared to reference the contract between the Department and Vulcan and therefore was of no concern to him. The Department and K & R dispute Mid-State's assertion that the underscored language of the hyperlink set forth in Finding of Fact 15 was a requirement of the bid specifications, based on Mr. Sadler's direct testimony and the underlying illogic and unfairness of requiring bidders to seek out hidden specifications. The Department and K & R concede that if the bid specifications did in fact require the bidders to include in Base Group 09 the full costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan, then K & R's bid is nonresponsive. Developmental Specification 6-3.3.1 directed bidders to the Department's webpage for the purpose of obtaining the current Vulcan rate quote. It did not instruct the bidders to investigate the hyperlinks or to assume that the information contained therein was mandatory. Absent an instruction to bidders to review the information contained in the hyperlinks, the Department could not make such information mandatory without placing less curious bidders at a competitive disadvantage. The Department had no intent to play hide-and-seek with the bid specifications in the manner suggested by Mid-State. In addition, K & R points to three line items of the bid specifications in which the Department eliminates competition, instructing the bidders not to bid and inserting a fixed unit price and bid amount for all bidders as to those items. K & R reasonably asserts that the Department was fully capable of treating Base Group 09 in the same fashion, had it intended to require the bidders to pass through to the Department all the costs associated with obtaining the limerock base from Vulcan. However, the Department supplied the bid quantity (31,106 square yards) and left it to the bidders to determine the price per unit they would bid. K & R's bid was responsive. Nothing in the bid specifications prevented K & R from absorbing part of the cost of the Vulcan limerock base and passing the savings on to the Department, or required bidders to pass on to the Department the full costs of complying with the bid specifications regarding Base Group 09. The sole remaining issue is whether K & R's bid, though facially responsive, was materially unbalanced. The Department routinely conducts reviews of bid line items that appear "unbalanced," i.e., for which there appear to be significant differences between the price bid and the Department's cost estimate, in order to determine whether the price difference is due to a quantity error by the bidder. The Department's review confirms that the bid quantity specified on the bid blank is accurate. If a quantity error is found, the bids are recalculated using the bidders' unit prices and the correct quantities to determine whether the bid rankings would change. A bid for which there is a discrepancy between the bid and the Department's estimate is termed "mathematically unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid that affects the ranking of the low bid is "materially unbalanced." A mathematically unbalanced bid is acceptable, but a materially unbalanced bid affords the bidder an unfair competitive advantage and must be rejected. The Department followed its usual procedure in analyzing the K & R bid to determine whether it was unbalanced. Philip Gregory Davis, the Department's state estimates engineer, testified that there were some unbalanced items in the K & R bid, but no quantity errors that would have changed the ranking of the bids. Richard Ryals, the project designer who conducted the unbalanced bid review, testified that the quantities were correct for Base Group 09. As noted above, K & R's low bid for Base Group 09 was an intentional strategy, not the result of a quantity error. K & R's current bonded capacity qualification with the Department is $258 million in contracts at any one time. K & R posted a bid bond, and has more than enough capacity to comfortably perform this contract. There is no economic danger to the Department in accepting K & R's low bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Mid-State's formal written protest and awarding Contract T1265 to K & R. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the bid for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Lease No. 590:1871 to provide office space in Dade County, Florida, should be awarded to either Petitioner or Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Robert Litowitz (hereinafter "Litowitz"), in response to an invitation to bid advertised by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "HRS"), timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property located at 11401 SW 40th Street (also known as Bird Road), Miami, Florida. This lease was to be for a five-year term with two one-year renewal options. The net square footage for the lease required by HRS was 14,781 + 3 percent with the geographical boundary designated by the invitation to bid being described as follows: All bid should be for existing office space located within the following boundaries: On the North, S.W., 48th Street. On the South, S. W., 88th Street. On the East, Palmetto Expressway, and on the West, S.W., 117th Street. This description contained an error in that the western boundary line should have been 117th Avenue not 117th Street. This minor discrepancy was noted at both of two pre-bid conferences conducted by HRS. The Intervenor, James C. Colross (hereinafter "Colross"), also timely filed a bid submittal form offering to lease real property described as Building "B," 9495 Sunset Drive (Southwest 72nd Street), Miami, Florida. Prior to the bid opening date, February 17, 1987, employees of HRS conducted two pre-bid conferences. At these conferences the bid package was reviewed and explained to all potential bidders present. Litowitz attended the pre-bid conference held the last week in January 1987. At this pre-bid conference Litowitz received the bid package and advised employees of HRS that he would be submitting property located on Bird Road for consideration for lease No. 590:1871. Linda Treml was the HRS employee who served as the contact person for the bid for Lease No. 590:1871. Ms. Treml conducted the pre-bid conferences and answered questions from potential bidders regarding the bid submittal forms. Several months earlier, perhaps during the summer 1986, Litowitz had met with Linda Treml regarding the possible lease of the Bird Road site, Ms. Treml had advised Litowitz that, at that time, HRS was not looking for space but that Litowitz would be added to their mailing list for future bid opportunities. Ms. Treml toured the Bird Road property with Litowitz as a courtesy visit for his inquiry. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required the proposed space be in an existing building. "Existing" was defined to specify the entire space to be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage. Both the Colross and the Litowitz properties met this definition for an existing building at the time of the bid submittals. The bid submittal form for Lease No. 590:1871 required a minimum of 90 parking spaces to include a minimum of 80 full size spaces and 4 spaces meeting the Standards For Special Facilities For Physically Disabled found in Chapter 130-1, Florida Administrative Code. The required parking spaces did not have to be reserved for the exclusive use of HRS. Colross offered 62 exclusive spaces on site with 50 additional exclusive parking spaces located one block from the proposed facility. The Colross site plan for Building B (the bid property) established over 90 non-exclusive parking spaces available on site. The Litowitz property also had 90-plus non-exclusive parking spaces on site. HRS requested a clarification for the 50 exclusive spaces offered off-site by Colross. The verbal clarification was reduced to writing to confirm such spaces, if needed, would be at no cost to HRS. This written confirmation was not issued until March 31, 1987. HRS established a bid evaluation team to review the bids submitted for Lease No. 590:1871. This team, comprised of Janet Robinson, Dorea Sowinski, and Grace 0abolish, visited both the Litowitz and Colross properties. Subsequent to the site tours, they met in a conference room at Janet Robinson's office to discuss the bid evaluation process. This team was to make a recommendation as to which bid was the lowest and best. The recommendation was to be made based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the bid submittal form. No other criteria were to be employed by the evaluation team. HRS has no guidelines which specified how each team member is to apply the evaluation criteria. The team recommendation would then be reviewed by George Smith and his superiors. Linda Treml advised the evaluation team not to consider the Litowitz property because it was outside the geographical boundary established by the invitation to-bid. The Litowitz property located on Bird Road is, in fact, outside of the advertised boundaries. The bid advertisement required the property to be considered for Lease No. 590:1871 to be within the stated geographical area. HRS did not, by act or omission, encourage Litowitz to prepare and submit a bid for a property known to be outside the defined boundary. HRS did not advise Litowitz that a property outside of the defined boundary would be disqualified. The bid evaluation criteria assigned a weighing value of 10 percent to the proximity of the offered space in the central or preferred area of the map boundaries. Litowitz mistakenly concluded that even though his property was not within the boundaries that he would lose only the 10 percent weighing factor when his property would be evaluated. HRS did not, by act or omission, affirm this erroneous interpretation. Because the Litowitz property was not within the defined geographical boundary, HRS disqualified the Litowitz bid. Accordingly, the Colross bid was the only bid left for consideration and was selected for Lease No. 590:1871. The interested parties were notified of this selection on or about March 19, 1987. The Colross bid included a higher rental fee than the Litowitz bid. HRS rejected a third bid for Lease No. 590:1871 submitted by Brookhill Capital Resources (hereinafter "Brookhill") since it was missing certain documents which had to be submitted by the time of the bid opening. The Brookhill bid included a lower rental fee than the Litowitz bid. The Brookhill property was within the advertised boundary. HRS selected the Colross property and deemed it the lowest and best bid since the Litowitz and Brookhill properties had to be disqualified. Members of the bid evaluation team preferred the Colross property for Lease No. 590:1871. HRS did not waive the boundary requirement for Lease No. 590:1871. Employees of HRS completed a bid synopsis which listed data on all three bidders for lease no. 590:1871 even though two of the bidders, Litowitz and Brookhill, had been disqualified, HRS reserved the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection would be in the interest of the State of Florida. Janet Robinson as the managing administrator of the disability determination office set the geographical boundaries for the invitation to bid. The boundaries were established in consideration of the needs and desires of the employees of the disability determination office.
Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited contractors to replace a chiller in Building #45 at its Sunland facility located in Marianna, Florida. The project number for the replacement was HRS-95203000. The vendors were allowed until 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, August 24, 1995, to submit responses to the request for bids. On August 24, 1995, Respondent received four responses. The responses were from Petitioner, Neel, JLS International and Smiths, Inc. On August 24, 1995, when the bids were opened JLS International and Smiths, Inc. were disqualified as nonresponsive bidders. On August 24, 1995, Respondent determined that Petitioner had submitted a base bid in the amount of $141,185.00 and as described on the tabulation form, an alternate bid in the amount of $14,750.00 for confined space compliance. The Neel bid as reflected on the tabulation was a base bid for $142,000.00. The forms upon which Petitioner and Neel had submitted their bid prices were forms identical in their format. The format was required by the Respondent. The Petitioner's bid stated: Base Bid: $141,185.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ N/A Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. *If Required (not included in base bid) ITEM UNIT PRICE Compliance for confined space for refrigerants & equipment *Note: Base bid price is compiled costs for construction duration & equipment delivery of 18 weeks. When Petitioner submitted its response to the request for bids, it offered no further explanation concerning the $14,750.00 price for "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" than has already been described. The Neel bid stated: Base Bid: $142,000.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. ITEM UNIT PRICE Respondent had provided written instructions to the bidders concerning execution of the bid proposal form to the effect: Omit mention of alternates entirely, if there are none. Unit prices are to be used only if unit prices are applicable and approved by the Project Director. This project did not call for alternate bids or unit prices. The request for bids did not contemplate a quotation other than the base bid for all items, to include any costs associated with implementation of a design that complies with all applicable codes associated with the installation and with any laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Posting of the bid evaluation/tabulation and notice of contract award recommendation was given on September 8, 1995, indicating Respondent's intent to award to Petitioner in the amount of $141,185.00 as the base bid for the project. Prior to the posting of the bids on September 8, 1995, as was customary, Thomas McAuley, an account representative for Petitioner, who had submitted Petitioner's bid response had met with Respondent's project manager Glen Jenkins, a Professional Engineer III. The meeting was held to discuss Petitioner's bid response as the apparent responsive lowest and best bidder. In the conversation held between Messrs. McAuley and Jenkins, they did not discuss the $14,750.00 separate price quotation in the Petitioner's bid. They did discuss compliance with the codes that were going to be applicable to the project and whether the base price quotation took into account the code requirements. McAuley indicated his opinion that the base price quotation did account for compliance with code requirements contemplated by the terms in the request for bids. McAuley was specifically asked whether Petitioner was complete and thorough in its compliance with the bid specifications and in its prices, inclusive of all the items that were going to be mandated by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services. McAuley answered that question in the affirmative. In the specifications, under Article 7, Miscellaneous Provisions, within the request for bids is set forth Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 related to permit and code compliance issues, which state as follows: State Building Permit. Current DMS requirements for state building permit applications and for permit inspections are attached. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to apply for and pay all costs associated with the state building permit (including the cost of preparing any permit documents on which the state building official may require the seal of a registered engineer). It shall further be the Contractor's responsi- bility to comply fully with all permit inspection requirements. Code Compliance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement a design complying with all codes applicable to this installation, and with all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall be held responsible for stating or setting forth (in this or any other document, or verbally) any code requirement which may be applicable to this project. By disseminating this "Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions", the Owner merely sets forth minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, and neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall thereby be held liable, in full or in part, for the Contractor's adherence or non-adherence to any governing code and/or legal requirement. Special Terms and Conditions for Cont- racts Under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Due to partial project funding under a federal NECPA grant, Contractor compliance with federal laws and regulations are a special requirement of this project. Special terms and conditions pertaining to wages and payrolls, records retention and access, apprenticeship and training, equal opportunity access, are set forth in the attached "Special Terms and Conditions for Contracts Under the National Energy Conserva- tion Policy Act". The contractor shall responsible for full compliance with the attached special terms and conditions. In the meeting between McAuley and Jenkins discussion was made concerning compliance with pertinent electrical codes. One question was asked about pipes in the system being installed in a manner to allow variable speed drives to be placed above the pipes. Jenkins considered that speed drive placement underneath the pipes would be contrary to code requirements. Related to the mechanical features in the project there was discussion about the provision of refrigerants in compliance with the mechanical code that pertained. In the meeting there was little discussion about code compliance within confined spaces, because the two individuals did not perceive that there would likely be a code requirement concerning confined spaces. Mention was made that some code inspector or code official who came to the job site might require attention to the confined spaces, even though that requirement was not found in the code. According to Jenkins, in his recount of the meeting with McAuley, if a code official required compliance for an item in the confined spaces that was not set forth in the code, that would constitute an item about which the Respondent had not requested information to be included in the base price quotation offered by the Petitioner. Further, Jenkins stated there would not be a problem for failing to offer a quotation for the features required by the inspector, because it was not sought by the Respondent in designing the bid requirements. As Jenkins describes, Petitioner's unit price for that work had been made known. This is taken to refer to the $14,750.00 quote for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. In that circumstance, Mr. Jenkins told Mr. McAuley that if a code official required something that was not contemplated by the code and the Respondent did not consider it worth fighting over, then Respondent would have to process a change order to install that equipment. This is taken to mean that Petitioner would be paid additional money under a change order for installing the equipment in the event that the Respondent did not choose to contest the decision of the code official. At the time that McAuley and Jenkins had the meeting, counsel for Neel had contacted Jenkins about protesting the decision to award the contract to Petitioner. That individual had stated the opinion to Respondent that Petitioner's discussion of confined space for refrigerants and the equipment at the additional cost of $14,750.00 might be perceived as potentially a code exclusion in violation of the requirements of Section 7.3 to the request for bids. Neel's counsel stated his belief that the vendors were expected to be in compliance with all codes and laws, even if it was not known to be a code requirement at the time the bid was submitted. He was concerned that someone might try and make it a requirement in the future. The Neel attorney explained that the reference to compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment set forth in Petitioner's bid response might be construed as a comment on code requirements through the contingency of someone's interpretation of the code. He believed that the responses to the request for bids needed to address that contingency as part of the basic quotation, not as a separate quotation. At the time McAuley and Jenkins had their meeting, Jenkins did not know of any requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment based upon his experience, but he had not researched the issue. Through information which Neel imparted to Mr. Jenkins before the meeting was held between Jenkins and McAuley, the Neel attorney expressed the opinion that there was not a present code requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, a view held by McAuley and Jenkins. At the time the meeting was held between McAuley and Jenkins, Jenkins was of the opinion that the requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment was not foreseen to be a likely code requirement. As contrasted with Neel's view, as explained to Jenkins, that its base bid was intended to cover the eventuality that there might become a requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, Neel's representative stated that Petitioner's bid had segregated that contingency for consideration by quoting the price of $14,750.00 separately. Neel did not appear at the hearing and there was no direct proof that the $142,000.00 base bid by Neel addressed the contingency that a future requirement might be imposed for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. However, it may properly be assumed the Neel bid met the requirement for a base bid quotation to cover all costs to Respondent absent proof to the contrary. Later, when Respondent decided to award the contract to Neel, Respondent implied that the $142,000.00 base bid would meet code requirements contemplated by Section 7.3. Concerning the responsibility to determine which code requirements pertained and when, Respondent expected the vendors to derive that answer. This case was unlike most projects by the Respondent in which design professionals, engineers or architects create design documents that are completed in view of code requirements and the vendors assume that the bid documents prepared would be in conformance with code requirements. At hearing Mr. Jenkins, as project manager, opined that Section 7.3 obligated the contractor to meet existing requirements of the permitting authorities, and if during the pendency of the contract there was some change to the codes or code requirements set forth by code inspectors, then the contractor must assume the risk. Moreover, when the bids were opened and tabulated initially and the preliminary decision was made to award the contract to Petitioner, Mr. Jenkins perceived the quotation of $14,750.00 set forth in the Petitioner's bid to be a unit price for a scope of work that was not expected to be required at any point and was not been asked for by Respondent. Jenkins considered this quote as an alternate that was being proffered, something that Respondent might opt for in the future. Although not set forth in exact terms, Mr. Jenkins perceived this information in the Petitioner's bid response to be related to an alarm system and breathing apparatuses. He held this belief based upon his experience in association with compliance for confined spaces. Mr. Jenkins surmised that what was being described by the Petitioner was the type of installation that you would put into a closed mechanical room where a refrigeration machine was located that contained toxic refrigerant, which if released might kill a serviceman. In that connection when discussing refrigerant compliance with Mr. McAuley in their meeting, Mr. Jenkins indicated that the discussion had been limited because the type of machine proposed by the Petitioner was a 134A machine which is "ozone friendly" and not restricted by clean air amendment regulations. Following the posting on September 8, 1995, which recommended that the contract be awarded to Petitioner, Neel had 72 hours to file a protest. That protest was filed. Having considered the remarks by Neel's attorney in support of that protest, Mr. Jenkins became persuaded that Petitioner might not have intended to describe an alternate (unsolicited) purchase when discussing the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment for a price of $14,750.00; instead, Petitioner may have been describing how to comply with future code requirements. Consequently, Mr. Jenkins attempted to settle the issue by presenting the opportunity for the Petitioner to obtain a letter from the Department of Management Services permitting office establishing that the equipment described in the bid by Petitioner for compliance for confined space refrigerants and equipment was not then a code requirement. Mr. Jenkins wanted that information to be in writing. This opportunity to submit information was imparted to Stuart Zaritsky, Branch Manager for Petitioner in its Tallahassee office. Petitioner did not take the opportunity to send written information concerning the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as not being required by applicable codes. Instead, Mr. Zaritsky called Mr. Jenkins and told him that Petitioner had placed calls to the Department of Management Services permitting office and was unable to get a definitive response at that time. On September 26, 1995, Mr. Zaritsky wrote to Mr. Jenkins and stated: The confined space for refrigerants and equipment compliance is based on ASHRAE recommendations only. If any of these items are required by code, then we will install it at no cost. Our base bid of $141,185 is based on the specifications, including paragraph 7.3 on page 13 and all other portions of the contract documents without any qualifications. If it is determined by the owner, that they wish to upgrade the machine room to ASHRAE 15 standards, and it is not required by code, the $14,750 would be the price to add refrigerant monitors, refrigerant purge fans and self-contained breathing apparatus. Should the jurisdictional authority of code compliance determine that these items are required by code, they will be installed as part of our base bid of $141,185. On September 29, 1995, Respondent gave notice of an amended bid tabulation finding Neel to be the responsive lowest and best bidder for the project in its quotation of $142,000.00. The September 29, 1995 correspondence notified the Petitioner that: After further review of issues raised by responsive bidders on the above project, the Department has determined that the bid sub- mitted by Natkin Service Co. on the above referenced project either: is nonresponsive, because the bid was not in compliance with Section 7.3 of the Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions, since it exempted its bid from certain refrigerant handling requirements; or if responsive, is in the amount of $155,935.00. In either case, the bid submitted by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $142,000.00 is the lowest responsive bid. The September 29, 1995 determination that Petitioner was not responsive led to Petitioner's present protest. Sometime shortly before the amended posting of the bid tabulation on September 29, 1995, Mr. Jenkins spoke to Mr. McAuley concerning the opportunity to present information to address the question concerning whether compliance for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment was a code requirement. To assist the Petitioner Mr. Jenkins provided information which had been received from the Department of Community Affairs related to code provisions under enforcement by the Department of Management Services. This information was not provided by Mr. Jenkins as a determination of code requirements; it was provided to inform Petitioner concerning what Mr. Jenkins understood to be the latest code requirements. The expectation was still held that Petitioner would submit separate information from the Department of Management Services that would settle the issue concerning the possible need to comply with code requirements for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment. As Mr. Jenkins described at hearing, the basis for finding the Petitioner's bid unresponsive was alternatively stated. First, the Respondent believes that Petitioner tried to avoid the responsibility for complying with code requirements, whatever they may be during the contract pendency; or second, Petitioner split its bid into two parts. One in the amount of $141,185.00 for matters unrelated to code compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment and the second in an amount of $14,750.00 for such compliance. If the former view is taken, Petitioner's bid is unresponsive. If the latter view is taken Petitioner's bid is responsive but exceeds the quotation by the responsive bidder Neel. At hearing it was not proven by competent evidence whether there was any necessity to meet code requirements for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as described in Petitioner's bid response at any point in time. Other provisions within the request for bids that pertain to the manner in which the vender would address its price quotation are as follows: 1.5 The Contract Sum shall initially be that lump-sum amount which the Contractor shall have enclosed in his sealed bid proposal. Subject to additions and deduc- tions by Change Order, the Contract Sum shall be the amount which the Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work, subject to the terms and conditions as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6 The Contractor shall apply for, and pay all costs associated with, any permit which may be required by the Department of Management Services. Such permitting costs for which the Contractor shall be responsible shall include the preparation of any permit documents on which the building official may require the seal of a registered engineer. B-9 Instruction for bidders; They (the bidders) are also required to examine carefully any drawings, specifications and other bidding documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner effect the work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest based upon the unresponsive of its bid and awards the contract for Project No. HRS- 95203000 to Neel. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph B1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B2 is rejected in the suggestion that Respondent should be bound by resort to extrinsic evidence to determine Petitioner responsive to the bid invitation. Paragraph B3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B4 is rejected in the suggestion that it was inappropriate to defer to the Neel protest as a means for Respondent to reconsider its position. Paragraph B5 is rejected in the suggestion that Neel has controlled the outcome in this case. Paragraph B6 is rejected in the suggestion that Petitioner has complied with the bid invitation requirements. Paragraph B7 is rejected in the suggestion that the contrary position stated by the Respondent in the informal review wherein Petitioner had been preliminarily determined to be the responsive bidder and the point of view at hearing would preclude a decision favoring the Respondent. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy McAuley, Account Manager Natkin Service Company 3428 A. Garber Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Chavers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Informational Copies: JLS International, Inc. P. O. Box 490 Foley, AL 36536 Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. P. O. Box 1916 Thomasville, GA 31799 Smith's, Inc. of Dothan P. O. Box 1207 Dothan, AL 36302
The Issue The issue is whether Kelly Services is the lowest responsive bidder on Bid No. 89-23 and should be awarded the bid.
Findings Of Fact On June 2, 1988, the School Board of Bay County issued Bid Request No. 89-23 for garbage collection services at thirteen locations. A quotation sheet was included in the bid package. The quotation sheet indicated the thirteen locations with a blank next to each location and a dollar sign in front of each blank where each bidder was to indicate its average monthly total charge for each location. There was also a quotation schedule where the bidder was to indicate the calculations which went into the total bid for each location. The bid request provided: The Board reserves the right to waive formalities and to reject any and all bids or to accept any bid or combination of bids deemed in the Board's best interest and the decision of the Board will be final. Bidders desiring that their bid be considered on an all-or-none basis, either in whole or part, shall so indicate. It is the intent of this bid request to secure prices and establish contracts for garbage collection services for the twelve schools specified herein and the District Maintenance Department. Awards will be made by location and will be based on an average monthly total charge as calculated on the quotation sheet. The bids were opened at 10:00 am., June 13, 1988, at the offices of the Bay County School Board. Three completed bid packages were submitted. Kelly Services, Argus and M&O each submitted a completed bid quotation sheet containing the bid for each location. M&O also submitted a letter which stated: We would like to submit this bid on an all- or-nothing basis as specified in paragraph four of the cover letter to the bid. For an estimated cost of $3,391.84. The quotation sheet and quotation schedule submitted by M&O did not reflect the all-or-nothing bid amount. Instead, the quotation sheet and quotation schedule showed a total bid of $3,738.24 when calculated by location. Based on the bids submitted by each bidder as shown on the quotation sheet add quotation schedules, Kelly Services was low bidder on five locations (Callaway, Tyndall, Waller, Southport, and Cedar Grove) ; Argus was low bidder on six locations (Parker, Hiland, Haney, Mosley, Beach and Merritt Brown); and M&O was low bidder on two locations (West Bay and the District Maintenance Department). Prior to the deadline for submitting bids, John Harrison, Purchasing Agent for the Board, responded to an inquiry from M&O by advising M&O that it could submit two bids, one as specified in the Bid Request by location and one as an all-or- nothing bid. No other bidders were advised that they could submit two bids. At the bid opening, M&O did not submit a quotation sheet or schedule for its all-or-nothing bid. A bid which did not have a breakdown per dump per container per facility would not be acceptable to the Board and does not meet the specifications in the Bid Request. The breakdown per dump per container per location is necessary to verify proper invoicing for specific locations on months when there is a change in the number of dumps or containers at that location. After opening the bids, the Board compiled the low bid for each location and then totaled that list. That total of $3,606.09 was greater than the all-or-nothing bid by M&O. Because M&O's all-or-nothing bid failed to meet the specifications by not having a location breakdown the Board contacted M&O to determine if its "estimated" bid was firm and to request a breakdown on the quotation schedule form for the all- or-nothing bid. On June 15, 1988, two days after the bid opening, M&O submitted a letter to the Board clarifying that its all-or- nothing bid was a firm bid for each location and M&O submitted a quotation schedule for each location per dump per container (see page 7 of Joint Exhibit 1 and the last page of Joint Exhibit 2). The charge for each location in this quotation schedule is different than the quotation schedule submitted by M&O at the bid opening and is for the most part lower per location than either M&O's first quotation schedule or the low bids taken from the quotation schedules submitted at the bid opening. Based on the letter and all-or-nothing quotation schedule filed by M&O on June 15, 1988, the Board determined to award the bid for garbage collection services to M&O for the all- or-nothing bid of $3,391.84.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Bay County enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and readvertising the bid request for garbage collection services as specified in Bid Request No. 89-23. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 13th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3768BID 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, Kelly Services: 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are 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: 1-3(1-3); 4-6(3); 7-11(7-11); and 12 (9) Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Bay County: Each of the following proposed findings of fact are 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(2); 3(10&11); and 5(8). Proposed findings of fact 6, 7, and 9 are irrelevant. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 2 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. The remainder of proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 3. Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected as being argumentative, conclusory and unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Argus Services, Inc.: Each of the following proposed findings of fact are 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: 2-4(1-3); 6-8(5); 9 & 10(6) 11(3); and 12(11). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 5 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 13-17 are rejected as constituting argument and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey P. Whitton Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1956 Panama City, Florida 32402 Franklin R. Harrison Attorney at Law 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Scott W. Clemons Attorney at Law Post Office Box 860 Panama City, Florida 32402 School Board of Bay County Post Office Drawer 820 Panama City, Florida 32402-0820 M&O Sanitation, Inc. 266 N. Star Avenue Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 24th day of September 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In January of 1994, FDOT issued an Invitation to Bid ("ITB") for contracts FE2494Z1 and FE2494Z2 to provide storm shutters for the FDOT facilities in Zones 1 and 2 of the Florida Turnpike. The ITB was entitled "Storm Shutters, Removable, Manufacture, Furnish and Install." Prospective bidders for the contracts were provided with a packet which included General Conditions, Special Conditions, Specifications and General Special Provisions. The General Conditions set forth the procedures for submitting and opening the bids. The Specifications called for custom-sized removable storm shutters and detailed the materials and installation procedures that were required. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in the Special Conditions, Section 1.0, entitled "Description", and in the Specifications, Section 1.0, entitled "Scope of Work": Work under this contract consists of providing all labor, materials, equipment, tools and incidentals necessary to manufacture, furnish and install galvanized steel storm panels and accessories for all of Zone 1 & Zone 2 buildings and locations as identified in the building listing listings document, see Exhibit "A" Zone 1 & Exhibit "A" Zone 2. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in Special Conditions Section 8.1, entitled "Required Documents": Bidders are required to complete and return the State of Florida "Invitation to Bid" form as well as the bid sheet(s). These forms must be signed by a representative who is authorized to contractually bind the bidder. All bid sheets and the "Invitation to Bid" form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope. At a mandatory pre-bid conference on February 17, 1994, the Department's representatives were available to answer questions regarding the bid package. During the pre-bid conference, John Vecchio of the Department orally advised the prospective bidders that they should return the whole bid package, including the specifications, when they submitted their bid. No written amendment to this effect was issued. The bids were opened on March 3, 1994 in Fort Lauderdale. Bids were received for each contract from at least three bidders, including Accurate and Hurst. The apparent low bidder for both contracts was Broward Hurricane Panel Co. ("Broward"). Prior to the bids being posted on March 28, 1994, Broward's bid was determined to be nonresponsive and Broward was therefore disqualified. After Broward was disqualified, Accurate was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 2 and Hurst was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 1. Hurst's bid for the contract for Zone 2 was $85,000. Its bid for the Contract for Zone 1 was $36,000. Accurate's bids for the contracts were $84,854.82 and $36,287.16, respectively. Hurst was awarded the contract for Zone 1 and that decision has not been challenged. At the same time the Department announced the award of the Contract for Zone 1 to Hurst, the Department announced its intent to award the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Hurst timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest of the proposed award of the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Initially, FDOT raised as a defense that Hurst had not posted a protest bond as required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes. At the hearing in this matter, FDOT conceded that Hurst had subsequently posted a protest bond which had been accepted by FDOT. Hurst contends that Accurate's bid should have been deemed nonresponsive because Accurate does not have the ability to "manufacture" the specified product in its own facility. The 2 inch corrugated shutter required by the ITB has to be shaped on a special type of machine that rolls, presses and forms the metal. Hurst owns and maintains at its Opa-Locka facility a rolling mill capable of forming the panels to the bid specifications. Accurate is in the business of supplying the types of products sought by the ITB in this case. However, Accurate does not own the kind of machine necessary to shape the metal. The evidence established that for many years, Accurate has had a continuing business relationship with a local subcontractor, Shutter Express, that rolls, presses and forms raw material supplied by Accurate in accordance with Accurate's specifications. Shutter Express has the capability of fabricating shutters with a 2 inch corrugation in accordance with the ITB. Accurate is equipped to attach the headers and sills, drill the necessary holes, complete the assembly and install the final product. The ITB in this case did not preclude subcontracting any or all of the work specified. While the description of the work in the ITB includes the term "manufacture", this reference should not be read to mean that only those companies that were able to fabricate the entire product at their own facility could properly respond to the ITB. There is no logical justification for such a narrow interpretation. Only a few companies have the ability to completely fabricate the shutters on their own property. At the prebid conference, there was discussion amongst the prospective bidders about subcontracting the fabrication work and the FDOT representatives did not raise any objections to such an arrangement. It was widely understood by the parties present at the pre-bid conference that the Department was not interpreting the ITB in the restrictive manner now urged by Hurst. Such a reading of the ITB would have precluded from the bidding process a number of companies such as Accurate that routinely supply and install shutters. Hurst also contends that the bid proposal submitted by Accurate should be deemed nonresponsive because Accurate failed to include the entire ITB with its proposal in accordance with the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference. Hurst's proposals included the entire ITB. As discussed below, Accurate's proposal did not include the entire ITB. FDOT determined that all essential pages were included in Accurate's response and the evidence did not establish that this conclusion was arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent. Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions of the ITB provided: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and affect and are inapplicable to the bid. As noted above, at the prebid conference held on February 17, 1994, an FDOT employee told all prospective bidders to return the entire bid package when making their submittals. This request that the entire bid package be returned was simply meant as a protection for the bidder to ensure that all the necessary documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications were submitted. Other than those documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications, FDOT had no interest in having the remaining portion of the ITB submitted with a proposal. Accurate's submittal contained every document required by Section 8.1 of the Specifications. Accurate's proposal did not contain pages 3 through 12, 14, 15 and 17 through 20 of the ITB, but did include pages 1 and 2, 13, 16, 21 and 22 along with a signed Form PUR 7068 and a signed acknowledgment of Addendum In other words, the submittal contained a signed and completed Bidder Acknowledgment, completed Bid Price Forms for Zones 1 and 2, a signed copy of Addendum #1, a completed copy of the Ordering Instructions, and a signed, but not notarized, statement regarding public entity crimes. 1/ In addition to the "REQUIRED DOCUMENTS," set forth in Section 8.1 of the Specifications and quoted in Findings of Fact 6 above, the ITB included Section 8.2, "PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES STATEMENT" which provides: Any person submitting a bid or proposal in response to this invitation should execute the enclosed form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(A), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES, including proper check(s) provided, and submit it with the bid/proposal or within 72 hours of the bid opening. Page 7 of the ITB provided in pertinent part: 10.0 BID PREFERENCE IDENTICAL TIE BIDS - Preference shall be given to businesses with drug-free workplace programs. Whenever two or more bids which are equal with respect to price, quality and service are received by the State or by any political subdivision for the procurement of commodities or contractual services, a bid received from a business that certifies that it had implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. . . . Accurate's proposal did not include a certification that it was a drug-free workplace in accordance with this provision. However, such a certification is only used by the Department as a tie-breaker. In other words, in the event of identical bids, any firm with a drug-free workplace would get preference. Since there were no tied bids in this case, certification was totally irrelevant. When the bids were opened, Mary Bailey, the contracts administrator for the Department, noticed that Accurate's submittal was thinner than the others and asked Accurate's representative, Richard Johnson, about the remaining pages. Mr. Johnson replied that the other pages were in his truck and offered to retrieve them. Ms. Bailey told him there was no need to do so. Section 10 of the General Conditions in the bid package provides as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved...to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received... It does not appear that Accurate has obtained any competitive advantage as a result of its failure to include the entire ITB with its bid proposals. Even if the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference are deemed to have modified the ITB so that the entire bid package should have been submitted, Accurate's failure to include the entire ITB with its response should be considered a minor technicality, pursuant to Section 10 of the General Conditions cited above, that can and should be waived in evaluating the responsiveness of the bid. Similarly, the failure to have the Form PUR 7068 notarized may have rendered Accurate's bid proposals incomplete, but not necessarily nonresponsive. This oversight can be easily corrected without giving Accurate a competitive advantage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid submitted by Accurate to be responsive and dismissing the challenge filed by Hurst. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of June 1994.
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
