The Issue Whether Broward County committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Among the various departments of County government is the Community Services Department. The Libraries Division is administratively located within the Community Services Department. The Libraries Division operates a main library, five regional libraries, 36 branch libraries, and various reading centers. There are approximately 900 employees in the Libraries Division, about 200 more than there were in 2000. Librarian IV is a "high level administrative position" in the Libraries Division. The position description for Librarian IV (which has been in effect at all times material to the instant case) reads as follows: Nature of Work This is professional work at the administrative level of the library system. Work involves responsibility for assisting administrative superiors and coordinating assigned major units of the library system. Work involves assisting in interpreting and implementing all library policies, assisting in staffing and supervising assigned major units, and assisting in coordinating support services within the library system and with other agencies. Duties are performed with considerable independence and initiative within the framework of established policies and procedures. Work is subject to review and evaluation through periodic conferences, attainment of desired management objectives, and conformity with established policies and procedures. Distinguishing Characteristics This class is distinguished from Librarian III by the additional administrative responsibilities. Illustrative Tasks Assists administrative superiors in coordinating, staffing, and supervising the operations of assigned major units of the library system; assists in coordinating library system supportive services. Assists subordinate librarians in planning, coordinating, and organizing specific functional, programmatic, and physical aspects of library services and facilities. Assists in interpreting and implementing all library policies. Serves as assistant library staff officer for contacts and communications services within the county library system and the community at large. Conducts assigned library research and procedural studies; prepares reports relative to recommended solutions or courses of action. Cooperates with governmental and private agencies in special surveys, studies, and programs. Performs related work as required. Knowledge, Abilities and Skills Considerable knowledge of professional library principles, practices, and techniques. Considerable knowledge of the current literature, trends, and developments in the field of library science and administration appropriate to the areas of specialization. Considerable knowledge of general community needs and interests in relation to library services in the areas of specialization. Considerable knowledge of the principles of supervision, organization, and administration. Considerable knowledge of research techniques and the sources and availability of current information. Ability to analyze facts and exercise sound judgment in decision making. Ability to plan, direct, and coordinate the work of subordinates. Ability to express ideas effectively, both orally and in writing. Ability to serve the public and fellow employees with honesty and integrity in full accord with the letter and spirit of Broward County's Ethics and Conflict of Interest policies. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with the general public, co-workers, elected and appointed officials and members of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds regardless of race, religion, age, sex, disability or political affiliation. Desirable Experience and Training A Master's Degree in library science from a college or university accredited by the American Library Association; considerable experience of a supervisory nature in the operation of a library system, including some experience in administrative aspects of the work; or any equivalent combination of training and experience. In or about the fall of 1999, the County issued a job announcement for a Librarian IV position (Librarian IV Job Announcement), which read, in part, as follows: CIVIL SERVICE OPPORTUNITY OPEN-COMPETITIVE Librarian IV Salary Range- $38,552-$57,168 per year DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES: This is professional work at the administrative level of the library system. Work involves assisting administrative superiors in coordinating, staffing, and supervising the operations of assigned major units of the library system; assisting in coordinating library system supportive services; and assisting subordinate librarians in planning, coordinating and organizing specific functional, programmatic, and physical aspects of library services and facilities. Employees in this class assist in interpreting and implementing all library policies; serve as assistant library staff officer for contacts and communication services within the county library system and the community at large; conduct assigned library research and procedural studies; and prepare reports relative to recommended solutions or courses of action. Work also involves cooperating with governmental and private agencies in special surveys, studies, and programs. Performs related work as required. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: Master's Degree in Library Science from a college or university accredited by the American Library Association and five (5) years experience in a supervisory capacity in the operation of a library system or a major library, which must have included six (6) months experience in administrative aspects of the work. BASIS OF RATING: NO WRITTEN TEST IS REQUIRED The selection procedure shall consist of two parts. Part I will be an unassembled rating consisting of an evaluation of experience, training and education shown on the application, plus any corroborative or supplementary information which may be obtained. Part II will be an oral panel interview designed to evaluate each applicant's knowledge in this field of work. Applicants must attain a passing score on both parts of the examination to be certified. In arriving at a final numeric score which will determine the order of the eligible list for the position the following values will be applied. Unassembled Rating- 50% Oral Panel Interview- 50% * * * EXAMINATION, NOTICE OF RATING AND TERM OF ELIGIBILITY: Candidates who complete the application and exam process are sent a Notice of Rating indicating if they are qualified for the position. Status of the eligible list established from this announcement is for one year beginning with the issue date of the Notice of Rating. . . . * * * STARTING PAY: Starting salary is normally the minimum of the salary range. * * * SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS: Broward County is pleased to provide necessary reasonable accommodations in the testing process for disabled applicants. It is the responsibility of applicants requesting reasonable accommodation to submit requests in writing to the Applications Center staff at the time of submission of the application. . . . * * * NOTE: Upon completion of the rating portion of the examination, only candidates who are considered most qualified will be invited to participate in an oral panel interview. The remaining qualified applicants will stay on record and may be invited in for an oral panel interview at a later time. As necessary, the list established under this announcement may be used to selectively certify on a promotional basis Classified County Merit System Regular Employees. The Librarian IV Job Announcement was widely advertised. Petitioner is a highly experienced and accomplished librarian having both a masters degree and doctorate in library science. He met the "qualification requirements" set forth in the Librarian IV Job Announcement. After seeing the Librarian IV job announcement, Petitioner submitted an application for the position. Documents he attached to the application revealed that his date of birth was June 20, 1932 (although the application form that he filled out did not ask for such information). Petitioner has various health problems, but he did not request any special "accommodation in the testing process." (Petitioner has had "lens implants in [his] eyes [since] 1999," but he still needs to use a magnifying glass to read. In addition to having poor eyesight, he has been diagnosed with Charcot's foot (a foot deformity) and autonomic neuropathy (which "causes [him] to get dizzy when [he] get[s] up or climb[s] stairs or if [he] walk[s] too far or tr[ies] to get out of bed")). The United States Department of Veterans Affairs has determined that Petitioner has a 100 percent service-connected disability. Petitioner was one of 26 applicants who responded to the Librarian IV Job Announcement. All 26 applications received by the County were reviewed by a panel of three County employees. The panel consisted of two "subject matter experts" and one human resources person. Susan Stokes2 and Miriam Hershenson were the two "subject matter experts" on the panel. They were both Librarian V's. The remaining panel member was Cynthia Munn, a Human Resource Analyst II. Petitioner was one of 17 applicants to be selected, based upon the panel's evaluation of the application materials submitted, for an oral interview before the panel. Fifteen of the 17 selected applicants, including Petitioner, appeared for such an "oral panel interview." Each applicant was interviewed separately by the panel. "[T]he interviews [were] all conducted in the same manner." At the outset of each interview, the applicant was advised that the interview would last 25 to 30 minutes and that the "time factor" should be "ke[pt] in mind" in answering the panel's questions. It was emphasized that answers should be "clear and concise." The interview questions were "formulated ahead of time" by the panel's "subject matter experts," Ms. Stokes and Ms. Hershenson. A total of ten questions were used during the interview process. The questions were asked in the same sequence during each interview "in an effort to make it an even playing field." Following the interview, each panel member, without discussing the matter with the other two members of the panel, independently rated the applicant's interview performance. Petitioner was interviewed on or about January 28, 2000. Like the other 14 interviews, Petitioner's interview was "strictly an oral [one]." Contrary to the assertion made in Petitioner's employment discrimination charge, he did not use a magnifying glass during the interview. Indeed, there was no need for him to do so since there was no reading (or writing, for that matter) involved as part of the interview. Petitioner did not physically stumble, nor was he unsteady on his feet at any time during the interview. Petitioner performed poorly during his interview. His answers were rambling and, at times, non- responsive. The panel's efforts to "redirect and refocus him" were unavailing. He was so long-winded that he was only able to answer five questions in the time allotted for the interview (which was the same amount of time the other interviewees were given). Ms. Munn gave Petitioner failing scores of "F" in "communicative skills" and "D" in "job knowledge." Petitioner also received a failing score (of "C") in "communicative skills" from Ms. Hershenson. Neither Petitioner's age, nor his poor eyesight and other health problems, were factors in either Ms. Munn's or Ms. Hershenson's scoring of Petitioner's interview performance. The scores that they gave him were based solely on their good faith evaluation of how Petitioner performed during his interview. Petitioner was not extended an offer by the County to fill a Librarian IV position. The County hired (as Librarian IV's) four of the 15 applicants who were interviewed by the "oral interview panel." One of these new hires had a hearing impairment, to compensate for which she used hearing aids and lip read. According to their applications, all four of the applicants who were hired received their undergraduates degrees at least seven years after Petitioner received his undergraduate degree,3 and the three that provided the date of their high school graduation on their applications graduated high school at least 16 years after the date (1949) Petitioner's application indicates he received his high school diploma. There has been no persuasive showing made that the County's decision not to offer Petitioner employment was motivated by anything other than legitimate business considerations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding the County not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 11th day of July, 2003.
Findings Of Fact On five dates in June and July, 1988, Respondent advertised in The Orlando Sentinel newspaper its Invitation to Bid for the project known as High School "BB." The advertisement announced that bids would be received at 2:00 p.m. on August 4, 1988, at which time all bids would be publicly opened. The advertisement stated that Respondent reserved the right to waive irregularities. The Invitation to Bid stated that bids received after the deadline "will be returned unopened" and bids "received on time" will be opened publicly. The Invitation to Bid also stated: "The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received when such a waiver is in the best interest of the Owner. The contract would be awarded, according to the Invitation to Bid, within 45 days after the opening of bids. The location designated for the opening of the bids was the Facilities Services building located at 6200 Chancellor Drive, Orlando, Florida. The bids were opened in a conference room within the building. Robert Gallardo, who is Respondent's Director of School Planning and Construction, was in charge of the bidding process. Mr. Gallardo has been in this position for six years. During this time, he has been responsible for the majority of school construction bids for Respondent. He estimates that he has supervised ten such bids. On August 4, 1988, Mr. Gallardo worked in his office in the Facilities Services building until 1:55 p.m. At that time, he asked his secretary if the bid tabulation forms had been prepared, and, with the forms, he left his office for the conference room where the bids were to be opened. Mr. Gallardo entered the conference room, which was occupied by a number of bidders' representatives, at 1:58 p.m., according to the clock on the wall. At a few seconds before 2:00 p.m., he first spoke, asking that all bids be handed in. He then asked his secretary to call the front desk to see if any bids had been turned in there and needed to be brought down the hall into the conference room. This was a normal procedure. In past bids, some bidders left their bids with the receptionist at the front desk. Prior to obtaining any response from his secretary who was talking on a phone in the conference room, Mr. Gallardo announced his name and position and announced that he was going to open bids. He then picked up a sealed bid from the pile of sealed bids in front of him. As he was about to open the envelope, at or about 30 seconds past 2:00 p.m., a man entered the conference room and said that he had a bid to deliver. The man disclosed the bidder which he represented, but Mr. Gallardo did not clearly hear the name and did not know whose bid was being offered to him. Mr. Gallardo accepted the bid and placed it at the bottom of the pile. The late bid was from Intervenor. A few seconds after it was accepted Mr. Gallardo opened the first bid. A few seconds after that, another man entered the conference room and attempted to deliver a bid. Mr. Gallardo refused to accept the bid because, as he explained, the first bid had already been opened. Mr. Gallardo's practice has consistently been to accept late bids, provided they are delivered prior to the opening of the first bid. Mr. Gallardo had not previously known of Intervenor, which had never previously even submitted a bid on a school job being let for bid by Respondent. Mr. Gallardo's only prior contact with Intervenor's representative who delivered the bid was seeing the man in the building, along with other bidders' representatives, prior to the opening of the bids; however, Mr. Gallardo did not know who the man represented. There was no fraud or collusion in the acceptance of the late bid. There was no evidence that, under the facts of this case, Respondent abused its discretion in accepting Intervenor's late bid. Petitioner's bid was lowest among the bids delivered prior to 2:00 p.m. However, Intervenor's bid was over $500,000 lower than Petitioner's bid on a project costing in excess of $25 million. Respondent has confirmed Mr. Gallardo's decision not to reject Intervenor's bid as late. On August 16, 1988, Respondent published the agenda for the next school board meeting, which was scheduled for August 23, 1988. One of the items to be taken up was the award of the contract for High School "BB." By letter dated August 18, 1988, Petitioner declined Respondent's invitation to participate in what the parties referred to as an informal hearing at the August 23 school board meeting. Threatening unspecified sanctions under state and federal law if Respondent awarded the contract at the August 23 meeting, Petitioner demanded a formal hearing and asserted that the bidding process should be stayed until resolution of the protest, under Section 120.5361 [sic -- apparently referring to Section 120.53(5)(c)]. By memorandum dated August 23, 1988, Respondent's attorney opined that Rule 6A-2.016(7) did not require Respondent to utilize the Section 120.53(5) bid protest procedures, but, out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of expediting resolution of the dispute, recommended the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By letter dated August 23, 1988, Respondent referred the protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4078BID Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted except to the extent that "timely" implies that Intervenor's bid was improperly accepted. Such an implication is rejected as legal argument. 2 and 4. Adopted in substance. 3. Rejected as irrelevant. 5-7. Rejected as not findings of fact except that the inference of Intervenor's efficient utilization of time following the deadline is rejected as unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. 8-9. Adopted to the extent relevant. 10-11. Rejected as irrelevant. 12-15. Rejected as subordinate to the procedures set forth in the Invitation to Bid and advertisement, especially concerning the waiver of irregularities. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as recitation of testimony through semicolon and irrelevant as to remainder except that the basis for Mr. Gallardo's decision is adopted and modified to add that he accepted the late bid in accordance win his past practice. Petitioner proved all of the facts in this proposed finding except that it could have used effectively any additional time. In any event, all of the facts in this paragraph are irrelevant and are rejected for this reason. The theory of Petitioner's case, as well as the evidence that it offered, was that in this and every other major bid, the last minutes before the deadline are critical due to the unwillingness or inability of subcontractors to supply critical numbers substantially before the deadline. This theory proves too much because, if true, the Hewitt court would have been constrained to consider such a universal fact and thereby would have prevented the agency in that case from accepting the late bid. The Hewitt case stands for the proposition that, in general, an agency may accept late bids before the first bid is opened. It is incumbent upon a frustrated bidder to show that the agency abused its discretion, under the circumstances of the individual case. Petitioner has in essence suggested that the burden is upon the agency to show that it did not abuse its discretion, at least once the frustrated bidder shows that it spent a lot of time and money in preparing its bid and could have used more time. To the contrary, Hewitt tells the frustrated bidder that it must find evidence of impropriety, such as fraud or collusion, in the agency's acceptance of the late bid. This mandate is especially clear in light of the recent Groves-Watkins decision. 18-19 and 22. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 17. Adopted. 20A-20F. Rejected as legal argument. First sentence rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. Second sentence rejected as speculative. Rejected as speculative and unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the evidence. 24A-27. Rejected as legal argument. Adopted in substance. Rejected as not finding of fact. Treatment Accorded Respondent/Intervenor's Joint Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted. 3-4. Rejected as not finding of fact. 5-6. Adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. 8. Adopted in substance. 9-12. Adopted in substance except that Mr. Gallardo did not arrive in the conference room "several minutes" before 2:00 p.m. and Intervenor's representative arrived about 30 seconds after 2:00 p.m. 13. Rejected as irrelevant. 14-15. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 17 in Petitioner's proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph G. Thresher, Esquire Dykema Gossett Ashley Tower Suite 1400 100 South Ashley Drive Post Office Box 1050 Tampa, Florida 33601-1050 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esquire Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Scott H. Johnson, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James L. Schott Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 434 North Tampa Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact On or about August 10, 1979, HRS caused a legal advertisement to be published concerning its Purchase Order No. 52579, requesting bids for window film installation pursuant to HRS Bid No. 30-497WR. The Invitation to Bid provided, in part, that: As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none or a combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. When it is determined there is competition to the lowest responsive bidder, then other bids may not be evaluated. Bidders are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their bid has been evaluated as being responsive. Among the special conditions of the Invitation to Bid was the following: The successful bidder will furnish and install window insulation film on all glass exposures of buildings designated as one through eight with the exception of these [sic] windows now having film installed. These buildings are commonly known as the Winewood Complex which is located at One Winewood Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Subleased or other occupied space will be an addition to the basic glass square footage of buildings five, six, seven and eight now occupied by the Department of Corrections, Winewood Office Park Lmtd. and the Parole and Probation Commission. Prospective bidders will be provided these applicable locations by the project manager. The bid will contain a diagram and listing of these square footages. The computations of total square footages of applicable glass areas will be separated by buildings. This is necessary so that after the installation of the film on each building is completed and accepted by the project manager, an invoice can be submitted for payment. [Emphasis added]. In addition, tee following clause was also contained in the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid: All work performed by the Contractor in completing the subject project shall be guaranteed by the Contractor against all defect resulting from the use of materials, equipment and workmanship for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the subject project. If, within any guarantee period, repairs or changes are required in connection with the guarantee work, which in the opinion of the Owner is rendered necessary as a result of the use of materials, equipment or workmanship which are defective or inferior or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Contractor shall, promptly upon receipt of notice from the Owner and without expense to the Owner, proceed to: Place in satisfactory condition in very [sic] particular all of such guaranteed work, correct all defects therein; and make good all damages to the structure or contents thereof, which in the opinion of the Owner, is the result of the use of materials, equipment, or workmanship which are inferior, defective, or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and made [sic] good any work or materials or the equipment and contects [sic] of structures or site disturbed in fulfilling any such guarantee. [Emphasis added]. The Special Conditions also provided that: No interpretation of the meaning of the Drawings, specifications, or other Bidding Documents, no correction of any apparent ambitquity [sic], 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 Project Manager. All such interpretations and supplemental instruction will be in the form of written addenda to the Bidding Documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Project Manager in writing, 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. Finally, the Invitation to Bid also provided for modification of bids if received in writing prior to bid opening. HRS distributed more than 25 bid invitations pursuant to the aforementioned bid, and in response thereto received four bids, one of which was a "no bid". Of the three remaining bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee submitted a total bid of $34,624.88, based upon a measurement of 29,096 square feet at a price of $1.19 per square foot; Florida Solar Power, Inc. submitted a total bid of $30,079.14, based upon 30,693 square feet at $.98 per square foot; and, finally, Petitioner submitted a total bid of $43,555.10 based upon a calculation of 37,874 square feet at $1.15 per square foot. The bids of Solar-X of Tallahassee and Florida Solar Power, Inc. were determined to be unresponsive to the Invitation to Bid for reasons not here pertinent. Although Petitioner's bid contained a total square footage on which it proposed to install window film, the bid did not break down the area of glass on a per-building basis as required by the conditions of the Invitation to Bid. In addition, the conditions of the Invitation to Bid required that building space occupied by sublessors be separately computed in bid responses in order to attempt to pass on to those sublessors their pro-rata share of the cost. Petitioner did not separate this space in its bid as required. Petitioner also failed to furnish with its bid a diagram of exposed glass area in each building as required in the special conditions. Finally, Petitioner's bid response contained the following warranty provision: . . .3M Company and the [Petitioner] warrants [sic] "SCOTCHING" Brand Solar Control films against peeling, cracking, crazing, or loosening for a period of five (5) years after installation in the event the product is found to be defective under this warranty. [Petitioner] will replace such quantity of the film proved to be defective with the [Petitioner] additionally providing the reapplication labor free of charge for the first two (2) years of the warranty. The customer shall pay for any reapplication labor charges during the last three (3) years of the warranty. . .[Emphasis added]. At final hearing, a representative of Petitioner testified that this warranty was the manufacturer's warranty, and that Petitioner, as the seller of the product, intended that full warranty protection in accordance with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid be part of Petitioner's bid. However, nothing to this affect appears in Petitioner's bid, nor did Petitioner attempt to modify its bid in writing before bid opening to make HRS aware of its intentions in this regard. Although bid opening was initially scheduled for August 24, 1979, the opening date was extended to September 4, 1979, by addendum to the Invitation to Bid. After opening, bids ware reviewed by the staff of the Director of the Office of General Service in HRS for technical compliance with the Invitation to Bid. As a result of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid was the only bid submitted which complied with all provisions of the bid specifications, and the staff, therefore, recommended award of the contract to Petitioner. At this point the question of the award of the contract came to the attention of the Purchasing Director of HRS's Central General Services, whose office is responsible for evaluation of bids for compliance with the terms and conditions of an Invitation to Bid, state purchasing law and administrative rules relating to state commodity purchases. During the course of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid did not comply with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid in that it failed to break down its bid on a per-building basis and, additionally, improperly qualified the five-year warranty requirement contained in the Invitation to Bid and its conditions. At the Federal hearing in this cause the Purchasing Director for Central General Services also testified that he had received oral communications from other vendors, some of whom submitted bids and some who did not, to the effect that the technical specifications of the Invitation to Bid were tailored to the products sold by Petitioner to such an extent as to effectively close the bidding process to competition. None of these vendors protested the content of the specifications as required in the Invitation to Bid, nor was any direct testimony adduced at final hearing in this cause from these vendors. Although the Division of Purchasing of the Department of General Services also concluded that the bid specifications were too restrictive, there is insufficient evidence in the record in this proceeding upon which to base a conclusion that the specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid were either tailored to Petitioner's product, or were so restrictive as to limit competitive bidding. Indeed, one of the actual bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee, submitted a bid which complied with the technical specifications, but was rejected because it included an unacceptable contingency clause for late delivery. After extensive in-house review by various HRS employees, a letter dated October 4, 1979, was forwarded to all vendors advising that HRS, after ". . .an extensive analysis of the bid responses. . ." had decided to reject all bids and issue a second call for bids. This letter also indicated that ". . .areas of concern which were expressed relative to the initial invitation will be addressed in the second call." The letter did not attempt to further identify the "areas of concern." The facts of record in this proceeding clearly establish that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not include in its bid a diagram of each building on which window film was to be installed, nor did the bid indicate the number of square feet contained in each building. The two vendors whose bids were rejected apparently had no difficulty complying with this requirement. As a result, HRS was precluded from comparing the per-building cost of the competing bids, and, had the contract been awarded to Petitioner, HRS could not have determined the proper amount of periodic progress segments without performing independent measurement. Most importantly, however, Petitioner improperly qualified the five- year warranty provision contained in the Special Conditions. Petitioner's bid, on its face, limited its responsibility to replacement of defective window film during the five-year warranty period, and required that HRS be responsible for payment of labor charges for reinstallation during the last three years of the warranty period. This warranty qualification was clearly contrary to the requirement that any product replacement or reinstallation be without expense to HRS for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the project. There was extensive testimony at final hearing concerning allegations by Petitioner of improper conduct on the part of the HRS Purchasing Director for Central General Services which allegedly resulted in the decision to reject all bids and submit a second call for bids. Testimony on this issue involved Petitioner's assertion that the HRS employee's relationship by marriage to one of the unsuccessful bidders led to his conclusion that the technical specifications were so narrowly drawn as to preclude a consideration of his relative's product, and that the specifications should be redrafted so as to allow consideration of products other than Petitioner's. In light of the fact that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid, in that it improperly qualified the warranty required, and did not contain square footage computations on a per-building basis, it is unnecessary to reach the question of the propriety of any conduct on the part of the HRS employee. The propriety of the rejection of Petitioner's bid was determined by Petitioner's failure to comply with the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid, and could not have been affected by the alleged misconduct on the part of an employee of HRS. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to a consumer's certificate of exemption as an organization providing special educational, cultural, recreational, and social benefits to minors pursuant to Subsection 212.08(7)(n), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dormouse Productions, Inc. (Petitioner) is a non-profit Florida corporation. Petitioner has one employee who is salaried and is its president. Petitioner currently holds, and at all times material hereto held, an exemption from federal corporate income tax pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner does not hold a certificate of tax exemption issued by the Florida Department of Revenue (Respondent). Petitioner filed its Articles of Incorporation (Articles) with the State of Florida on August 19, 1994. Article III of Petitioner's Articles provides its specific purposes: To promote the educational and cultural development of minors through materials and activities designed to target their communities. To create and produce materials encompassing the language, history, art, architecture, geography, and cultural diversity of communities. To develop civic awareness and pride in hometown communities. To incorporate multi-disciplinary approaches in a variety of learning activities. Petitioner provides copies of a soft-cover book, free of charge, to third grade classes in public, parochial, and private schools in Dade County. Accompanying the books is a teacher's guide for each class, which is also free of charge. Petitioner's sole employee produces the content of the book and teacher's guide. At the time of hearing, one soft-cover book had been printed and one was going to the printer. Petitioner's books (soft-cover book and teacher's guide) are intended to provide information about a child's own local community in Dade County. Presently, to teach children about the concept of "community", teachers use a non-specific textbook and resources which are located by the individual teacher. Petitioner intends to produce books devoted to each local community in Dade County. Teachers and school administrators have been receptive to Petitioner's books. Petitioner's books are provided to the Dade County Public Schools system for distribution to the schools' libraries. The books have been provided to every branch of the Dade County Public School library system and have been distributed to every public elementary school library. Petitioner's sole employee personally takes the books to the elementary schools in the community for which the books are written. Volunteers distribute the books to libraries outside of the public library system and to private and parochial school libraries. Petitioner's sole employee does not go into the classrooms and teach children from or with the books. She holds meetings with teachers to discuss the books and to obtain input as to what the teachers suggest be included in the books. No activities are provided to minors by Petitioner. The teacher's guide describes activities which teachers can provide to minors, if they so choose. Petitioner's chief expenditure of funds involves printing costs and salaries.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying a consumer's certificate of exemption to Dormouse Productions, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin J. ODonnell, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Joseph H. Huppert, Treasurer Dormouse Productions, Inc. 1601 Biscayne Boulevard #1191 Miami, Florida 33132 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board) may require bidders to comply with specifications and conditions for a bid solicitation that pertains to audiovisual, photographic equipment and related supplies, and computer peripherals as set forth in, and identified as, Invitation to Bid No. 27-040N. The Petitioner, Audio Visual Solutions Corporation (Petitioner), timely filed a challenge to the bid specifications and conditions for the subject acquisition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a corporation that deals, resells and provides audio, video, and conferencing equipment to various entities throughout the state. The Petitioner represents a number of trade names in the electronics industry and serves educational and governmental markets in the State of Florida. The Petitioner holds contracts to provide electronic equipment to the Respondent at the present time. As part of its ongoing operation, the Petitioner routinely responds to bid invitations and solicitations such as the one at issue. The Petitioner’s standing to challenge the specifications in the instant matter is not disputed. In the instant matter, the Petitioner received the ITB for the Respondent’s bid No. 27-040N and began a detailed review of the general, special, and other specifications set forth in the ITB. The Petitioner determined it would evaluate the overhead expenses required, labor and documentation, invoicing, delivery, and other specifics that would play a part in pricing the products for response to the ITB. At all times material to the allegations of this protest, the Respondent was the entity charged with the responsibility of acquiring goods and services to support the operation of the public schools in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was the appropriate entity with whom the protest should have been filed as it was the procuring entity for ITB No. 27-040N. The Respondent bears the ultimate burden for all procurement necessary to operate the public schools for Broward County, Florida. The review process used by the Petitioner in this case is the same process it has utilized in the past when it has successfully obtained contracts with the Respondent. The bid evaluation Petitioner performs is necessary to determine whether the ITB is within the scope of its operations. On or about April 24, 2006, the Petitioner forwarded a Notice of Intent to Protest regarding certain Special Conditions of the subject ITB. The Petitioner filed its notice within 72 hours of receipt of the ITB. On May 4, 2006, as the wording for the disputed Special Conditions remained unresolved, the Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest to contest the conditions and specifications of ITB No. 27-040N. The Respondent has not disputed the timeliness of the instant protest. Throughout the pre-hearing process, the parties met and continued efforts to resolve the disputed points. As set forth in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, disputes regarding Special Conditions 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were resolved during the School Board Bid Protest Meeting or immediately prior to the formal hearing. The findings and resolutions set forth regarding the challenge to each of those Special Conditions are set forth in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation and are adopted here by reference. At hearing, left unresolved were the Petitioner’s challenges to Special Conditions 3, 18, 20, and 27 of ITB No. 27-040N. In the ITB at issue, “SBBC” refers to the Respondent. The Petitioner challenged Special Condition 3 for several reasons. That provision stated: AWARD-For Bid Items 1 through 38: In order to meet the needs of the school system and SBBC, each ITEM shall be awarded to one primary and up to two alternate responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. The lowest awardee in an item or group shall be considered the primary vendor and should receive the largest volume of work. SBBC reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. For Bid Item 39: In order to meet the needs of SBBC, awards will be made to all bidders who submit a catalog and offer a discount or net pricing from the most current vendors catalog/price sheet. These bidders shall then be in a favorable position to compete for the Board’s business, and those who offer lowest net prices for those items, that comply with the specifications and otherwise meet requirements, should obtain the largest volume of business. After award of this bid, any bidder receiving an award who violates any specification, term or condition of this bid can be found in default of its contract, have its contract canceled, be subject to the payment of liquidated damages, and be removed from the bid list and not be eligible to do business with this School Board for two years, as described in General Conditions 22, 23 and 53. (Emphasis in original). At hearing, the Respondent agreed that the words “regardless of reason” in the first section of Special Condition 3 would be deleted. The other concerns regarding this provision were not resolved. Thus, for the items to be procured the remaining terms of this provision would be applicable. The ITB sought responses for various items of equipment by unit price. For example, Item 1 of the ITB identified the equipment sought as “Multi-Media Projector: UltraPortable Low-End.” The bid summary sheet provided that an approved model for the item would be an Epson E3. Further, the quantity listed was for 2000. A bidder would be expected to provide the unit price, the total price (presumably applying that unit price to the volume sought), and then disclosing what percentage the unit price has been discounted off the manufacturer’s list price. For each of the 38 items identified by the ITB, a bidder would be required to provide all of the requested information. As to Item 38, the bidder was required to include quotes for multiple components of the item. The Petitioner maintains that Special Condition 3 does not conform to the Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, Petitioner believes that an award to multiple bidders violates Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.012. The Petitioner also believes that Special Condition 3 violates a policy of the Broward County Purchasing Policy rules. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Respondent’s policy set forth in Purchasing Policy 3320 requires a single award. Essentially, the Petitioner contends that multiple awardees are not acceptable as the Respondent is required, by law, to award the contract to the lowest and best responsible and responsive bidder. When multiple awards are made the Respondent is not selecting the lowest and best. Therefore, for each item identified the Respondent should select the lowest and best responsible and responsive bid. Similarly, as it relates to Special Condition 3, Item No. 39, an award will be made to all bidders who submit a catalog and offer a discount on pricing from the most current vendor’s catalog/pricing sheet. Again, if all bidders are accepted, no one bidder will be identified as the lowest and best responsive and responsible bidder. Additionally, since some vendors use the same catalog, the lowest (or greatest percentage discount) bidder is not well served since all bidders will know the percentages (once the bid is opened). Disclosing the percentage will not assure that the Respondent will receive the item at the lowest possible price since the Respondent is not obligated to use the catalog of the lowest priced bidder. Further, a vendor using a catalog that has prices that are higher (for the same item) can offer a higher percentage discount and not affect the overall net to them. For every purchase the Respondent would have to compute the item price and apply the discount before the real cost could be known. The Petitioner challenged Special Condition 18. In pertinent part, that provision stated: VOLUME DISCOUNT: Through history, it is known that SBBC purchases the same item in high volume. In order for SBBC to leverage a pricing advantage, bidders are to provide, on the bid summary sheet, the lowest net price for purchasing a minimum of one. Additionally, SBBC will release quotes to awardees for volume purchasing and request the best and the lowest net price for ordering the quantity of items indicated on released quotes. The awardee that offers the lowest cost will be awarded that quote. This provision is offensive to the Petitioner because it allows the second bite of the apple. That is, by requiring the bidders to disclose their pricing for this ITB and then allowing all awardees to come back after-the-fact with a second “quote” does nothing to assure that the competitive pricing inherent in the bid process has been protected. Any awardee could, after seeing the pricing offered by the competition, know the discounts applied by the competition. This process according to the Petitioner defeats the purpose of finding the lowest bidder at a fixed point in time. The ITB responses merely create a pool of potential winners. So long as a bidder was lowest on one item, it will be assured an opportunity to “quote” on all purchases (and will do so having the competition’s best numbers). Who would offer their best prices on all items in response to this ITB? No one. The bidder that offers (at whatever low price) the best price on any single item is designated an “awardee” and gets to try to defeat the competition on each “quote” subsequently announced. Moreover, the “quotes” are not guaranteed the same protections as the sealed bid process. Consequently, the Respondent may purchase thousands of dollars of items without being assured that they were given the lowest and best price. The “quotes” may exceed $25,000. Special Condition 20 was also challenged by the Petitioner for the same reason. That provision states, in pertinent part: QUOTES: SBBC anticipates the procurement of bundled classroom solutions with installation. Therefore, SBBC reserves the right to solicit quotes for these solutions at any time during the contract period. The quotes will only be released to awardees of this contract. The models that become components of the solution must be the same models that were awarded as a specific item. However, there is no guarantee that an awardee of a model of a component of the solution will be the awardee of the quote. SBBC is opening competition to all awardees of this contract to offer the best pricing for these solutions. Section 5, Additional Information, Bundled Classroom Solutions includes a form that bidder is to complete and return with the bid. Bidder is to state if it wants to receive quotes, and if it has the capability to provide the necessary licensing and certifications associated with installation and wiring, not to include, high voltage electrical installation. Awardee of the quoted solution will be solely responsible for any issues related to the installation and minimum three [sic] warranty period of the bundle. Additionally, bidder must have an established working relationship with an SBBC awarded high voltage electrical company. This form is a questionnaire that is for informational purposes and will not be considered in determining award. Special Condition 27 provides: BALANCE OF LINE ITEM DISCOUNT (ITEM 39): SBBC encourages all awardees for this item to offer SBBC additional discounts for volume purchases of like items. SBBC reserves the right to release quotes for large catalog volume purchases. Bidders are required to offer a balance of line single, fixed percentage discount for equipment ($1000.00 or greater) and supplies (under $1000.00) off bidders catalog for any Audiovisual, Photographic Equipment and Related Supplies, and Computer Peripherals not itemized on the Bid Summary Sheets. This percent must be stated in the Bid Summary Sheet. An omission from this entry will be considered as a 0% discount offered from catalog. The single fixed percentage discount quoted by bidder shall apply to the catalog list price for all catalog items. This percentage discount does not include the itemized equipment listed on the Bid Summary Sheet. Items excluded from single fixed percentage discount should be listed on a separate piece of paper. These items will be excluded and should not be purchased. In the event a bidder handles catalog items that carry a little or no percentage, this fact shall be taken into consideration and percentages offered shall be a single fixed percentage discount for each category (supplies and equipment) and catalog. Awardees may offer SBBC additional educational discounts at any time and invoice SBBC at a greater discount than their bid discount. According to the Petitioner, bundled solutions have the possibility and the likelihood of exceeding $25,000. If so, the requirement for sealed bids by allowing only quotes would be circumvented. The Respondent seeks to obtain the needed equipment at the lowest possible cost to the School Board. By using the “quotes” procedure it believes it will achieve a lower cost per item purchased. The “quote” procedure to be used does not, however, allow entities not within the “awardee” group to participate. If the purpose of the “quote” is to secure the lowest possible price at a fixed point in time (at a point in time future to the ITB opening), the possible savings available through another entity outside those within the “awardee” class is lost. Further, members of the “awardee” class have no incentive to provide their lowest price for all items bid in response to this ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order amending the specifications challenged to assure that the award of the items will be to a single lowest and best responsible and responsive bidder. The Petitioner’s challenge to the provisions must be sustained as a matter of law. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of October, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mitchell D. Adler, Esquire Greenspoon Marder, P.A. Trade Centre South, Suite 700 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309-2140
The Issue Whether Capital City Security, the low bidder, was responsive in its bid submitted for Bid No. GFC 87-139. The Petitioner, Capital City Security (Capital City), presented the testimony of Tony Ash. The Respondent, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (The Commission), presented the testimony of Richard D. Maxey and Luke Gibbs. Respondent's Exhibits 1-9 were admitted in evidence. The filing of a transcript was waived. Capital City also waived the filing of a proposed order. The Commission filed its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 6, 1988, and they have been considered. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact is made in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that Capital City submitted the lowest bid and that the protest filed by Capital City was timely. The only issue of fact remaining is whether the bid submitted by Capital City was responsive. The Commission issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for Security Services for the Bryant Building in Tallahassee, Florida, which houses the Commission. The Bid No. was GFC 87- 139. The Notice of the ITB was published on February 12, 1988, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The ITB and bid specifications contained a requirement that the bidder "provide proof of providing security services for similar size office buildings for a minimum of two years." References from the clients for whom such services were provided were to be provided when the bid was submitted. At the pre-bid conference held on February 17, 1988, Ash was present for Capital City. The experience requirements were discussed. Richard Maxey indicated that the Bryant Building contained 60,000 square feet and that a bidder needed to submit a reference to show that security services had been provided in a similar sized building. Maxey said a 40,000 square-foot building would be considered Similar. Ash indicated that his company had provided services to the Florida A & M University football games and to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Food Stamp Office. Ash suggested that there was no reason for him to bid since he may not meet the specifications Maxey encouraged him to bid and submit references for the work which Capital City had done. Ash testified that he told Maxey that Capital City had provided security for the Department of Professional Regulation at the Old Courthouse Square Building. Neither Maxey nor Luke Gibb, who were both at the pre-bid conference, recall such a conversation. Capital City did submit a bid and so did Maxwell Security. The bids were opened on February 23, 1988. The bid of Capital City was for $2,228 per month and it was the low bid. Maxwell Security submitted a bid of $29,834.78 and indicated verbally at the opening that it was a annual bid and could be broken down to a monthly bid of $2,486.23. Capital City did not attach any references to its bid. The Commission determined that this was a minor irregularity and notified Ash that he had 24 hours to provide written references. Ash orally provided two names as references. He was told that he needed written references. On February 25, 1988, Ash provided the names and telephone numbers for two references. One was at Florida A & M University (FAMU) and the other was at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The references were checked out and it was determined that Capital City provided security for the FAMU football games and for the 650 square-foot Food Stamp Office of HRS in Leon County, Florida. HRS sent a letter to the Commission which was dated February 25, 1988. When no further information was provided by Capital City, the Commission determined that its low bid was rejected because Capital City was a non-responsive bidder. The reason for this determination was as set forth in a memorandum signed by Maxey on March 3, 1988, that Capital City did not meet the qualifications specified in the ITB and bid specifications. The Commission posted the award of the bid to Maxwell Security on March 3, 1988. On March 4, 1988, Capital City filed a protest of the bid award. Attached to the protest was a letter from the Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry of the Department of Professional Regulation, William H. Buckhalt. This letter stated that Tony Ash had provided security services for the Old Courthouse Square Building occupied by the Department of Professional Regulation and that he did an excellent job. The letter did not state the size of the building and did not mention Capital City Security. Capital City Security submitted a bid that was not responsive to the bid specifications and did not supply references which were responsive, even when given additional time to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission enter a Final Order finding that Capital City Security was a non-responsive bidder and awarding the contract for Bid No. GFC 87-139 to Maxwell Security. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1356BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Each of Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-9 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1-13 of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth McLaughlin, Esquire Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Mr. Tony Ash Capital City Security 1717 Harris Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Colonel Robert M. Brantly Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Linda Ratcliffe, has been a satisfactory employee in the City's Library Department since approximately December, 1985. In the summer of 1993, she was a Library Assistant II in the Beach branch of the Library. At the end of 1992, the City Library was converting to a new computerized circulation record-keeping system. The Library Director sent all Library employees a memorandum dated December 8, 1992, on the subject of "Staff Overdues and Fines." It placed the employees on notice of Library plans to more aggressively pursue patrons to collect fines and, if appropriate, replacement cost for overdue materials and that, to succeed in the new policy, the Library had to insure that Library employees did not have overdue materials, were not granted privileges not accorded to members of the general public and paid fines and replacement costs when due. The employees were specifically advised that, if materials were overdue, fines had to be paid and that infractions of the new policies would be discussed during performance evaluation reviews. In July, 1993, the Library Director had the Respondent's circulation record checked routinely in preparation for her September performance evaluation. On or about July 20, 1993, it was discovered that the Respondent had 13 books overdue, two long-overdue. Yet, there was no record of any fines due on them. Apparently, someone on the circulation staff had entered the system and "zeroed" approximately $21.40 in fines, assuming the books ultimately were returned. If the books were not returned because they were lost or damaged, approximately $125 would be due as the replacement cost of the items. Since it was determined that no other staff member had "zeroed" the fines, it was presumed that the Respondent had done it. In addition, the circulation record-keeping system showed that, as of July 12, 1993, the two long-overdue books would have caused the computerized circulation record-keeping system to automatically alert the circulation staff that library privileges on the Respondent's account were suspended because of the two long-overdue books. Yet, the system showed that the Respondent had checked out additional items after that date. Assuming that the system was operative, the additional items could not have been checked out to the Respondent's account unless someone on the library staff had bypassed the automatic stop. Again, since it was determined that no other staff member had bypassed the automatic stop for the Respondent, it was presumed that the Respondent herself had done it. Finally, the system showed that the Respondent had eight videotapes checked out on her account. The maximum number allowed to be checked out at one time is three. Allowing for the return of up to three videotapes when checking out three more, the system tolerates up to six checked out to any one account before automatically alerting the circulation staff that no additional videotapes are allowed to be checked out to that account. Again assuming that the system was operative, the eight videotapes could not have been checked out to the Respondent's account unless someone on the library staff had bypassed the automatic stop. Again, since it was determined that no other staff member had bypassed the automatic stop for the Respondent, it was presumed that the Respondent herself had done it. When the Respondent was confronted with the charges against her on July 23, 1993, the City already had assessed the evidence against the Respondent and had decided that dismissal was the appropriate penalty in light of the evidence. In response to the charges, the Respondent admitted to "zeroing" the fines. Her explanation was that some or all of the overdue books were damaged by water or lost in the confusion and aftermath of the March 12-13, 1993, "no name storm of the century." She had made her supervisor aware that books checked out to her account had been damaged or lost in the storm, and she was told to "take care of it" according to proper procedures. The Respondent was not expressly told to "zero" the fines for overdue books. But she claimed that she had "zeroed" the fines because she had applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for reimbursement for the damaged or lost books and did not want to enter the losses in the circulation record-keeping system until she had the FEMA reimbursement money to pay for them. Instead, she showed the books as still checked out to her but without any fines showing. She intended to pay the replacement costs of the lost and damaged books when she got the money from FEMA. Official library policy for handling damaged and lost books is set out in the Library Circulation Manual. It states: The full, current replacement price is charged for the book. . . . Damage that can't be repaired is replacement cost. (Emphasis in the original.) The policy notes that library books are more expensive than other books because of special library bindings and costs of ordering, labeling, barcoding, covering, cataloging, shelving, and storage and that replacement cost often exceeds the original cost due to appreciation in value and inflation. Under the policy, standard replacement cost for an adult (hardback) book is $26 and for a children's book is $13. The policy also provides specifically for natural catastrophes such as the March 12-13, 1993, storm: In limited cases, in line with "the library with a heart" philosophy, the library may waive costs; for example, if a house burned down with the books in it. In most cases, the patron may recover the costs through their insurance. Refer the case to a supervisor, if you think this rule may apply. (Emphasis in the original.) The evidence was that the Respondent "referred" her own case to her supervisor. There was some evidence that the Respondent was expected to do more than just tell her supervisor that she had lost or damaged books as a result of the March 12-13, 1993, storm. The supervisor told her to "take care of it." There was evidence that the Respondent's supervisor expected the Respondent to make entries into the computerized circulation record-keeping system showing the books as having been lost or damaged. The Respondent's view was that this was a tedious and unnecessary record-keeping process and that she had more pressing and important tasks to accomplish with her work time. There also was evidence that, beyond making the appropriate entries in the system entries showing the books as having been lost or damaged, the supervisor herself was unsure how to "take care of" the matter. If the Respondent had asked her supervisor for advice directly, the supervisor would have had to refer the case on to her supervisor, or to the Library's Circulation Supervisor. Yet she neither volunteered to do so, nor instructed the Respondent to do so. Meanwhile, the Respondent thought she was acting properly under the catastrophe loss policy. The Respondent also admitted to bypassing the stop for long-overdue books. She assumed that the "library with a heart" would not revoke a patron's privileges while waiting for insurance benefits to pay for the losses. Since she thought she was acting properly under the catastrophe loss policy, she thought she should be allowed to continue to use her library card. The catastrophe loss policy had nothing to do with the videotapes. The Respondent claimed that the eighth videotape was checked out at the Library's Countryside Branch on a back-up system that did not have an automatic stop feature. She claimed that her mother was returning enough videotapes for her to allow her to exceed six videotapes, thereby justifying her bypassing the stop to check out the seventh videotape. But it is found that the Respondent had no reasonable basis for believing that her mother was in the process of or was about to return some of the videotapes. In fact, they were still checked approximately a week after the Respondent checked out the additional videotapes. Besides, circulation staff would bypass a stop for a library patron only if staff witnessed the videotapes being returned at the time of checking out additional tapes. It is found that the Respondent generally was lax in following the videotape limit and bypassed the automatic stop in order to check out more videotapes than other patrons would have been able to check out. Especially in view of the Library's policy to more aggressively pursue patrons to collect fines and, if appropriate, replacement cost for overdue materials, the Respondent's failure to follow library policies regarding videotapes, if made known to the public, would tend to embarrass the City or bring its service into public disrepute. It was not proven that the Respondent's conduct constituted insubordination, but it was a serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in a lower morale in the department or to result in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City or to the public. The Respondent was enjoying privileges not allowed other Library staff or members of the public, and the extra videotapes the Respondent checked out against policy were not available for others to check out.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the City of Clearwater Civil Service Board enter a final order reducing the Respondent's dismissal to a 20-day suspension and demotion to Library Assistant I, or a similar position, as one becomes available. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5614 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (As found, not all of the charges were proven.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (As found, not all of her notes were accurate. Specifically, the Respondent did report the damaged or lost books.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. (Also, conclusion of law.) The rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found that she "basically" admitted "the serious charges." She admitted many of the facts but denied any improper intent. See 11., above. In part accepted and subordinate to facts found; in part, rejected as not proven and contrary to facts found. (His testimony substantiated parts but not all of the charges.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 Linda Ratcliffe 663 Bay Esplanade Clearwater, Florida 34630-1503 Michael Laursen Secretary City of Clearwater Civil Service Board P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. 06-DC-7727 to Communications Engineering Service Company is contrary to the Department of Correction’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. 06-DC-7727 on October 27, 2006. The purpose of the ITB was to solicit bids for maintenance and repair of radio equipment owned by the Department in each of its four regions. The original deadline for submitting bids in response to the ITB was November 30, 2006, but the deadline was extended to December 15, 2006, through an addendum to the ITB. First Communications, CES, and Motorola, Inc., submitted bids for Region I. Another company, Econo Communications, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Communications, also responded to the ITB, but it did not bid on Region I. It was stipulated that First Communications’ bid was responsive to the ITB. The Department determined that the bid submitted by Motorola was not responsive to the ITB. That determination was not challenged. The Department determined that the bid submitted by CES was responsive, despite the issues discussed below. CES was determined by the Department to be the lowest responsible bidder. The bid submitted by CES was $2,571 per month.1 First Communications was the next lowest bidder. Its bid was $3,408.85 per month,2 which is 32.6 percent higher than CES’s bid. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB states that “it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5 with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements).” Section 5.1 of the ITB lists the “mandatory responsiveness requirements” for bids, and states that: The following terms, conditions or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to the ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory.Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. (Emphasis in original). Nearly identical language is contained in Sections 1.7 and 4.3.6.1 of the ITB, and in the ITB Review Manual used by Department staff in reviewing the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Indeed, the ITB Review Manual refers to the mandatory responsiveness requirements as “fatal criteria.” The mandatory responsiveness requirement in the ITB that is most pertinent to this case is in Section 5.1.2,3 which states: It is mandatory that the bidder supply one original signed Bid and three (3) copies of the signed bid. . . . . (Emphasis in original). The bid package submitted by CES did not include the original signed bid. It only included the three copies of the signed bid. This omission was noted by Christina Espinosa, the procurement manager for the ITB who opened the bids on the afternoon of December 15, 2006. However, after Ms. Espinosa consulted with her supervisor and the Department’s legal staff, it was determined that the omission was not material and that CES should be given an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit the original signed bid. As a result, Ms. Espinosa contacted CES and gave it 24 business hours to “cure” the deficiency. CES delivered the original signed bid to the Department on the morning of December 18, 2006, which is three days after the bid submittal deadline in the ITB, but within the 24-business hour deadline given by Ms. Espinosa.4 CES did not have a representative at the bid opening, and there is no evidence that CES knew it was the lowest bidder, either when Ms. Espinosa gave CES an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit an original bid on December 15, 2006, or when it submitted the original bid on December 18, 2006. It is undisputed that the original signed bid submitted by CES on December 18, 2006, is identical in all respects to the three copies of the bid that were timely submitted by CES on December 15, 2006. Ms. Espinosa reviewed the bid submitted by CES despite its failure to include the original signed bid. According to ITB provisions referenced above, that omission should have resulted in the bid being rejected and not further reviewed. The CES bid included at least one other deviation from the specifications in the ITB. The bid stated in the “service delivery synopsis” that the turnaround time for the repair of fixed equipment would be 15 working days. A 15-day time period was referenced in the original ITB, but it was changed to eight days in an addendum. Ms. Espinosa contacted CES about this discrepancy, and on January 3, 2007, CES advised Ms. Espinosa by e-mail that it “acknowledges the change in repair times from 15 days to 8 days.” CES was not the only bidder that Ms. Espinosa contacted after the bids were opened to obtain clarification or information omitted from the bid. For example, she contacted First Communications to obtain copies of its articles of incorporation and business licenses that were not included in its bid; to get clarification regarding First Communications’ use of subcontractors; and to confirm that First Communications acknowledged the eight-day turnaround time for repair of fixed equipment since its bid did not contain a service delivery synopsis. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB authorizes the Department to “seek clarifications or request any information deemed necessary for proper review of submissions from any bidder deemed eligible for Contract award.” However, Section 4.3.1 also states that “no modifications by the bidder of submitted bids will be allowed.” The ITB authorizes the Department to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids, and on this issue, the ITB states: Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this solicitation. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by the bidder. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation there from is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of terms or services bid, or the prices submitted to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities: A variation from the solicitation terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. A minor irregularity will not result in a rejection of a bid. (All emphasis in original). The Department relies on these sections of the ITB as its authority to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids with respect to any provision of the ITB, including the mandatory responsiveness requirements. On January 4, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract for Region I to CES. In the same posting, the Department rejected all bids for the other three regions. The rejection of all bids for the other regions is not at issue in this case. First Communications timely filed a notice of protest and, then, a formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract to CES. The Department provided notice of this proceeding to CES, as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. CES did not file a petition to intervene or otherwise seek to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing First Communications’ protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On August 7, 1985, the Respondent, Department of State (Department) issued a job opportunity announcement (announcement number 85-150), whereby it expressed the intention to fill an employment position of "Archives Assistant" in its Division of Archives, History and Records Management. The qualifications for this position consist of a Bachelor's degree with a major in history, library science or one of the social sciences, or a Bachelor's degree and one year experience in the preservation or restoration of documents or materials. The degree in library science is a minimal requirement and is consistent with the minimum qualifications established by the Career Service class specifications prepared by the Department of Administration for the Archives Assistant class title. Twenty-two applicants who met these minimum qualifications applied for this position in response to this announcement. On August 20, 1985, the Respondent issued a second job opportunity announcement (announcement number 85-159) for this same position. The qualifications for this position obviously were the same as those specified in announcement number 85-150. The Respondent issued this second announcement in order to solicit applications from a broader range of applicants in order to fulfill its goal of finding the most qualified applicant for the position. As, a result of the second announcement, an additional 13 applicants meeting the minimum qualifications filed applications. Both job opportunity announcements required that all applicants submit a completed copy of the Florida Employment Application form to the Department in order to apply for the position. The Petitioner did not submit a completed application form, however, in a letter dated August 26, 1985, she submitted her resume to Mr. Randall Kelly, Director of the Division, wherein she expressed her desire to be employed in the vacant position at issue. The Respondent Department received the Petitioner's letter on August 27, 1986, one day before the deadline for filing applications related to the second employment announcement referenced above. In spite of the fact that she had not submitted an application in the proper form and manner, the Petitioner was considered for the position of Archives Assistant by Gerard Clark of the Division of Archives, History and Records Management (Division). Mr. Clark was an Archivist Supervisor II at the time the position was advertised and was responsible for reviewing, screening and interviewing applicants for the position. He was responsible as well for selecting an applicant for the position and recommending an applicant selection to the Division Director, Mr. Randall Kelly. Mr. Clark interviewed nine of the 35 eligible applicants. He did not interview the Petitioner because he was already familiar with her work and her qualifications since he had been her supervisor when she worked with the Division as an intern. It was the policy of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto not to interview every applicant, but to use the interview process to get to know applicants better and to determine the most qualified applicant. Since Mr Clark was already aware of the Respondent's quality of work and qualifications, he did not deem it necessary to interview her. She was considered an eligible candidate for the position, however. The Petitioner had worked part time for the Division as an Archives Intern from May 1984 to July 1985. At that time she was a student at Florida State University in a Master's degree program within the History Department and received academic credit for her work with the Division. She also received monetary compensation for her internship from the Senior Community Service Employment Program, a federal grant program, during this time. Ms. Nadine Doty-Tessell submitted an application for the subject position on August 19, 1985, and was also considered an eligible applicant by the Respondent. Mr. Clark ultimately selected Ms. Doty-Tessell as the most qualified applicant and recommended her hiring to Mr. Randall Kelly. Mr. Kelly accepted Clark's recommendation and hired Ms. Doty-Tessell for the Archives Assistant position. In a September 11, 1985 letter to the Petitioner, Mr. Kelly notified her that another applicant had been chosen. In an October 3, 1985 letter to the Petitioner, Mr. Jay Kassees also notified her of the selection of another candidate, as well as that the selection constituted the promotion of an employee within the agency. After receiving this information, the Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on October 29, 1985. She alleged she was denied this position because of her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 USC 621 et seq. On November 4, 1985, that Commission referred the charge of discrimination to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. On June 30, 1986, following an investigation, the Commission determined that no cause existed for the filing of the charge but, pursuant to its rules, ultimately referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings because the Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief following the determination of "no cause." The case ultimately came on for hearing on the above date. Ms. Doty-Tessell was a Library Technical Assistant I in the State Library of Florida within the Respondent's Division of Library Services since April 1983 and was so employed at the time she applied for the Archives Assistant position at issue. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in library science from Florida State University and was working in a Master's degree program in library science at F.S.U. She has since earned that Master's degree. From August 1981 to July 1982, Ms. Doty-Tessell acquired a full year of direct archival experience while employed as a Library Technical Assistant. She acquired this experience by arranging, appraising, indexing and describing the voluminous papers in the Mildred and Claude Pepper archival collection at the Florida State University Library. During her tenure as a Library Technical Assistant I with the Respondent's agency between April 1983 and August 1985, she acquired an additional 29 months of archivally related work which also served as a qualification for the position at issue. The Career Service system position description for a Library Technical Assistant I, which was the position formerly held by Ms. Doty-Tessell, describes the duties and responsibilities of that position as encompassing a thorough knowledge of reference materials and search methods, extensive searching experience, coordinating the State Library of Florida's flag collection, coordinating and maintaining the inter-library paperback collection and performing bibliographic searches. Mr. Clark's and Mr. Kassees' testimony establishes that these duties and responsibilities are "archivally related" and that they further qualified Ms. Doty- Tessell for the Archives Assistant position in terms of experience. Additionally, the duties and responsibilities in the Career Service position description for Archives Assistant are close parallels to those for Library Technical Assistant I. In view of her work on the Pepper collection and her experience as a Library Technical Assistant, Ms. Doty-Tessell was established to have over 3 1/2 full time years of archival or archivally related experience upon her filing of her application for the subject position. Although Petitioner alleged that she had worked for the Respondent from May 1984 to July 1985, that was not full time employment. During this time she worked for 14 months on a part time basis and thus acquired a total of 7 full time months of archival experience. She was not a salaried employee at this time. Although the Petitioner received an excellent rating in her initial employment performance evaluation as an intern, her subsequent and final evaluation of March 28, 1985 showed that her performance had declined to a satisfactory level. During the rating periods between April 1983 and April 1985, Ms. Doty-Tessell received three outstanding evaluations, the highest evaluation in the Career Service performance evaluation system at that time. It was established by the testimony of Mr. Kassees that the Respondent has a consistently followed, written policy to accord first consideration for open positions to employees within the Department of State who are qualified for promotion to vacancies. Under this policy, where two or more applicants are equally qualified and one is eligible for promotion, that applicant is accorded first consideration since that applicant is already entitled to a promotion. This policy is based in part on the master contract between the State of Florida and various unions which represent State employees. Ms. Doty-Tessell was shown to be qualified for promotion and to have been an employee .of the Department at the time the position was advertised and at the time she applied for it. The Archives Assistant position at issue constituted a promotion for her. Both the Petitioner and Ms. Doty-Tessell had comparable educational qualifications for the position, but Ms. Doty-Tessell was more qualified than the Petitioner because she had more archival and archivally related experience and had received superior performance evaluations to those of the Petitioner. In a letter Petitioner wrote on July 10, 1985 to the Secretary of State, she expressed significant criticism of the Division and her supervisor regarding her tenure as an intern with the Division. She accused fellow workers of being "gold brickers who waste time, giggle and walk aimlessly in the halls." She complained that their supervisor, Mr. Clark, was arrogant toward her. Mr. Clark testified that the Petitioner's critical comments about him and other employees in the Division concerned him and were an additional factor in his decision not to hire her because he was concerned about her ability to get along with her fellow workers, as well as him. Both Mr. Clark and Randall Kelly selected Ms. Doty-Tessell for the subject position because she was the most qualified candidate and she was further given first consideration because she was already employed by the agency and was qualified for promotion. Both Mr. Clark and Mr. Kelly testified that their hiring of Ms. Doty-Tessell was not related to her age or the Petitioner's age. Ms. Doty-Tessell was 26 years of age at the time of her hiring and the Petitioner was 59 years of age. Although the Petitioner testified she was upset and humiliated because she was not selected for the position, she did not offer any testimony which substantiates her allegation that she was not selected on account of her age. At the time the Respondent hired Ms. Doty-Tessell there were 48 employees out of 133 employees in the Division who were 40 years of age or older. This represents 36 percent of the total staff of the Division. At the same time, 31 percent of the 13 employees in the Bureau of Archives were 40 years of age or older.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended rejection of all bids submitted in response to Respondent's solicitation of bids for two separate painting projects (the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School and the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School) is "arbitrary," as alleged by Petitioner, and if so, what alternative action should Respondent take with respect to these two projects.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a district school board responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida (including, among others, Greenacres Elementary School, South Olive Elementary School, and Belvedere Elementary School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. In or around August 2009, Respondent, through its Construction Purchasing Department (Purchasing Department), issued a single Invitation to Bid (ITB) soliciting separate bids for three different painting projects: the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School; the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School; and the painting of the exterior of Belvedere Elementary School. The bid package contained the following: an Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form (PBSD 1186, Rev 2/2001); Special Conditions; Specifications; and Addenda, including a Bid Summary Sheet, a Drug-Free Workplace Certification (PBSD 0580, New 3/91), a Statement of No Bid, Inspection forms, and a Beneficial Interest and Disclosure of Ownership Affidavit. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form contained the following provision entitled, "Awards": AWARDS: In the best interest of the District, the Purchasing Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity or minor technicalities in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." All awards made as result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form also included "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" (General Conditions), among which were the following: SEALED BIDS: One copy of this executed Invitation to Bid page and Bid Summary page(s) must be returned with the bid in order to be considered for award. All bids are subject to all the conditions specified herein; all General Conditions, Special Conditions on the attached bid documents; and any addenda issued thereto. Any failure on the part of the bidder to comply with the specifications, terms and conditions of this Invitation to Bid shall be reason for termination of contract. EXECUTION OF BID: Bid must contain a manual signature of an authorized representative in the space provided above. Failure to properly sign proposal shall invalidate same, and it shall not be considered for award. All bids must be completed in ink or typewritten. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The original bid conditions and specifications cannot be changed or altered in any way. Altered bids may not be considered. Clarification of bids submitted shall be in letter form, signed by the bidders and attached to the bid. * * * 20. SIGNED BID CONSIDERED AN OFFER: This signed bid shall be considered an offer on the part of the bidder, which offer shall be deemed accepted upon approval by the Board. In case of a default on the part of the bidder after such acceptance, the District may take such action as it deems appropriate including legal action for damages or specific performance. * * * 25. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Among the "Special Conditions" were the following: SCOPE: The purpose and intent of this invitation to bid is to secure firm pricing for Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools. The rate shall include all materials and labor for preparation, sealing and painting. AWARD: Time of completion is of the essence. Contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder(s) for each item as listed on the Bid Summary Sheet. The District reserves the right to use the next lowest bidder(s) in the event the original awardee of the bid cannot fulfill their contract. The next lowest bidder's price must remain the same as originally bid and must remain firm for the duration of the contract. The anticipated award will be approved by the superintendent designee. B. MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION: ALL BIDDERS MUST ATTEND PRE-BID WORKSITE WALK-THROUGH. THE WORK DETAILS ARE OUTLINED IN THIS BID AND ANY QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED AT EACH WORKSITE INSPECTION. BIDS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM ANY BIDDERS THAT HAVE NOT ATTENDED THE SITE INSPECTION FOR THAT PARTICULAR WORKSITE. THIS MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL PAINT MANUFACTURERS AND/OR PAINT DISTRIBUTORS. * * * BIDDERS RESPONSIBILITY: Before submitting their bid, each bidder is required to carefully examine the invitation to bid specifications and to completely familiarize themselves with all of the terms and conditions that are contained within this bid. Ignorance on the part of the bidder will in no way relieve them of any of the obligations and responsibilities that are part of this bid. SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "INVITATION TO BID" bidder's acknowledgment sheet must be completed, signed, and returned. In addition, the Bid Summary Sheet page(s) on which the bidder actually submits a bid, needs to be executed and submitted with this bid. Bids received that fail to comply with these requirements shall not be considered for award.[2] CONTRACT: The submission of your bid constitutes an offer by the bidder. . . . * * * Q. USE OF OTHER CONTRACTS: The District reserves the right . . . to directly negotiate/purchase per School Board policy and/or State Board Rule 6A-1.012(6) in lieu of any offer received or award made as a result of this bid, if it is in its best interest to do so. The District also reserves the right to separately bid any single order or to purchase any item on this bid if it is in its best interest to do so. * * * HH. POSTING OF BID AND SPECIFICATIONS: Invitation to bid with specifications will be posted for review by interested parties in the Construction Purchasing Department on the date of bid electronic mailing and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. II. POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATION/ TABULATIONS: Bid recommendations and tabulations will be posted in the Construction Purchasing Department, within 10 days of the opening date, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. If the bid tabulation with recommended awards is not posted by said date and time, [a] "Notice of Delay of Posting" will be posted to inform all proposers of the new posting date and time. Any person adversely affected by the decision or intended decision must file a notice of protest, in writing, within 72 hours after the posting. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. OO. BID PROTEST: If a bidder wishes to protest a bid, they must do so in strict accordance with the procedures outlined in F.S. 120.57(3), and Section FF., Lobbying Paragraph 3, of this proposal and School Board Policy 6.14. Any person who files an action protesting bid specifications, a decision or intended decision pertaining to this bid pursuant to F.S. 120.57(3)(b), shall post with the Purchasing Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond secured by an acceptable surety company in Florida payable to the School District of Palm Beach County in an amount equal to 1 percent (1%) of the total estimated contract value, but not less than $500 nor more than $5,000. Bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs that may adjudged against the protester in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond, a cashier's check, certified bank check, bank certified company check or money order will be acceptable form of security. If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the District prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges included in the final order of judgment, including charges by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protester, the protest security shall be returned. If the protest prevails, he or she shall recover from the District all costs and charges, which shall be included in the final order of judgment. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. * * * PP. INFORMATION: Any questions by the prospective bidders concerning this invitation to bid should be addressed to Helen R. Stokes, Purchasing Agent, Construction Purchasing . . . , who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Stokes nor any employee of the District is authorized to interpret any portion of the bid or give information as the requirements of the bid in addition to that contained in the written bid document. Interpretations of the bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, will be communicated to bidders by written addendum. Site visits to the three schools to be painted were made by prospective bidders on August 13, 2009, following which a First and Final Addendum, dated August 25, 2009, was issued by the School Board. This First and Final Addendum included the following Revised Bid Summary Sheet: REVISED BID SUMMARY SHEET THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Ph: 561-882-1952 Fax: 561-434-8655 EXTERIOR PAINTING OF GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SEALED BIDS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 27, 2009 NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. TO: Helen Stokes, Construction Purchasing Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Bids will only be accepted from those contractors in attendance at the Mandatory Site Visit and who are registered with the School District of Palm Beach County as a Small Business Enterprise. The rate shall include paint, preparation, sealing and painting per the attached specifications and detailed scope of work. EXTERIOR PAINTING AT GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ITEM 1: GREENACRES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 2: SOUTH OLIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 3: BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) RE-TEXTURING TEXCOAT $ (Per Sq. Ft.) ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUMS CONTRACTOR: Name Date Address Current License # City, State, Email Address Zip Phone Fax There were no instructions on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet itself directing that an authorized representative sign the document, nor was there any signature line for such purpose. Bids were submitted by Austro Construction, Inc. (Austro); Dynamic Painting, Inc. (Dynamic); Fleischer's, Inc. (Fleischer's); JIJ Construction Corporation (JIJ); and Petitioner. Austro bid $83,900.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $87,500.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $105,500.00 and $3.50 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Dynamic bid $55,955.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $74,800.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $82,900.00 and $3.00 per square foot for re- texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Fleischer's bid only on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School).3 Its bid was $73,000.00 and $1.25 for re-texturing. JIJ bid $80,000.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $95,000.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $95,000.00 and $1.15 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Petitioner bid $89,349.00 (or $33,394.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $93,885.00 (or $19,085.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $94,306.00 and $3.95 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets that were submitted in response to the ITB (one each by Austro, Dynamic, Fleischer's, JIJ, and Petitioner), only two, those submitted by Fleischer's and Petitioner, contained the signature of an authorized representative of the bidder. The other three had no signatures on them. All of the "blanks" on each of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets submitted, including the three sheets without signatures, were filled in and completed, however.4 Furthermore, each Revised Bid Summary Sheet was accompanied by an appropriately signed Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form. Bids were opened on August 27, 2009. As announced on the Bid Tabulation Form that was posted on August 28, 2009, the Purchasing Department recommended that Items 1 and 2 be awarded to Dynamic and Item 3 be awarded to Fleischer's. Petitioner, on or about September 8, 2009, protested the award of Items 1 and 2 to Dynamic on the ground that Dynamic's bids on these items were non-responsive because its Revised Bid Summary Sheet had not been signed by an authorized representative of the company. The award of Item 3 to Fleischer's was not protested by Petitioner or any other bidder. By letter dated September 15, 2009, Sharon Swan, Respondent's Director of Purchasing (and head of the Purchasing Department), advised Petitioner of the following: We have completed the review of your protest of Bid for "Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools," specifically your protest of the recommendation for award for Greenacres and South Olive Elementary Schools, Items 1 & 2 of this bid. A revised recommendation will be posted later today reflecting a change in our recommendation for Items 1 & 2. The revised recommendation will be to reject all bids on these two items[5] and re-bid with revised bid documents which will clarify the ambiguity relating to the requirement to execute the Bid Summary Sheet when no signature line was indicated. Therefore, I am returning your bank check and closing the file on this protest. You are invited and welcome to compete on the re-bid of these projects. As promised, a second, revised bid tabulation form was posted that same day (September 15, 2009) containing the following "revised recommendation": Item[s] 1 & 2: Reject bid Item[] 1 (one) and Item 2 (two) due to an ambiguity in the bid language, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, paragraph E, Sealed Bid Requirements. Item 3: Fleischer's, Inc. The belatedly perceived "ambiguity" referred to in the Purchasing Department's revised bid tabulation form concerned the intended meaning of the term "executed" in Special Condition E. of the ITB. It had been the Purchasing Department's intent, in using this term in Special Condition E., to require that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet be signed by an authorized representative of the bidder; however, the Purchasing Department had not included a signature line on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet (such as the one appearing on the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form), nor had it specified anywhere in the ITB that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet had to be "signed" (in contrast to the instructions, given in the first sentence of Special Condition E., regarding the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form). Upon its consideration of Petitioner's protest, the Purchasing Department had come to the realization that it had not clearly communicated to prospective bidders its intent concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to bear an authorized representative's signature. Believing that its failure to have done so effected the outcome of the competitive bidding process in the case of both Item 1 and Item 2 (in that, with respect to each of these items, the lowest bidder, as well as all other bidders bidding on these two items with the exception of Petitioner, submitted an unsigned Revised Bid Summary Sheet, making these bidders, in the School Board's view, ineligible for an award), the Purchasing Department decided "to reject all bids [with respect to these two items] and rebid so [the Purchasing Department] could correct this ambiguity" concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to be signed.6 It is this intended action which is the subject of Petitioner's instant protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board take the action described in numbered paragraph 51 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2010.
