The Issue Petitioner's charge of discrimination dated April 13, 1995, alleges that the Orange County Public Library discriminated against her on account of her race and disability: by terminating her for tardiness, by refusing to accommodate her disability but accommodating other employees, and by more closely monitoring and scrutinizing her. The issues for resolution in this case are whether the alleged discrimination occurred and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aundra Jones (Ms. Jones), was hired by the Orange County Public Library in December 1990. Her primary duty as a circulation clerk was shelving books. At the time that she was hired, Ms. Jones completed a medical history form that revealed no medical problems and no limitations to her normal functions. Ms. Jones received her first personnel rating on March 6, 1991. On a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the top rank, she received a score of 5 in all areas except interpersonal relations, in which she received a score of 6. Ms. Jones's next rating was March 12, 1992. She received mostly 5's, two 4's, and a 1 (the lowest score possible) in attendance. Her supervisor noted that Ms. Jones's attendance record was poor and needed improvement as she had missed 132.5 hours in a 12-month period. Nevertheless, she was recommended for, and received, a one-step merit increase in salary. On December 13, 1992, the library initiated a punctuality policy for all employees. This policy provided that each employee was required to be at his or her work station without delay at the scheduled time. Any delay that was not approved in advance was considered a "tardy." Even though some tardiness might be understood, a record of eight or more tardies, regardless of duration or cause, within an annual merit review cycle, would result in a written warning and may result in a final warning or termination. In January 1993, Ms. Jones took a second job as a reservationist at Steiganberg Reservation Services. Her shift began at 6:00 p.m. and she was scheduled to work there approximately 25 hours a week. In February 1993, Ms. Jones sustained some unspecified job injury and was required to stay home for several weeks to recover. She was told by her doctor to lift no more than five pounds and, since that would be virtually impossible at the library, she and the library staff agreed that she should recover at home from what was classified as a temporary condition. On April 6, 1993, Ms. Jones received her annual personnel rating summarized as "needs improvement." She was rated "1" in attendance and punctuality, and her supervisor noted that she used 112 hours of sick leave in 1992 and was tardy ten times between March 1992 and March 1993. On November 17, 1993, Ms. Jones's supervisor met with her and gave her a verbal warning with regard to her punctuality. By this time she had received eight tardies in the first six months of her annual review period. One of the tardies was a "scheduled" absence for a doctor's appointment, however, and this occasion was not a basis for later discipline of Ms. Jones. A special evaluation in March 1994 noted continued attendance problems, requiring leave without pay when all accrued vacation, sick, and floating holiday time had been exhausted. On April 25, 1994, Ms. Jones received her annual personnel rating, an "unsatisfactory," with scores of "1" in performance, attendance, and punctuality. Prior to this rating the library had placed Ms. Jones on Family Medical Leave on several occasions. It also attempted to adjust Ms. Jones's scheduled days so that she could go to the doctor on her days off, but she said she needed time with her family and preferred to have weekends off. A change in job assignment at the library was offered, but the hours conflicted with Ms. Jones's night job, and she refused the change. On May 12, 1994, Ms. Jones's doctor, a rheumatologist, diagnosed her condition as fibromyalgia and noted on her work status form that Ms. Jones should have light duty for two weeks and that the restriction would be temporary. The library accommodated this and other temporary restrictions, including restrictions on lifting, standing, and full-time shifts, over the next several months. The library terminated Ms. Jones on January 16, 1995. By that time she had been late to work eight times in the first eight and a half months of her annual review cycle. The library did not penalize Ms. Jones for her appointed medical absences, but rather applied its policy described in paragraph 4, above, to her chronic tardiness. There is no credible evidence that the library singled out Ms. Jones based on her race or physical condition. Between November 1994 and April 1998, the library terminated nine employees who were not African-Americans for violations of its punctuality policy. During her employment with the library, Ms. Jones applied for, but was denied, transfer to several positions. In no case was she denied the transfer because of her race or physical condition. In fact, as found above, she was offered and she refused a transfer to a less physically-demanding position at the circulation desk. Ms. Jones auditioned with other candidates for a position as storyteller. Her audition was unsuccessful as she was nervous and forgot the story at various times. Ms. Jones was also interviewed for other promotions. In one case another African-American employee received the promotion, and in the other cases, the library presented unrefuted evidence that more qualified candidates were hired. Ms. Jones felt that her physical condition should have warranted her being given a parking space in the library garage. However, the spaces there were assigned according to seniority and there were no spaces available for her. For a temporary period she had a handicapped parking sticker but this was withdrawn by her physician when she no longer met the guidelines. Ms. Jones alleged that the head of circulation, Wendi Jo Bost, harassed and belittled her on account of her race and physical condition. Ms. Bost was involved with Ms. Jones's immediate supervisors and Ms. Jones in attempting to remediate the persistent attendance problems. After Ms. Jones did not respond to a request for suggestions on accommodating the need to schedule doctors' appointments, Ms. Bost changed her days off. When Ms. Jones complained that she wanted Saturdays to spend with her family, Ms. Bost accommodated that request. Ms. Bost was a well-trained, experienced, and competent professional librarian. She routinely hired and promoted African-Americans. Her no-nonsense style of management extended to all employees, without consideration for race or physical condition; she was criticized at times by employees, including whites and non-disabled employees, for her strict management style. There is scant evidence in the record of this proceeding of Ms. Jones's disability. A monograph on fibromyalgia syndrome, received in evidence without objection, reflects that the pain and fatigue of the disease tends to come and go. It is a chronic condition, but neither fatal nor crippling. Ms. Jones sought medical treatment from a series of different health care providers and sought relief in a variety of treatments. She plainly became frustrated at her inability to obtain lasting relief. While she missed work frequently on account of her condition, she concedes that most of her tardiness was not the result of her illness. Moreover, Ms. Jones considered herself able to perform her duties at the library while at work there and maintained a series of part-time jobs as well as her full-time library employment. She is, and was, able to perform normal household chores. At hearing, Ms. Jones did not identify any specific limitations of activity based on her diagnoses of fibromyalgia, except an inability to be out in the sun.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its Final Order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination or Petition for Relief by Aundra Jones against the Orange County Public Library. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Aundra Jones, pro se 510 Auburn Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Mary Wills, Esquire 255 South Orange Avenue Suite 801 Orlando, Florida 32801-3452 Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Garwood, McKenna, McKenna & Wolf, P.A. 31 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-7082 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-7082
The Issue On May 12, 2004, did Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), act illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it cancelled the posting and noticed its intent to reject the bid of Rosiek Construction Co., Inc. (Rosiek), in relation to financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement, SR 682 (the Project)? § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Findings Of Fact The subject of this protest is financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement. Respondent and 12 other pre-qualified bidders received copies of the bid solicitation notice, plans and specifications for the Project at issue. Rosiek submitted a responsive bid for the Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on April 28, 2004. There were no other bidders. Rosiek is pre-qualified to bid and receive the contract for the Project and therefore is a responsible bidder. On May 12, 2004, DOT posted its notice of intent to reject all bids. Rosiek timely filed this bid protest on May 14, 2004, with DOT, along with the statutorily required bid protest bond. DOT's 2004 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction is applicable to this project. FACTS BASED UPON ROSIEK'S ADMISSIONS DOT had advertised its bid solicitation notice for Financial Project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on or about March 4, 2004. Rosiek received the copy of the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project. Rosiek did not file a specifications challenge with respect to the referenced Project. DOT advertised the amount of $37,087,000.00 as its budgeted amount for the Project. Rosiek submitted a total bid of $50,470,378.12 for the Project (total bid A+B). ADDITIONAL FACTS Juanita Moore is a manager of the DOT Contracts Administration Office. She served as a member of the Technical Review Committee and the Awards Committee in relation to the Project. When the Technical Review Committee is confronted with a bid, such as the Rosiek bid, which is from a single bidder, something is missing from the bid or for certain differentials in price between the bid received and the official cost estimate, the Technical Review Committee considers these to be "problem jobs." In connection with terminology, Ms. Moore explained that the budget figure, referred to in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project as a Proposal Budget Estimate, is derived from an earlier estimate in the process and in turn an official cost estimate was established for the Project. The official cost estimate is also referred to simply as the estimate. The official cost estimate has not been disclosed as has been explained in the Preliminary Statement to the Recommended Order. The official cost estimate here is broken down into component items within the Project pertaining to cost for Mobilization, Concrete Class IV, Concrete Class V, etc. After the Technical Review Committee considered the Rosiek bid, the bid was passed on to the Awards Committee where it was decided to reject the bid. According to Ms. Moore the bid was rejected as too high when compared to the official cost estimate. The reference to a bid being too high relates to a bid which is more than 10 percent in excess of the official cost estimate. The budget figure and the official cost estimate are not necessarily the same in a given instance. The fact that it was the only bid was also a factor considered in the rejection. As Ms. Moore explained, at the time the Rosiek bid was rejected, it was principally because it was too high in relation to the official cost estimate. Given the posture in this case, the rejection as the only bid will form the basis for resolving this dispute, absent DOT's willingness to divulge the amount of the official cost estimate or how it was established. DOT does not have an established policy for rejecting bids based upon the fact that only a single bidder responded to the solicitation. In her experience, Ms. Moore does not remember DOT rejecting a bid solely on the ground that there was only one bidder. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting held on May 12, 2004, detail the response by that committee to the Rosiek bid. In the copy of that document provided for this proceeding, DOT's official cost estimate is redacted. The percentage differential between the official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is likewise redacted. The item number 0101-1 for Mobilization reflects Rosiek's bid of $4,900,000.00 compared to the official cost estimate which is redacted. Similarly, Item No. 0400-4-4, Concrete Class IV refers to the contractor bid price of $800.00 per cubic yard compared with the official cost estimate which is redacted. There are other comparisons between several additional categories or items in which the contractors bid price is reflected but the official cost estimate in comparison is redacted. The minutes go on to describe how the review being made by the Awards Committee led to the conclusion that the official cost estimate could be adjusted, placing the bid received by Rosiek a certain percentage above the estimate on a 10 percent criteria job but the differential between the adjusted official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is not revealed as a percentage because of redaction. The DOT district where the project would be located is District 7, the Tampa office. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting indicate that the district and the Technical Review Committee recommended to the Awards Committee that it reject the Rosiek bid and re-advertise. That was the decision made by the Awards Committee on May 12, 2004, to re-let in June. Nothing in the minutes prepared by the Awards Committee refers to the significance of Rosiek as the only bidder and any concern which the Awards Committee had about that fact. On May 12, 2004, when DOT provided a Cancellation of Posting and a Notice of Intent to Reject to Rosiek, it did not state the rationale for that decision. It merely indicated to Rosiek that it was DOT's intent to reject all bids on the project and advised Rosiek of its opportunity to contest that decision. On May 5, 2004, Kenneth A. Hartmann, P.E., the District 7 Secretary, prepared the District Response to Post- Bid Evaluation of Bids in Excess of Approved Award Criteria. The document is presented in question-and-answer form. In response to the question numbered 4 within the document, related to the prospect of critical safety deficiencies in the existing system being corrected by the construction of a new bridge, Mr. Hartmann responded with the answer "No." In relation to question numbered 2, excluding normal inflation, the question was asked whether re-advertising the project would likely result in a higher bid. Mr. Hartman answered "No." In response to question numbered 16, related to his recommendation as the district secretary, for action that should be taken by the Awards Committee he stated "This project should be rejected and re-advertised for a June 2004 1st [sic]. Considering that the project is medium to large and was competing against two other large bridge projects on the same day it is understandable that the contractor's bid was higher than our estimate." In response to question numbered 15 concerning the work load level of the contracting industry in the locality where the project would be constructed, Mr. Hartmann referred to "a high level of work load." At hearing Donald Skelton, P.E., the District 7 Secretary testified in support of the rejection of the Rosiek bid. In the past he had served as Director of Transportation Development with DOT, a position that made him responsible for preparation of the design plans and contract packages that are bid. He had involvement with this Project pertaining to the preparation of design plans and getting the Project to contract letting. He reviewed the Rosiek bid. In discussions related to the Rosiek bid during the post-bid evaluation period, there was a concern over a lack of competition and the differential between, what Mr. Skelton refers to, as the budget amount and the bid amount by Rosiek. Mr. Skelton was mindful of potential safety issues that might warrant the prospect of trying to find additional money to fund the Project, if it was necessary to replace the existing bridge for safety reasons. If the bridge were structurally deficient or in bad shape, that would need to be addressed, versus the additional time necessary to potentially rebid the project. No safety issues of that sort were found by Mr. Skelton. Mr. Skelton explained that the fact that there was single bidder made it difficult, if not impossible, to make a comparison between that bid and what the true market value of the bridge construction would be. Mr. Skelton expressed the hope by the DOT, that there would be more than one bidder in the future to truly get an impression of the degree of competition and whether the competition would result in a realistic price for the public. He recognized that there is no guarantee that DOT is going to get a lower bid if the project is re-bid. Mr. Skelton indicated that when you have multiple bids you can compare what the economic system would support in relation to the affordability of the project. That comparison is of similarity in prices among the competitors trying to win the job, with the belief that bidders put their best effort forward to prevail in the competition. A single bid does not give any indication of market factors, in his view. Michael Rosiek is the vice-president for Rosiek. In his testimony, he expressed a concern that if the project was re-let for bid, Rosiek's competitive position would not be good, in that the other contractors would have read the Rosiek bid that was made in the first letting, informing the competitors of the Rosiek price to its detriment. Further, Mr. Rosiek expressed a concern that in a re-letting the company would be bidding "against ourselves." Louis Wenick, P.E., has a business consulting service. The nature of the business is consulting work relating to the construction industry. A considerable part of the business involves DOT projects. In his work Mr. Wenick is involved with scheduling, cost analysis, and entitlement analysis in DOT projects. He is familiar with DOT's specifications, policies, and procedures. Mr. Wenick is a registered engineer in Florida and a certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Wenick obtained information from DOT concerning its history in receiving sole bids for a project and the instances in which the sole bidder was awarded the contract. Mr. Wenick looked at procedures followed by DOT in awarding contracts. Mr. Wenick looked at the DOT experience in re- letting bids to determine if a company was a low bidder in the first letting when bids were rejected, and what percentage of the time that low bidder would succeed in being awarded the contract upon a re-letting. Mr. Wenick prepared certain charts intended to depict the DOT response in the areas examined by the witness. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 3 is referred to as Problem Jobs for the April 28, 2004, letting, with two posting dates of May 20, 2004, and June 7, 2004, respectively. The chart depicts the proposal I.D. number (bid), the project number and the type of problem identified in reviewing bid responses and a brief statement of the Technical Committee's comments and the Awards Committee's disposition in those projects depicted. Nothing more is described in the chart. In no case set forth in the chart was the type of problem described in any detail or, limited to an experience with a single bidder, as opposed to perceived problems in relation to the bid that was too high, as well as having a single bidder or to the problem of having a bid that was too high alone. Seven projects were awarded. Two were not. The rejections were based upon the bids being too high. One of the projects initially awarded was later rejected due to the unavailability of local funding to support the project. Mr. Wenick prepared a chart, Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 4. This reflects the DOT award results for sole or single bidders from the period July 1999 through April 2005. The columns in the chart show the numeric count of sole bids, at certain letting dates, with the contracts numbers, the name of the low bidder, and the disposition of the bids. The numeric count of sole bids is a running tally over the period. This reflects 52 sole bids of which eight were rejected, making the percentage accepted 84.62 percent. Again the nature of the projects is not shown in the chart, and this chart does not indicate the basis for rejection. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 5 is another chart prepared by Mr. Wenick. It reflects instances in which projects were re-let for bid in the period July 1999 to April 2005. The letting dates are reflected. The project numbers, the low bidders names, if known, and the amount quoted is set out. The re-let date if the project was re-let is reflected. The low quote on re-bid and the low bidder's name on re-bid are reflected, as is the percentage difference between the low quote in the first letting and the low quote in the re- letting. Where data is established in all columns in the chart, 18 of the projects are shown to have been re-bid out of 24 projects that were bid initially. Within that group, five bidders who bid in the initial letting were awarded the contract in the re-letting, while 13 low bidders in the first letting were disappointed in the re-letting. This equates to 27.78 percent success rate by the low bidder in the initial letting when re-bidding in the re-letting. Having considered the exhibits prepared by Mr. Wenick, the information is insufficient to discern the reason for DOT's past policies and practices and to compare them to the present case for consistencies in the application of those policies and practices when rejecting bids. Additionally, the reason for the choices in any single project described in the charts cannot be appropriately understood from the charts and compared to the experience here. On the topic of the success rate for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting and the low bid in the re-letting, it is so general an analysis, that it cannot be relied upon to determine the real significance for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting, only to be disappointed in the re-letting when the contractor did not receive the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Rosiek Amended Formal Written Protest challenging the DOT decision to reject its bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact On June 7, 1988, the School Board of Broward County, Florida, sent an invitation to several insurance companies to submit bids on student accident insurance, Bid No. 89-1105, by 2:00 p.m. on June 20, 1988. The invitation required the bidding vendor to complete a bid form, attach a specimen policy to the bid form, and return this information to the School Board by the specified date. Joseph Herman Hughes, Jr., received a copy of the Invitation to Bid as the Petitioner's agent. Petitioner through its agent Hughes hand-delivered a bid form and a specimen policy to the Department of Purchasing for the School Board on June 20, 1988, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. When Hughes arrived in Fort Lauderdale on June 20, 1988, he was informed by the Department of Purchasing that the bid opening date had been extended to June 28, 1988. On June 20, 1988, Hughes received a copy of an addendum dated June 14, 1988, which revised page 8 of 14 pages to Bid No. 89- 1105 and page 9 of 14 pages to Bid No. 89-1105. Reliable timely submitted its bid on June 28, 1988. The bids were opened by the Department of Purchasing and Petitioner's bid of $210,820 per year for the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years was the lowest bid that was submitted. The bid specifications stated that a recommendation by the Director of the Department of Risk Management would be posted subsequently. On July 8, 1988, the recommendation of Risk Management was posted. The recommendation letter dated July 6, 1988, stated that the bid for student accident insurance should be awarded to Davis-Gillingham Associates, Inc., which bid $313,514 for the first year and $334,772 for the second year. The recommendation letter also stated that the bid from Reliable had been rejected because Part IV of the Reliable specimen policy included an additional exclusion which altered the specifications of Bid No. 89-110S. Reliable timely filed a protest to the recommendation and, after considering the protest, The School Board rejected it. Hughes was aware of Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions on Page 2 of the Invitation to Bid, which reads as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications should be submitted in writing and received by the Department of Purchasing no later than three (3) working days prior to the bid opening. Hughes had questions concerning the interpretation of the conditions and specifications of the bid, but did not follow that provision. Further, he was familiar with Paragraph 14 appearing on Page 4 of 14 entitled "INFORMATION," which reads as follows: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mrs. Sharon Swan, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (305) 765- 6086 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. Swan nor any employee of the School Board of Broward County is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to 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, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. It is clear that Hughes had from approximately the 9th or 10th of June to the 28th of June to make any written inquiries to Mrs. Swan concerning either an interpretation or information, as provided for on Page 2 in Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions and Page 4 of 14 pages of the Special Conditions, but never did so. The provision entitled "Coverages" subsection "Medical and Hospital Expense Benefits" on Page 8 of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: If the insured, within thirty days following the date of accident, because of injury caused accidently and independently of all other causes, shall require treatment by a licensed physician, the Company will pay, on the basis specified in Paragraphs A through K as follows, the expenses incurred within fifty-two (52) weeks after date of accident for ... Hughes wrote, in the exclusion portion of the specimen policy required to be attached to the bids submitted, Reliable's Paragraph J (1): "Any injury not treated within 30 days by a licensed physician ... after date of accident." The exclusion Hughes wrote specifically means that if a person is not treated within thirty days of the date of the accident there will be no coverage. The wording in the bid specifications does not provide that treatment must be rendered within thirty days; rather, the specification is that the treatment be required within thirty days. The exclusionary provision provided for in Reliable's specimen policy constitutes a significant restriction in coverage from the coverage described in the bid specifications. Therefore, the wording contained in J-1 of the exclusions of the specimen policy submitted by Reliable materially altered the specifications required by the School Board's Invitation to Bid number 89-1105 for student accident insurance. Reliable's bid was properly rejected from consideration in the award of the bid. Paragraph 7 of page 3 of 14 pages, Special Conditions, Bid No. 89- 1105, states as follows: All bids shall be for the benefits as specified in this Bid Document. In the event of any conflict between the terms of these specifications and terms of the Policy issued on a bid submitted under these specifications, it is understood and agreed to by the bidder and the insurance company that the policy is amended to conform with these specifications, unless specifically waived in writing by the School Board of Broward County, Florida. The clear intent of the wording in Paragraph 7 of the Special Conditions provides that if the policy that is issued after the bid is awarded does not conform to the bid, then the effect of Paragraph 7 of the Special Conditions is to automatically reform the policy to be read as though it did comply with the bid. However, all bids must be for the benefits (coverage) specified in the Invitation to Bid. Paragraph 7 of the Special Conditions found on Page 3 of the Invitation to Bid applies, if at all, only after the award of the bid and does not serve to cure defects in bid submissions. Reliable's policy does not conflict with the bid specifications; rather, its bid materially alters the bid specifications. Paragraph 1 of page 3 of 14 pages, Special Conditions, Bid No. 89- 1105, states as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida, desires bids on Student Accident Insurance as specified herein. This aid is to, establish a two (2) year term contract from August 29, 1988 through August 30, 1990 or the day preceding the opening day of school for students in the school year 1990-91. Prices quoted shall remain firm for the two year contract period. Requiring policies to be firm or definite for multiple contract periods is common in the industry. To require prices to remain firm for a 2- year contract period means that the premium for year one and the premium for year two must each remain fixed at the amounts bid for those respective years. The fact that there are different premiums for the two different years does not require a separate policy. The submission by Davis-Gillingham Associates, Inc., was in compliance with that bid specification of the Invitation to Bid as the premium for each coverage year is not required to be identical. Rather, the prices quoted for the two coverage years may not be altered during the contract period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the bid protest of The Reliable Life Insurance Company and awarding Bid No. 89-1105 to Davis-Gillingham Associates, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3842BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 11, 13-15, 25, 27, 29 and 30 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 8, 16-19, and 22 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issue under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 10 and 20 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioners proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 31 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Leary, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 K. Michael Swann, Esquire William M. Rishoi, Esquire 280 West Canton Avenue, Suite 240 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Arthur Hanby, Director School Board of Broward County Purchasing Department 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 27th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether the Petitioner's notice of bid protest filed on June 5, 1996, was timely under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and, if not, whether Petitioner has waived its right to participate in bid protest proceedings; and (2) if Petitioner's bid protest was timely filed, whether the Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioner's bid.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a general contractor which operates in Alachua County and surrounding areas. The Respondent is the governing body of the school district in Alachua County. In April and May, 1996, the Respondent publicly advertised an Invitation to Bid on the Project which consists of hard courts for basketball, driveway paving and new drainage provisions. Petitioner and three other bidders timely submitted sealed bids to the Respondent at its office located at the E. Manning, Jr. Annex, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's bid proposal included a Contractor's Qualification Statement setting forth Petitioner's experience and financial qualifications to act as the general contractor for the Project. There is no evidence that Petitioner is disqualified as a responsible bidder because: (a) it colluded with other bidders; (b) it based its proposal on bid prices which were obviously unbalanced; (c) it included any false entry in its bid proposal; or (d) it failed to completely fill out the required list of subcontractors. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth any other specific conditions which would disqualify an otherwise responsible bidder. However, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all bids when it determines that such rejection is in its interest. Respondent publicly opened the bids and read them aloud at 2:00 P.M. on May 9, 1996 as required by the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not attend the opening of the bids. The Invitation to Bid specified that the bids would be "tabulated and evaluated by the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County or member or members of his staff or other individual or individuals designated by him." Edward Gable is Respondent's Director of Facilities. The Superintendent designated Mr. Gable to evaluate bids received for facility projects and to formulate recommendations to Respondent. The Invitation to Bid does not set forth a time certain in which Respondent will notify bidders of its decision or intended decision. However, it does state as follows: At the next regular or special meeting of the Board or at the designated meeting thereafter, the bids, as so opened, tabulated and evaluated, and the recommend- ation of the Superintendent of Schools of Alachua County regarding them shall be presented to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the requirements of the law and the State Board of Education Regulations. In Section 19.1 of the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent informs bidders that it will award the contract to the lowest bidder as soon as possible provided that the lowest bid is reasonable and in Respondent's best interest. The Invitation to Bid provides bidders with the following notice relative to Respondent's decision or intended decision concerning a contract award: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. Notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statues, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written "Notice of Protest" within seventy-two (72) hours after posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days after filing the 'Notice of Protest.' Section 17.1 of the Instructions to Bidders contains the following language concerning Respondent's decision or intended decision: 17.1 The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a contract award. For any other decision, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. Section 18.1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides as follows: Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted for review by interested parties at the Planning and Construction Department, 1817 East University Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, following the bid opening, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute as (sic) waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders distinguish between a protest concerning a contract award and a protest related to the specifications contained in an invitation to bid or in a request for proposals. In the latter context, a bidder must file a written protest within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of the project plans and specifications. This case does not involve a protest of a bid solicitation. By virtue of the above referenced provisions in the Invitation to Bid and the Instructions to Bidders, Respondent gave all bidders sufficient and reasonable notice that a posted tabulation together with its recommendation constituted Respondent's intended decision. The bid specifications in the instant case required bidders to submit a bid on a base contract for certain school facility improvements with alternate bids relative to additional improvements in the event Respondent decided to include such features in the Project. Petitioner's base bid was $135,000; it was the lowest bid submitted. The next low bid was from Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson) at $133,345. Two additional bids were higher than Watson's bid. On the morning of May 30, 1996 one of Petitioner's employees, Roger "Dave" Williams" phoned Mr. Gable to inquire about the status of the bid award. Mr. Gable was unavailable to take the call. Mr. Williams left a message for Mr. Gable to return the call. Next, at approximately 10:00 a.m. on May 30, 1996, Mr. Williams called a member of Mr. Gable's staff who stated that, as far as he knew, Respondent had not made a decision on the contract. Mr. Gable completed his evaluation and posted the bid tabulation on May 30, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. Included on the bid tabulation was the following statement: RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Board reject the low base bid as submitted by D. E. Wallace Construction Corporation, Alachua, Florida, due to past unsatisfactory contract performance. It is recommended that the Board accept the base bid of $133,345. and award a contract for construction totaling $133,345. to Watson Construction, Gainesville, Florida. Completion of this project shall be within ninety (90) consecutive calendar days from the date indicated in the 'Notice to Proceed.' The bid tabulation clearly notes that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Respondent regularly posts notices of intended decisions concerning bid awards on a bulletin board in the main hallway of the E. D. Manning Annex. A title at the top of the bulletin board identifies it as the location for bid postings. Respondent posts a copy of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and a copy of the Respondent's Policy DJC--Bidding Requirements below the title of the bulletin board. Respondent has adopted Policy DJC as a rule through a formal rulemaking process. Policy DJC states as follows in pertinent part: The Board shall provide notice of its decision or intended decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award. For a bid solicitation, notice of a decision or intended decision shall be given by United States mail or by hand delivery. For any other Board decisions, notice shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where the bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. The notice shall contain the following two paragraphs. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person who is affected adversely by the decision or intended decision shall file with the Board a written notice of protest within 72 hours after the posting or notification. A formal written protest shall be filed within 10 calendar days after filing the notice of protest. . . . Failure to file a timely notice of protest or failure to file a timely formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Immediately below Policy DJC is a space where Respondent always posts its bid tabulations which include the recommended action on each project and notice that "[f]ailure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." The bottom of the board, in large letters, contains the following words: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." This permanent bulletin board, read as a whole, contains more than enough information to provide bidders with notice of an intended decision and the time frames within which a disappointed bidder must file a written protest. Although he was not required to do so, Mr. Gable telephoned Petitioner's office on the afternoon of May 30, 1996 to advise its president, D. Wallace, of the recommendation. Petitioner was not available to accept that call. Mr. Gable placed another courtesy telephone call to Petitioner on the morning of May 31, 1996. During that conversation, Mr. Gable informed Mr. Wallace of the recommendation for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid and accept the next lowest bid. Petitioner's representative inspected the posting board in the afternoon on May 31, 1996. On June 3, 1996, Respondent sent Petitioner by facsimile transmission a copy of the agenda for Respondent's June 4 meeting, items H.1. of which was: H.1. Bid Award for Project SBAC CB436 - Newberry High School Site Improvements. Bids for the construction of this project were received on May 9, 1996. Recommendation will be presented. The seventy-two hour window in which a bidder may file a protest does not include Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. Therefore, the time in which a bidder could have filed a protest of Respondent's intended decision in this case, expired June 4, 1996 at 3:00 p.m. No bidder had filed a written protest at that time. Respondent held a regular meeting on June 4, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. When Respondent considered the bid award for Project SBAC CB 436, Mr. Gable presented the recommendation that the Board reject Petitioner's bid and accept Watson's bid due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory contract performance. Petitioner's counsel spoke against the recommendation. At that time the Petitioner had not filed any written notice of protest. After discussion, Respondent voted to award the contract to Watson. Respondent and Watson executed a contract for the construction of the Project on June 4, 1996. The next day, on June 5, 1996, at 3:40 p.m., Petitioner filed with Respondent, by facsimile transmission, a Notice of Protest challenging the award of the contract for the Project to Watson. The filing of this protest was untimely. Therefore, Petitioner waived its right to protest Respondent's decision or intended decision on the Project. The basis of Respondent's intended decision and ultimate final decision to reject Petitioner's low bid was due to Petitioner's past unsatisfactory performance. The following facts support a finding that Petitioner was not a responsible bidder. Respondent awarded Petitioner the contract for a previous construction project, Project SBAC CA 149, Additions and Renovations for Terwillegar Elementary School. That project included the construction of a number of school buildings. The contract amount was approximately 5.1 million dollars. The last building in the Terwillegar project became "substantially complete" in September, 1995. In January, 1996, Mr. Gable wrote a letter to Petitioner, informing him of the outstanding punch list items for the Terwillegar project. A contractor must complete punch list items and have them approved prior to "final completion." In the Terwillegar Project, the contract provided for compilation of items on the punch list within thirty (30) days from "substantial completion." As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to Mr. Gable's letter about the Terwillegar punch list, nor had it completed the punch list. Many of the items on the list were minor, but some of the items involved the safety or integrity of the building structure. The Terwillegar project contract also contained a project closeout section which listed a variety of documents and other materials that Petitioner had to provide to Respondent as part of the "final completion." Included in the Terwillegar project's closeout were items such as insurance change-over requirements, warranties, workmanship bonds, maintenance agreements, final certifications, a final payment request, consent of surety, maintenance manuals, record drawings, record specifications, record project date, and operating instructions. As of May 30, 1996, Petitioner had not provided any of the Terwillegar project closeout materials to the Respondent. The delay in project closeout, after substantial completion, is completely unacceptable to the Respondent. Prior to the opening of bids in this case, Petitioner filed a civil suit against Respondent seeking approximately $1,500,000 representing the unpaid contract balance, subcontractors' and material suppliers' claims for labor and material, and other delay-related damages on the Terwillegar project. Petitioner's claim that Respondent's intended decision and/or final decision was based on personal animosity and bias against Mr. Wallace is contrary to more persuasive evidence. Specifically, Petitioner's Exhibit 6 is not persuasive evidence of bias. The Petitioner's president, D.E. Wallace, has over 30 years in the construction field, including 22 years as an owner/operator of a general contractor company. He has completed more than 100 projects in north Florida in the past eighteen (18) years, including 30 school board construction projects. Mr. Wallace has worked on approximately nine (9) school board projects in Alachua County. He holds himself out as being "completely familiar and knowledgeable in government and building codes, ordinances, regulations, etc."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's protest as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Worthy, Esquire 4128 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32609 Thomas L. Wittmer, Esquire 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601-5498 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Allstate Construction's (Allstate) bid was delivered in time. Whether Florida State University (FSU) had the authority to waive the lateness of Allstate's bid if it was late. Whether the failure by Allstate to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 was a bidding irregularity. Whether Allstate's failure to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 could be waived by FSU.
Findings Of Fact Florida State University requested bids for repairs to the roof and walls of Thagard Student Health Center on July 2, 1992. Thereafter, two addenda were issued. The first addendum was issued on July 27, 1992, and the second on July 28, 1992. Item #1 of Specifications in Addendum No. 1, which is attached, changed the date the bids were to be presented to August 6, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 124-D of Mendenhall Maintenance Building at FSU. Item #1 to Specifications in Addendum No. 2, which is attached, changed the specifications of ringlets and counterflashings published in Item #4 to Specifications in Addendum No. 1; and Item #2 in Addendum No. 2 changed the specifications of the materials in the cants published in the original specifications. On August 6, 1992, representatives of Harrell, Southeast, and FSU were present in Room 124-D, Mendenhall Maintenance Building prior to 2:00 p.m. Harrell and Southeast had already presented their bids to Sallie Dixon, FSU's representative. One of the persons present had called upon Ms. Dixon to call time and open the bids, but she had not done so when Dot Mathews and Joe O'Neil entered the room. Mr. O'Neil announced to those present that Ms. Mathews was late because he had misdirected her to another part of the building when Ms. Mathews's had entered the office he was in, Room 124, and had asked directions. Ms. Mathews immediately handed Allstate's bid to Ms. Dixon, and Ms. Dixon received it. Immediately, Ms. Dixon opened, tabulated, and posted the bids. Allstate had the lowest responsible bid. Allstate's bid did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2. FSU's rules on bidding provide that the official time will be that of the clock in the reception area of the Purchasing Department; however, the opening was held in Mendenhall Maintenance Building because of repairs to the Purchasing Department, and the university's officials were uncertain whether the reception area and clock existed at the time of the opening. It was the clear impression of all present, except Ms. Mathews, that the bid presented by Ms. Mathews was after 2:00 p.m. The estimates of the time varied, but none placed the time beyond 2:04 p.m. FSU generally sent an acknowledgment form with an addendum which required the bidders to acknowledge receipt of the addendum; however, in this instance, the addendum was sent by the supervising engineer, and an acknowledgment form was not sent with the addendum. The specifications did not require acknowledgment of addenda. The essence of the substantial amount of testimony received on the impact of the changes was (1) that the change in thickness of materials had a negligible impact, and (2) the real change in costs was the result of the requirement that the paint finish be by the manufacturer. The requirement that the materials be painted by the manufacturer was part of Addendum No.1. Further, the bidders are deemed manufacturers, and the finish that they put on the manufactured items is "by the manufacturer". Although testimony was received that Petitioner would have manufactured the items and then had them coated thereby increasing their total costs, an alternative method of manufacture was described by Allstate's representative in which the painted raw materials are retouched after being cut and welded into the finished structures. Petitioner's choice of the first method was explained by its representative to be its effort to comply with the bid requirement that the winning contractor guarantee the finish for twenty years. Intervenor's choice was to use the second method. To the extent that one method may have been more expensive that the other, there was no prohibition of the Petitioner to adopt the less expensive method; and, therefore, there was no economic advantage to Allstate. In the absence of an economic advantage to Allstate, Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 was a minor irregularity. FSU waived the lateness of Allstate's bid and Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2, and awarded the bid to Allstate.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed, and the bid be awarded to Allstate Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-5465BID Florida State University and Allstate Construction, Inc. submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Florida State University's Proposed Findings: Para 1-4 Adopted. Para 5-7 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 8 Adopted. Para 9-11 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 12-24 Adopted. Para 25 Not necessary/irrelevant. Allstate Construction's Proposed Findings: Para 1,2 Adopted. Para 3 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 4-8 Adopted. Para 9 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 10-15 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendell Parker Mike Harrell Harrell Roofing, Inc. P.O. Box 20421 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Sonja Mathews Florida State University 540 W. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4038 Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr. 3375-A Capital Circle, N.E. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jeff Miller Route 16, Box 1307 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Dale W. Lick, President Florida State University 211 Westcott Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-1037 Gerold B. Jaski, General Counsel Florida State University 540 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306
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.
