The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Transportation (DOT), arbitrarily refused to accept the low bid submitted by the Petitioner, Quinn Construction, Inc. (Quinn), and Bay Machine, Inc., for State Project No. 15200-3902.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 7, 1994, the Petitioner, Quinn Construction, Inc. (Quinn), submitted a $1,695,534.84 bid on behalf of Quinn and Bay Machine, Inc., in response to a November, 1994, Department of Transportation (DOT) solicitation for bids on State Project No. 15200-3902. State Project No. 15200-3902 was essentially the same project for which the DOT previously solicited bids on or about July 1, 1994. The earlier solicitation for bids was cancelled when all bids were rejected, and the bid solicitation process was reinitiated. All bidders were required to furnish a bid guaranty, and the parties stipulate that any bid not accompanied by a bid guaranty would be declared nonresponsive. Attached to the Quinn/Bay Machine bid was a Bid or Proposal Bond on DOT Form 375-020-09. There was only one bridge rehabilitation project for Pinellas County among the projects for which the DOT was opening bids on December 7, 1994, and the bid bond was attached to the bid proposal of Quinn and Bay Machine for State Project No. 15200-3902. Utilizing the DOT form, the Quinn bid bond described the proposal being bonded as being "for constructing or otherwise improving a road(s) and/or bridge(s) or building(s) in Pinellas County; particularly known as Bayway 7918 Bridge Rehab." The part of the form calling for identification of the "Project No." was left blank. The bid bond was executed by James M. Moore as attorney- in-fact for North American Specialty Insurance Company. In addition to calling for the "Project No." in DOT Bid or Proposal Bond Form 375-020-09, the DOT routinely furnishes all bidders a Bidder's Checklist which reminds bidders to use the form and to identify the project on the form by county, by the federal aid number(s), if applicable, and by the State Project Job Number. Although the Bidder's Checklist was not in the bid package received by Quinn in connection with the November, 1994, solicitation for bids, Quinn received a Bidder's Checklist for the July, 1994, solicitation for bids on the same project and for many other previous bid solicitations. In prior bid proposal submissions, including the bid proposal submitted for the same project in August, 1994, Quinn had its surety use the "Project No." to identify the project on the bid bond. The attorney-in-fact for the bond company testified that the number 7918 on the bond was a typographical error. He testified that he thought 798 was the number that was supposed to be on the bond to identify the project. The WPI No. for the project was 7116982. The applicable State Road number was 679. The applicable bridge number was 150049. Although DOT Bid or Proposal Bond on DOT Form 375-020-09 called for identification of the "Project No.," DOT would have accepted a bid bond that identified the project by any of these numbers or by the official name of the bridge, if any. The bridge in question has no official name. It was not even proven that the bridge is commonly known as the Bayway 7918 Bridge, or even as the Bayway Bridge. The bridge in question is part of the Pinellas Bayway, which is a system of roads, causeways and bridges connecting St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg Beach and several small keys in Boca Ciega Bay. There are two state roads on the Pinellas Bayway: State Road 682, which connects State Road 699 to the west on St. Petersburg Beach to Interstate 275 to the east in St. Petersburg; and State Road 679, which intersects State Road 682 and runs south through Tierra Verde into Fort DeSoto Park on Mullet Key. Both 682 and 679 have combination fixed-span and bascule (draw) bridges. The bridge in question is on 679. When the DOT opened the bid of Quinn and Bay Machine, the incorrect identification of the project on the bid bond was noticed, and the question was referred to the Technical Review Committee. During its meeting on December 21, 1994, the Technical Review Committee sought the advice of its legal counsel and was advised that the bond probably would not be enforceable due to the inaccurate identification of the project to which it pertained. Based in part on the advice of counsel, the Technical Review Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the DOT Contract Awards Committee that the bid proposal be rejected as being non-responsive because of the bid bond. On December 23, 1994, the Contract Awards Committee met and voted unanimously to reject the bid proposal as being non-responsive because of the bid bond. Instead, the Committee accepted the bid proposal of M & J Construction Company of Pinellas County, Inc. (M & J). It was not arbitrary for the DOT to conclude that the Quinn bid bond was, or might well have been, unenforceable due to the inaccurate identification of the project to which it pertained. The DOT did not even consider whether the Quinn bid bond also may have been invalid and unenforceable because it named just Quinn as the principal, instead of both Quinn and Bay Machine, the actual entity that was prequalified to bid on the project and the actual entity bidding on the project. It also was not arbitrary for the DOT to conclude that submitting an unenforceable bid bond is not a minor irregularity. If a successful bidder does not enter into a contract, the project would be delayed while it is being rebid. The delay itself would result in a monetary loss. In addition, rebidding the project would result in additional costs to the DOT. Submitting an unenforceable bid bond could give a bidder the competitive advantage of feeling able to escape from having to contract and perform in accordance with a low bid, if advantageous to the bidder, without being liable under the bid bond.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's bid protest and awarding State Project No. 15200-3902 to M & J Construction Company of Pinellas County, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 26th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0564BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. (It appears that the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are found at pages 2-5 of its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. For purposes of these rulings, the unnumbered paragraphs on those pages are assigned consecutive numbers.) Rejected in part. (Joint Exhibit 2 refers to State Road 679, not the project, as having the "Local Name: Pinellas Bayway." Joint Exhibit 5 also only refers to State Road 679, not the project, by the name "Pinellas Bayway." Only the front covers of the technical specs refer to the "Pinellas Bayway Bridge." The other pages refer to the "Pinellas Bayway," and all of the pages also include the State Project Number.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second and last sentences, rejected as not proven. Rejected in part as argument and in part as not proven. Last sentence accepted, but ambiguous and not legally significant, subordinate and unnecessary, whether DOT could "tie" the bid bond to the bid. Penultimate sentence, rejected in part as not proven (that Exhibit 4 "identified the project as the Pinellas Bayway"); otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. The rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. (The evidence was clear that the DOT form requires a state project number and that the Bidder's Checklist provided to bidders by the DOT reminds bidders to use the form and identify the project by county, federal aid number(s), if applicable, and State Project Job Number.) Second sentence, subordinate and cumulative. Rejected as conclusion of law. Last sentence rejected as not proven that North American identified the project or that it used the local name of the bridge. The rest is rejected as not proven because the evidence was clear that the DOT form requires a state project number and that the Bidder's Checklist provided to bidders by the DOT reminds bidders to use the form and identify the project by county, federal aid number(s), if applicable, and State Project Job Number.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that DOT was arbitrary. The rest is subordinate, in part cumulative and in part argument. Subordinate, cumulative and argument. Rejected in part as conclusion of law, in part as argument and in part as not proven. Respondent's and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact. All of the DOT's and the Intervenor's proposed findings of fact are accepted and are incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne Quinn, Esquire 1321 77th Street East Palmetto, Florida 34221 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Joseph G. Thresher, Esquire One Mack Center 501 E. Kennedy Bouelvard, Suite 725 Tampa, Florida 33602 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Respondent HRS published ITB 590:2306 for existing rental space in the central area of Brooksville, Florida. The bid solicitation specified a bid opening time and date of 2:00 p.m. July 17, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted sealed bids. They were the only two bidders. Neither they nor anyone else timely filed any protest of the bid specifications, and therefore the specifications are not subject to attack in this proceeding. Petitioner received a notice of intent to award the bid for lease 590:2306 to Intervenor by letter from Respondent dated August 27, 1991 and timely filed its notice of intent to protest and formal bid protest. Petitioner accordingly has standing to bring this proceeding. Intervenor is the intended awardee and as such has standing to intervene. Petitioner submitted the property located at 7348 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida, and showed in his bid submittal form that his proposed property contained 22,500 net square feet, with future expansion of 2,100 square feet available. When Petitioner submitted his bid, it included a floor plan, site plan, and a PUR 7068 form. A PUR 7068 form is a "Public Entity Crime Certification Statement," a sworn statement under Section 287.133(a) F.S. The ITB included two separate requirements for bidders to establish that they have control over the property that they submit to HRS. HRS' purposes in requiring bidders to demonstrate control are to prevent bids based on total speculation, to establish a reasonable expectation that the bidder can meet his obligations if awarded the bid, and to establish a reasonable expectation that the property can be occupied on time. Item 1 on page 3 provides as follows: Control of property - This pertains to both the structure(s) and proposed parking areas. To submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor must meet one of the following qualifications: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (submit copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documen- tation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas through the base lease term and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas. d.) Submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to in turn, sublease. Any lease must encompass the entire time period of the basic lease and any renewal option periods as required the state. e.) Submit form PUR. 7068 Sworn Statement of Public Entity Crimes (Attachment H). Page 12 provides, in part, as follows: In order for a bid proposal to be accepted the items 1 through 6 must be included in the bid proposal. Items 7 through 11 must be included, if applicable. [Items 11 and 13 state:] 11. Documentation showing bidder as controller of property. 13. Public Enemy [sic] Crime Certification Statement A pre-bid conference attended by Petitioner made clear that evidence of control and the PUR 7068 form were two different items. Petitioner testified that he attached the PUR 7068 form as his sole basis for evidencing control of the building and parking spaces he submitted for lease, and acknowledged that, in fact, the form did not provide any information with regard to his control of the buildings or parking spaces offered for lease. Petitioner's assertion that his name on some of his site plans, etc. constitutes evidence of control is not persuasive. Such assertion is not in line with the ITB requirements or even common sense. Petitioner Proctor owned the buildings he offered HRS in his bid submittal. Petitioner offered multiple buildings separated by parking areas and driveways. The property offered by Petitioner was to have built an awning- covered walkway between buildings but the walkway would have to be placed through the driveway area of the property. The expansion area for Petitioner's property designated in its bid submittal was composed of approximately 10 gated warehouse units which would be converted to office space. Petitioner had leased a portion of the same premises to HRS for 15 years, and HRS was still leasing that portion at the time of the bid opening. At the time of the bid opening, another portion of the property Petitioner proposed to be leased to HRS was also already rented to other tenants, including a lease to the Florida Department of Labor which was not scheduled to expire until December 31, 1991, one day prior to HRS' proposed first day of occupancy under the ITB. The space leased to the Department of Labor would require some renovation for HRS' use, at least to connect it on the interior with the rest of the building. The remainder of the second, adjacent, building to be rented under Petitioner's bid would require more extensive renovation to create office spaces to meet HRS' needs. In addition to the Department of Labor, Petitioner was also renting space in the second building to a beauty salon, a book store, an office supply store, a clothing store, and a barber at the time of bid submittal and opening and at the time of the formal hearing. These latter tenants were on month-to-month leases. In order to ensure that there would be time for necessary renovations before January 1, 1992 and further to ensure that the property would be available for occupancy on January 1, 1992, the ITB required in the following unequivocal language that all bidders file tenant acknowledgments of the bid/proposed lease with their bid submittal: Existing Tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date must be included with the bid submittal. [Emphasis added] Petitioner submitted no tenant acknowledgments from any of his tenants with his bid to HRS. Even though Petitioner failed to submit evidence of control in the form of a deed and further failed to submit the required acknowledgments from tenants occupying the premises on the bid date, HRS did not immediately disqualify Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive. Instead, HRS evaluated Petitioner's bid simultaneously with Intervenor TCC's bid. HRS relied on old leases in its files and actual knowledge that monthly rent was paid to Petitioner for its own currently leased space, and HRS ignored the absence of tenant acknowledgments with Petitioner's bid. HRS followed this course of action despite the requirement of the ITB on page 7, item 1 under EVALUATION OF BIDS which unequivocally provides: Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. This includes submittal on bid submittal forms, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, signatures and notarization, etc. Non responsive [sic] bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. The portion of the ITB designated, Documents Required To Be Submitted With Bid Submittal For Existing Buildings on page 12, item 4. required bidders to submit "Scale Floor Plans showing present configurations with dimensions." Page 3 of 22, Item 9.(b) further required that, as a part of the bid submittal, bidders were to provide "A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0") floor plan showing present configuration with measurements." Contrary to the ITB requirement, Petitioner submitted a floor plan scaled at 1/20" = 1', which also failed to reflect the present configurations with all measurements. Petitioner's scaled floor plan submitted with his bid was prepared prior to the present addition to one building and contained a hand- drawn configuration without accurate measurements for the northwest corner of one building. The term of the lease as shown on the ITB and Bid Submittal Form was 9 and one-half years with an option to renew for 2-5 year renewal periods. At the time of the bid opening on July 17, 1991, the bid submitted by Petitioner failed to have any proposed rental rates shown for "Renewal Options: Option II years 1 through 5." HRS permitted Petitioner to correct or supplement its bid after the bid opening (same date and place) to cover this material omission. Page 6, item 4 of the ITB provided for the property owner or other bidding entity to sign the bid submission. The pertinent part states: 4. Each bid submitted shall be signed by the owner(s) corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. ALL BID SUBMITTAL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS. [Emphasis appears in ITB] Petitioner Proctor signed his bid submittal in proper person. TCC's bid submittal was signed by Sharon K. Lane, "Executive Director," of TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc., Intervenor herein. At all times material, TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc. has been a Florida corporation. At the time of the bid opening, Ms. Lane was TCC's sole shareholder and "all officers." At the time of formal hearing, Ms. Lane remained the sole shareholder, but others had assumed some of the corporate offices. Her status at the time of the bid submittal was sufficient for her to bid on behalf of the TCC corporation and to execute the PUR 7068 form on that corporation's behalf. Intervenor TCC submitted the required PUR 7068 form, but TCC submitted as sole evidence of control an undated, unrecorded "Contract for Sale and Purchase" by and between Hernando Plaza Ltd. as Seller and Intervenor TCC as Buyer, for the property which Intervenor was offering for lease to HRS. The best date assignable to this document is April 29, 1991. It was executed on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves as general partners of the limited partnership. TCC's obligation to proceed to closing under the foregoing contract was contingent upon TCC's securing an anchor tenant. However, the contract requires TCC to take steps to secure an anchor tenant. By its terms, TCC may purchase the property with or without an anchor tenant, but the contract requires TCC, in seeking an anchor tenant, to set time limits for the lease arrangement with the proposed anchor tenant which do not necessarily accord with the timing of HRS' bid process. HRS accepted TCC's contract to purchase from Hernando Plaza Ltd., as evidence of TCC's control of the premises offered by TCC for lease, believing it to constitute an option to purchase and the necessary evidence of control as required by the ITB. (See, Finding of Fact 6, supra.) At the time of the bid opening, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with a legal entity other than the record title owner of the property, which record title owner was and is the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation (Brown Foundation). See, infra. Up to that date, at least, Hernando Plaza Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as the owner of the property. The ITB did not require that an abstract of title be submitted with the bid, and HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contains provisions for future disclosure from successful bidders. (See, ITB item 5 under Requirements for Bidders to Submit Bids.) Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS attempts to protect itself by requiring successful bidders to put up an irrevocable letter of credit for one-half of one percent of the proposed lease rental obligation over the basic lease term as a penalty in the event a successful bidder cannot perform. (See, ITB page 4, item 10.) Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s certificate from the Florida Secretary of State expired December 31, 1981. That fact was advertised and the certificate cancelled July 16, 1982. At that time, Edward M. Strawgate was listed as a general partner and Harold Brown was listed as a limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd. Hernando Plaza Ltd. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. Subsequent to the time that Intervenor submitted its bid proposal, but prior to formal hearing, Hernando Plaza Ltd. was reinstated by the Florida Secretary of State. Once reinstated, the limited partnership's ability to act related back and validated its prior actions. At all times material, the record title of the property offered by Intervenor TCC for lease to HRS was owned by "Harold Brown, Lillian Brown and Muriel Kahr as Trustees of the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation." This title is derived from a recorded June 30, 1967 warranty deed from Hernando Plaza Ltd., which deed was admitted in evidence at formal hearing. The warranty deed was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. Neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid to HRS on behalf of the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. There is also in evidence a recorded December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease between the Brown Foundation and City National Bank. That Amendment to Lease also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal to evidence control of the premises TCC was offering to lease to HRS. That Amendment to Lease also recites that Hernando Plaza Ltd. leased back the subject property from the Brown Foundation by a lease dated June 30, 1967. The June 30, 1967 lease was not recorded, was not part of TCC's bid submittal, and is not in evidence. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to recite that Hernando Plaza Ltd. has assigned its lessee interest under the June 30, 1967 lease to City National Bank by a March 14, 1978 assignment. There is also in evidence a recorded March 14, 1978 "Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease from Hernando Plaza Ltd. to City National Bank." This assignment was not part of TCC's bid submittal. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to further recite that the Brown Foundation has "agreed to give and grant to [Hernando Plaza Ltd.] an option to purchase the property." The remainder of the December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease details the terms or conditions of the option to purchase granted by the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza. For instance, in order to exercise that option to purchase the subject property from the Brown Foundation, Hernando Plaza Ltd., among other requirements, would have to demonstrate that all the terms of the unrecorded June 30, 1967 lease are "in good standing." One may reasonably infer that "in good standing" would at a bare minimum mean that the rents under the lease are paid current at the time the option is exercised, but what the other terms of the lease might be are subject to pure conjecture. TCC's bid submittal did not include documentation that the June 30, 1967 lease was "in good standing." There is also in evidence a recorded June 7, 1989 Trustee's Deed (quitclaim deed of the trustee's interest) from City National Bank's successor bank/trustee to Hernando Plaza Ltd. The Trustee's Deed also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. On the date of bid submittal/opening neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. or City National Bank's successor. At formal hearing, TCC submitted an October 24, 1991 written hearsay statement by Harold Brown as Trustee of the Brown Foundation to the effect that Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s December 18, 1985 option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation was "in full force and effect" and that the June 30, 1967 lease back from the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza Ltd. was "in full force and effect and that the lessee is in good standing thereunder." Assuming these items may be considered in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.58 (1) F.S. as supplementing or explaining direct evidence, they still do not clarify in any way what all the terms of the unrecorded 1967 lease are or that those terms will remain in good standing on the date in the future that Hernando Plaza Ltd. elects to exercise its option, if it elects to exercise its option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation so that Hernando Plaza Ltd. may, in turn, convey the property to TCC, pursuant to Hernando Plaza Ltd. and TCC's April 29, 1991 contract for sale and purchase. Oddly enough, there is further explanatory hearsay that on October 24, 1991, Harold Brown was a trustee of the Brown Foundation and that he also was the sole limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd., although TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza for sale and purchase previously indicated Harold Brown was one of two general partners. Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation must be exercised by Hernando Plaza Ltd. before Hernando Plaza Ltd. can honor its contract to purchase/sell to TCC. Since there is no record evidence that the June 30, 1967 lease from the Brown Foundation as lessor to Hernando Plaza Ltd. as lessee will be in good standing on whatever future date Hernando Plaza Ltd. attempts to exercise its option with the Brown Foundation, one may only speculate both as to when and if TCC will be able to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza Ltd. TCC has only an option to become owner of the subject property at some unspecified date conditioned upon Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s first successfully exercising its option from the Brown Foundation and further conditioned upon all the terms of TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. Apparently, TCC's only recourse to enforce its contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. is a Circuit Court action for specific performance. TCC also submitted a site plan and floor plan with its bid submittal. The ITB required that offices on outside walls must provide windows. TCC's plans did not reflect windows in two sides of the building, but given HRS' retaining the right to partially design and locate its own halls and offices during the building's renovation, TCC's failure to show windows in the two outside walls is not, in and of itself, a material, disqualifying deviation from the ITB so as to unilaterally render TCC's bid nonresponsive. HRS staff member Donald J. Cerlanek prepared a bid synopsis of each bid. This involved completing a form from the HRS leasing manual which illustrates the characteristics of each of the bids. The bid requirements included evaluation criteria and a maximum amount of points which could be awarded for each criteria item. Five HRS bid evaluation committee members executed no conflict of interest forms. These were: Thomas C. Little Jr., David Thomley, Sylvia Smoot, Harvey Whitesides, and Mary Hawks. All committee members were given copies of the bid synopsis form to use in evaluating the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Some of the committee members did not obtain or review the actual bid submissions of each of the bidders, but all of them had access to the bid submissions and read the bid synopsis forms for both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submittals. The bid evaluation committee members, except for Mary Hawks, made site visits to the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Ms. Hawks essentially acted only as a facilitator or conduit for the evaluations of the other four evaluators as set out infra. The four site evaluators took notes regarding each location. The four site evaluators each assigned numerical weights to each item of evaluation criteria except for the rent and renewal rent portions of the evaluation criteria. Although on their site visits some committee members visiting TCC's site may have seen a color version of an artist's rendering of what TCC's project could look like after renovation was complete, a black and white version of the same artist's rendering was attached to TCC's bid submittal to which all committee members had access, and it is found that this situation in and of itself presented no false or misleading information nor constituted any prejudice to a fair bid process/evaluation. Likewise, although some evaluators discussed expansion prospects with TCC's and/or Proctor's on-site representatives, the evidence is credible and persuasive that each evaluator who visited the sites assessed the projects' respective expansion prospects substantially upon what they saw on each site and had experienced in Proctor's existing facility. The points awarded and reasons for the recommendations of each evaluator who visited the sites were reasonably based on specific needs of HRS. These specific needs of HRS were reasonably articulated by the two evaluators who made on-site inspections and who also testified at formal hearing and were reasonably set out in writing in the written notes of the two other evaluators who did not testify. Thomas C. Little, Jr., testified that he found the Intervenor's property superior as a result of the security problems at Petitioner's locations, the closer proximity of the courthouse, hospital, and health department to Intervenor's property and the superiority of a single building offered by Intervenor versus multiple buildings offered by Petitioner. Additionally, he found the esthetics of Petitioner's buildings lacking and expansion offered by Petitioner limited and was concerned that HRS would outgrow the space due to the fact that their service area is one of the most rapidly growing in Florida. His contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Sylvia Smoot, also a member of the evaluation committee, testified that she found Intervenor's facility superior based on its proximity to the courthouse, hospitals, and other key locations, and its flexibility of design and concentration of space in one building. She further found Petitioner's location lacking as a result of the three separate buildings, its limited expansion room, and the necessity for redirecting clients between buildings, and the difficulty for elderly and handicapped clients accessing Petitioner's building. Her contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Evaluators Whitesides and Thomley made substantially similar contemporaneous notes justifying their scoring of the two bidders. Three of the four site evaluators met as a group following the site visits and discussed the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. All four of the site evaluators made recommendations to accept the property for lease proposed by Intervenor, but they did not all confer and jointly develop a single recommendation to the facilities manager. The points assigned by each of the four site evaluators for the properties proposed by Petitioner and Intervenor were as follows: Evaluation Committee TCC Number Member's Names Proctor's Points 3's Points Thomley 75 98 Little 78 93 Whitesides 74 95 Smoot 80 91 307 377 The rent portion of the evaluation criteria was ascertained by applying present value methodology as set forth in the HRS leasing manual to the annual rents offered by the bidders. The discount factor was 8.32 percent. The present value of Proctor's bid was $1,934,038 and the present value of TCC's bid was $2,028,316. The leasing manual is considered advisory only. It advises present values be made, a determination of the difference in amounts be calculated and a comparison of the difference be made to determine a percentage. Thereafter, the percentage is applied to the maximum amount of points allocated for rent in the evaluation criteria. The lowest present value receives the maximum number of points allocated, and, thus, Proctor was awarded 35 points. TCC received 33 points, based upon the fact that its present value of rent was close to the present value submitted by Proctor. No penalty is imposed to a bidder whose rental amounts is higher than the lowest bidder. No benefit is conferred upon the lowest cost bidder over the next lowest bidder. Mary Hawks, Manager for Administrative Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received each of the individual evaluation recommendations from Thomley, Little, Whitesides and Smoot. As a result of travel restrictions placed on the HRS, the four site evaluators and Ms. Hawks, who was also a fifth committee member, did not meet as a group following the site visits although three of the four site evaluators did meet collectively following the site visits. (See Finding of Fact 43-44, supra.) The committee members could have met by telephone conference call but Mary Hawks found it unnecessary to do so because there was such a clear evaluation in favor of Intervenor based on the total composite evaluation scores of 377 for Intervenor and only 307 for Petitioner, out of a total of 400 points. She assigned no points herself but approved their recommendations and forwarded a single recommendation in favor of TCC for ultimate approval by HRS management. Mary Hawks had spoken to the evaluation committee members subsequent to the evaluation and no member had expressed any reservation regarding his/her evaluation or a need to meet to discuss anything additional regarding the bid evaluation. The HRS Intent to Award to TCC subsequently issued. The evaluation process and formula for rent evaluation are not among the more commonly used methods but were reasonable and rational and fairly applied to the bids in this case. No conflict of interest in the evaluation committee members was demonstrated by Petitioner in these proceedings.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that: The bid of TCC Number 3 Ltd. is nonresponsive; The bid of Derick Proctor is nonresponsive; Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2306 to either bidder. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5963BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Proctor's 74 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted, except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the recommended order (RO). Unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized: 1-3, sentence 1 of PFOF 4, 5-6, 9, 11-12, sentence 1 of PFOF 13, sentence 1 of PFOF 16, 17-26, sentence 1 of PFOF 29, 30-33, 35-36, sentences 1 and 4 of PFOF 38, 39-41, 44-54, 56-57, 60-61, 63. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute a proposed conclusion of law (PCOL) or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 4, sentence 2 of PFOF 16, 34, 43. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 10, sentence 2 of PFOF 13, 14- 15, sentence 2 of PFOF 29, sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 38, 55, 58. PFOF 7-8 are accepted as modified because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found and other parts are mere recitations of unreconciled portions of the record and legal argument. The following PFOF are accepted in part but not utilized because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, and other parts are rejected as immaterial to the dispositive issues herein, although correctly quoted from the record: 68-73. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or not dispositive: 27-28, 37, 42, 59, 62, 65, 67, 74. The following PFOF are covered in preliminary material: 64, 66. HRS 21 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-19. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 5, 9-10, 14-15, 21. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 20. PFOF 13 is accepted as modified to correctly reflect the credible record evidence as a whole. TCC Number 3 75 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-31, 34-38, 42- 45, 47-48, 56, 58-60, 64-69, 71-75. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 32. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 33, 40-41, 53-55, 57, 61-63, 70. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or as not dispositive: 39, 46, 49, 51-52. PFOF 50 is not a sentence, but the subject matter is covered in the RO as understood. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire Sam Power, Clerk Bette B. Lehmberg, Esquire Department of Health and Suite 800 Rehabilitative Services One 4th Street North 1323 Winewood Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent’s intended action to award Contract No. E3Q37 to VacVision Environmental, LLC, for “Milton Operations Routine Maintenance,” is contrary to Respondent’s solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the construction of all roads designated as part of the State Highway System or the State Park Road System, or of any roads placed under the Department’s supervision by law. See § 334.044, Fla. Stat. (2016).1/ Further, the Department has the duty to ensure that maintenance of sewers within the right-of-way of the roadways within its jurisdiction does not degrade the integrity of its facilities. See § 337.401, Fla. Stat. Petitioner, National Water Main Cleaning Co., is a full- service maintenance and rehabilitation pipe contracting business based in New Jersey. The company has been in business since 1949 and primarily contracts with government entities to perform storm and sanitary sewer inspection, cleaning, and repair. On October 11, 2016, the Department published a bid solicitation notice for the Contract, seeking contractors to desilt, remove blockages from, and install liners in existing underground sewer pipe on a specified state road in Santa Rosa County. The ITB included specifications, plans, and a proposal form with specific work items. The ITB contained the following relevant language requiring a bid bond for proposals over $150,000: For bids over $150,000.00, the standard proposal guaranty of 5% of the bid will be required. A Proposal Guaranty of not less than five percent (5%) of the total actual bid in the form of either a certified check, cashier’s check, trust company treasurer’s check, bank draft of any National or state bank, or a Surety Bid Bond made payable to the Florida Department of Transportation must accompany each bid in excess of $150,000.00. * * * Bid Bonds shall substantially conform to DOT Form 375-020-09 furnished with the Proposal. Surety2000 or SurePath electronic Bid Bond submittal may be used in conjunction with Bid Express internet bid submittal. For more information please visit https://www.surety2000.com [f]or Surety2000 or https://www.insurevision.com for SurePath. Paper Bid Bonds will also be accepted for bids submitted through Bid Express provided they are received prior to the deadline for receiving bids, by the locations(s) identified in the Bid Solicitation Notice for receiving bids for the advertised project(s). If an electronic bid bond is not being submitted, the bidder must submit an original bid bond. (A fax or copy sent as an attachment will not be accepted.) (emphasis added). The deadline for submission of bids was Thursday, November 10, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. On November 10, 2016, the Department received and opened bids from both Petitioner and Intervenor, as well as two other vendors. Petitioner’s bid for the project was the lowest at $504,380.70. Intervenor’s bid was the next lowest at $899,842. Petitioner submitted its bid for the project through Bid Express, the Department’s electronic bid submission website. Along with its bid, Petitioner submitted several attachments in a .zip file, including a .pdf copy of a bid bond from Traveler’s Casualty and Surety Company in the amount of 5 percent of the total amount of the bid. Petitioner did not submit an electronic bid bond through either Surety2000 or SurePath, nor did it submit the original paper bid bond prior to the deadline for submission of bids. The original paper bid bond remained in the possession of Petitioner’s President, Salvatore Perri, on the date of the final hearing. Petitioner’s bid was reviewed by employees of the Department’s District 3 Contracts Administration Office and deemed “non-responsive” because the bid bond submission did not comply with the bid specifications. On December 7, 2016, the Department posted its notice of intent to award the Contract to Intervenor. The .pdf copy of the bid bond Petitioner attached to its bid for the project was on Department form 375-020-09, Bid or Proposal Bond. Form 375-020-09 contains the following note: “Power of Attorney showing authority of Florida Licensed Insurance Agent to sign on behalf of, and bind, surety must be furnished with this form. Affix Corporate Seal of Surety.” The Power of Attorney accompanying Petitioner’s bid bond contains the following language: “Warning: THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER.” The attached Power of Attorney is a copy in black-and- white, rather than an original with the red border. Waiver Pursuant to the ITB, and by operation of section 120.57, Florida Statutes, the deadline to file a protest to the bid specifications was October 14, 2016, 72 hours after posting of the ITB. Petitioner did not file a protest to the specifications of the ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Transportation, enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, and award Contract E3Q37 for Milton Operations Routine Maintenance, to Intervenor, VacVision Environmental, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL 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 7th day of September, 1993.
The Issue These proceedings arose as the result of a bid solicita- tion issued by Respondent, Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), whereby DOAH sought the lease of office space. DOAH disqualified two proposals submitted by Petitioner, Parkway- Oakland General Partnership (Parkway), and proposed to award the lease to Intervenor, American National Bank of Florida (American Bank). Parkway protested the disqualification of its proposals and the intended award. The Koger Company (Koger) also protested the intended award, but filed a voluntary dismissal prior to the final hearing in Case No. 88-3357BID. By separate order, this Hearing Officer has entered an order closing her file on Case No. 88-3357BID. The disputed issues are described as follows by the parties in their prehearing stipulation and at final hearing: 1. Whether Parkway bid an existing, dry and measurable building. 2. Whether American Bank bid an existing dry and measurable building. 3. Whether DOAH acted arbitrarily and capriciously by disqualifying Parkway's proposals and by evaluating American Bank's proposal. At final hearing, Parkway called Jack B. Tobin, Tony Benton, William M. Baldwin, and Al Rudolph as witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 3 were received into evidence. DOAH called Linda C. Spears, Mary V. Goodman, and Stephen F. Dean as witnesses. DOAH's Exhibits 1 through 2 were received into evidence and portions of the deposition of Marilyn Lawrence were read into the record. . American Bank called Donald L. Feather as a witness, The transcript of the hearing was filed on August ll, 1988, and the parties were to file Proposed recommended orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript. The parties’ Proposals have been addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on stipulations of the Parties, on the exhibits received in evidence and ‘on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: 1. DOAH issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for over 2,000 square Feet of office space in Tallahassee, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2) ‘The RFP was prepared using the Department of General Services! (DGS) guidelines (TR 89) and DGS Porm BPM 4136, which is a solicitation format Prepared by DGS for use by all State agencies. (TR 123 and Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e)) 2. Parkway submitted three bid Proposals, two of which were disqualified by DOAH. American Bank submitted a proposal which was determined by the evaluation committee to be the lowest and best proposal. (Prehearing Stipulation) 3. One of the disqualified Proposals submitted by Parkway was known as the "Option Proposal." In this arrangement, DOAH was to continue occupying the space it was currently leasing until October, 1988 at which time, DOAH would move into Building "B" located at 2001 Old St. Augustine Road. (TR 18, 19, 86, and Pet. Exhibit 1) - 4. The other disqualified Proposal submitted by Parkway was known as the "Park Proposal." The Park Proposal was for 2001 Old St. Augustine Road, where two buildings called Building "a" and Building "B" were being constructed. Both buildings were identical in size, shape and total construction. (TR 28) ‘The Park Proposal submitted by Parkway contains two Photographs and four drawings. (Pet. Ex, 2) One of the Photographs depicts Building "A." (TR 34) Three of the four drawings relate to Building "B" and one of the drawings relates. to Building "A" and related site development. The Proposal never clearly identified a specific building at 2001 Old St. Augustine Road as being the building bid. However, during the evaluation committee's site visit at 2001 Old st, Augustine Road, a representative of the Parkway indicated Building "B" was the building proposed for lease by DOAH. (TR 98) 5. American Bank submitted a Proposal for the space located in a former bowling alley on Apalachee Parkway. This space is herein referred to as the old bowling alley. (TR 60) 6. Form BPM 4136, which is the bid solicitation document, contains the following requirement: The proposed space must be in an existing building. To be considered as existing, the space must be dry and capable of being physically measured to deter-— mine net rentable square footage at the time of bid Submittal. Renovations to bring the facility into compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local codes and regulations and/or to meet the desired arrangements are permitted, it (sic) carried out in accordance with prescribed Procedures. (Emphasis in original.) 7. DGS interprets the requirement of an existing building to mean that the building must be enclosed with flooring, a roof, and walls and that exterior doors and windows must be in Place or the building must be such that the exterior is enclosed so that it is dry in adverse weather. Additionally, the building must be capable of being measured by pulling a tape inside the building to determine the net rentable Square footage. (TR 116) The purpose of having the dry and measurable criteria is to distinguish between an existing building and one that is to be built or that is Partially complete. (TR 119) 8. On May 13, 1988, the date of the bid submittal, Building "B" was not an existing building. (Prehearing Stipulation) Building "A" had a roof, a Slab, and walls, which comprised 50 percent of the vertical Plane from the slab to the roof. The windows and exterior doors in Building "A" had not been installed on May 13, 1988, (TR 40-42, 96-97, 147) Building "a" had a four foot overhang but the testimony of Mr. Tobin that the Overhang prevented rain from entering the building is not credible, given the large amount of window space which was not enclosed. (TR 51) 9. On May 13, 1988, the old bowling alley had walls, a slab, and portions of the exterior walls were boarded over, possibly in the location of existing windows or window openings. (TR 63, 109, 133, 134) The roof did have a hole, which was approximately three feet in length and allowed water to leak into the building. (TR 118, 119) The interior of the old bowling alley was capable of being measured. (TR 67, 119) The old bowling alley is an existing building. (TR 118-119) 10. After the bid solicitation document was issued, representatives of the Parkway met with staff of DOAH, (TR 27, 91) A DOAH staff member advised Parkway representatives that Parkway could "bid the park," but it had to bid an existing building which was dry and measurable. (TR 46, 80, 93, 138, 139) ll. At the prebid conference, DOAH representatives advised a Prospective bidder, in the Presence of a Parkway representative, that in order for a building. to be considered for the contract, it must be existing and dry and measurable at the time the bids were submitted. (TR 94, 95) 12. At the time Parkway submitted its proposals, neither Building "A" nor Building "B" was an existing building as defined by the bid solicitation document. 13, At the time Parkway submitted its proposals, Parkway was negotiating with a Private company for the lease of Building "A" (TR 77,27) and Parkway entered into a lease for Building "A" with the Private company on dune 13, 1988. (TR 43, 45) Thus, even if Building "A" had -been an existing building at the time the bids were Submitted, it is not available for lease to DOAH. (TR 45)
Conclusions CASE NO. CASE NO. 88-3357BID 88-3358BID On September 1, 1988, the Hearing Officer who conducted a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in the above-styled case submitted her Recommended Order to the undersigned and all parties of record. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached as Exhibit A. In ays accordance with Rule 28-5.404, all parties were allowed twenty days in which to. file..exceptions..to.. the. Recommended Order. °.To date, none of the parties have submitted exceptions. The Recommended Order came before me as agency head for final agency action.” Having considered the Recommended Order, the exhibits admitted into evidence at final hearing and the transcript of the final hearing conducted on August 1, 1988, it is ORDERED that.the Recommended Order, attached as Exhibit A, is adopted as the final order of the agency. Accordingly, the protest filed by Parkway-Oakland General Partnership in Case No. 88-3358BID is dismissed and Lease No. 510:0049 is awarded to American National Bank of Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this o%/~& day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. | Lh aap A ssi SHARYN SMITH Director 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 Qist day of September, 1988.
Recommendation SEE NVDATION Based on the foregoing, it recommended that the Division of Administrative Hearings enter a final order dismissing Case No. 88-3358BID ang awarding Lease No. 510:0049 to American National Bank of Florida. st : RECOMMENDED this /*~ day of September, 1988, in buce BK ghhad SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 (904)487-1082 Tallahassee, Florida. Filed with the Clerk of the Department of General Services this /od day of September, 1988 Copies furnished to: Kim Cecile Rice Lobrano & Kincaid, P.A. Suite 810, 121 Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William A. Bald, Esquire Dale & Bald 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert D. Newell, Jr. Newell and Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Mark Rubin, Esquire 777 Arthur Godfrey Road Suite 320 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 10 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 68-3358B1D The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case, ’ Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Parkway-Oakland General Partnership Proposed Finding of Fact No. 1 is incorporated in Finding of Fact Nos. 1 and 2. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is incorporated in Finding of Fact Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is incorporated in Finding of Pact No. 8 and is covered in the Introduction and Issues, Proposed Finding of Fact Wo. 4 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 5 is covered in the Introduction and Issues. The first sentence in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6 is subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole, as conclusionary, and as mere recital of testimony. . The first sentence in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 7 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 8. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. The portion of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 8 which indicates that windows were not installed at the time of the bid submittal and that the building had a four foot overhang is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 8. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is rejected as mere recitation of testimony, conclusionary, speculative and not supported by the record as a whole. The first two sentences of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 are cumulative in part and subordinate and unnecessary to the facts aB found. ll 10. ll. 12, 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2i. 22. 23. 24. In Proposed Finding of Fact No. 10, the fact that the building proposed by American Bank had a hole in the roof is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 9. The remainder of the Proposed finding of fact is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 11 is cumulative. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 12 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 10. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 13 is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 14 is rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 15 is subordinate and unnecessary as to the facts as found. The first paragraph in Proposed Finding of Fact No. 16 is mere recitation of testimony, subordinate, and unnecessary. The last paragraph is rejected as conclusionary and not supported by the record as a whole. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 17 is rejected as conclusionary and not supported by the record as a whole. Ms. Goodman's testimony did not contradict the testimony of Ms. Spears. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 18 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 19 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 20 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 21 is mere recitation of testimony, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 22 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 23 is subordinate and unneccessary to the facts as found. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 24 is cumulative and mere recitation of testimony. To the extent that the testimony indicates that Building "A" was not an existing building that is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 12. 12 25. 10. Ti. 12. 13. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 25 is subordinate and unneccessay to the facts as found. Specific Rulings on Joint Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted By DOAH and American Bank Proposed Finding of Pact No. 1 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. l. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 2 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 6. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 3 is incorporated in Finding of Pact Nos. 2, 3, and 4. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Pact No. 4 is incorporated in Finding of Fact - Nos. 4 and 8. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 5 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 8. . Proposed Finding of Fact No. 6 is subordinate and unnecessary. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 7 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. Proposed Finding of Fact No. 8 is subordinate and unnecessary. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 ig incorporated in Finding of Fact No. To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 10 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 13. Proposed Finding of Fact Nos. 11, 12, and 13 are subordinate and unnecessary. . To the extent not subordinate and unnecessary, Proposed Finding of Fact No. 14 is incorporated in Finding of Fact No. 4. : Proposed Finding of Fact No. 15 is subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 13 Proposed Finding of Pact No. unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact No. unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 7 Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 9. Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 9 To the extent not subordinat Finding of Fact No. Proposed Finding of Fact No. unnecessary. Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 10, Proposed Finding of Fact No. in Finding of Fact No. 10. Proposed Finding of Fact No. of Fact Nos. 10 and 1l. 16 17 18 19 20 is is is is is subordinate and subordinate and modified and incorporated modified and incorporated modified and incorporated e and unnecessary, Proposed 21 is incorporated in Finding of Fact 22 is subordinate and 23 is is is modified and incorporated modified and incorporated incorporated in Finding oye STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS THE KOGER COMPANY, Petitioner, “Vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, Respondent, and AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Intervenor. PARKWAY-—OAKLAND GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, Respondent, and AMERICAN NATIONAL” BANK OF ~ FLORIDA, Intervenor. ew
Other Judicial Opinions A...PARTY .WHO..IS.. ADVERSELY AFFECTED. BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO REVIEWED. Copies furnished: Kim Cecile Rice, Esquire LOBRANO & KINCAID, P.A. Suite 810, 121 Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 William A. Bald, Esquire DALE & BALD 2900 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert D. Newell, dr., Esquire NEWELL AND STAHL, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street __ Se Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Mark Rubin, Esquire 777 Arthur Godfrey Road Suite 320 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed disqualification of Petitioner’s bid is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or contrary to the bid solicitation specifications within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a closely held Florida corporation licensed in the state as a general contractor. Mr. Milton “Mitt” Fulmer is the owner, sole director, and only stockholder. Respondent is a state agency. Respondent regularly solicits bids for construction services to build and maintain its facilities. On August 3, 2007, Respondent issued an invitation to bid identified in the record as Bid No. 03-07/08 (the ITB). The ITB solicited bids to construct a new headquarters for the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, commonly referred to in the record as ANERR. Four companies responded to the ITB. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. Intervenor submitted the next lowest bid. Intervenor is a Florida corporation licensed in the state as a general contractor. The ITB required bidders to submit a bid bond in an amount equal to five percent of the amount of the bid, plus alternates. A bid bond is not a performance bond. A bid bond is customarily provided for gratis or a nominal charge, and variations in bid bonds do not result in a competitive advantage among bidders. A bid bond merely insures the successful bidder will enter into the contract and provide whatever payment and performance bonds (performance bond) the ITB requires. The Instructions to Bidders for the ITB required all bonds to be issued by a surety company that “shall have at least the following minimum rating in the latest issue of Best’s Key Rating Guide (Best's): 'A'” (the bond rating requirement). The bond rating requirement was a bid solicitation specification required for a bond to be acceptable to Respondent. Petitioner submitted a bid bond issued by a surety identified in the record as International Fidelity Insurance Company (IFIC). IFIC has Best's rating of "A-." Respondent proposes to reject Petitioner's bid for failure to satisfy the bond rating requirement and to award the bid to Intervenor as the second lowest bidder. The bond rating for the surety company that issued the bid bond for Intervenor is not in evidence. For reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioner has the burden of proof. The parties provided the trier of fact with a wealth of evidence during the final hearing. However, judicial decisions discussed in the Conclusions of Law confine the purpose of this proceeding to a review of the proposed disqualification of Petitioner's bid at the time Respondent exercised that agency discretion. This proceeding is not conducted to formulate final agency action that determines which bidder should receive the contract or whether all of the bids should be rejected. The review of proposed agency action is limited to a determination of whether the proposed action violates a statute, rule, or specification. If a violation occurred, the review must then determine whether the violation occurred because Respondent exercised agency discretion that was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or an abuse of discretion. A preponderance of evidence does not show that the proposed agency action violates a statute, rule, or specification. That finding ends the statutorily authorized inquiry. In the interest of completeness and judicial economy, however, the trier of fact also finds that the exercise of agency discretion that led to the proposed agency action is not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or an abuse of discretion. It is undisputed that the proposed agency action does not violate a statute or rule. Petitioner implicitly argues that the proposed agency action violates the bond rating requirement in the bid specifications because an "A-" rating is equivalent to an "A" rating. The Best's ratings of surety companies are not equivalent. Before discussing the differences, however, it is important to note that Respondent did not base its proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid on an independent evaluation of the data used to distinguish the two ratings. The failure to conduct an independent evaluation of the differences in Best's ratings criteria was neither clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, nor an abuse of discretion. The differences in Best's ratings criteria are complex and proprietary. Respondent lacks sufficient staff and expertise to evaluate the data underlying the Best's ratings or the quality of surety companies. Respondent relied on its own experience, custom and practice in the surety industry, and advice of counsel. Respondent also took into account the unusual size and complexity of the ANERR project, time constraints, and the added risk aversion to any delay in starting the project. The proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid is consistent with Respondent's past practice. Respondent has consistently required compliance with bond rating requirements for bid bonds in previous projects. In the course of bidding 500 to 600 projects over approximately an eight-year period, only one of the apparent low bidders offered Respondent a bid bond from an "A-" rated surety when an "A" was required by the bid specifications. Respondent disqualified that bid, which was for a project of approximately four million dollars; the only previous project that approaches the $5-$6 million cost of the ANERR project. All other low bidders complied with the specification as written. Respondent reasonably inferred that the surety company for the bid bond would be the same for the performance bond. Respondent's experience with industry practice in the 500 to 600 previous projects suggests the surety company that writes the bid bond will also write the performance bond. It is also customary for a surety company to provide the bid bond for gratis or for a nominal charge because the surety company collects its premium upon writing the subsequent payment and performance bonds. Respondent's experience also shows that contractors must qualify for their surety bonds, and not all contractors succeed in qualifying for surety bonds. Moreover, not all contractors can succeed in procuring surety bonds from an A-rated company. The temporal exigencies between the award of the bid and the provision of a performance bond also supported Respondent's inference that the surety company for the bid bond would be the surety company for the performance bond. The General Conditions of the contract required Petitioner to submit evidence of its ability to provide the requisite performance bond within two working days of being notified of a successful bid. Petitioner had ten days to actually furnish the bond. Establishing a surety is not perfunctory but entails a prequalification process. Petitioner had to supply its bonding agent with information including project history, credit references, reviewed financial statements, personal financials, and details on its assets. Any delay in the ANERR project, in contrast to its previous projects, for reasons of contractor default or otherwise, would expose Respondent to greater risk and greater expense. Respondent reasonably experienced a heightened risk aversion for the ANERR project than the risk aversion Respondent experienced during previous projects. The $5 or $6 million price tag for the ANERR project is about 400 percent greater than all but one previous project in Respondent's experience. Unusual aspects of the project, including its design elements and its environmentally sensitive location, could be irreparably harmed in the event of default or delay. The nature of the project's funding, part of which is a federal construction grant that expires on a date certain and part of which involved taxes paid by Floridians, contributes to the unique qualities of the project that support Respondent's greater risk aversion in connection with the ANERR project. At the time Respondent had to make a decision to reject or accept Petitioner's bid, Respondent believed in good faith a distinction existed between Best's "A" and "A-" ratings. The Best's ratings publication is a summary based on data, much of which is proprietary. It would be pointless for Respondent to "cross examine" a summary before rejecting Petitioner's bid if significant portions of the data underlying the summary are proprietary and unavailable to the cross-examiner. If Respondent were to have sufficient staff and expertise to independently evaluate the data underlying the Best's ratings, if some of the data were not proprietary, and if such an evaluation were the basis for the proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid, the outcome would not alter the proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid. The Best's ratings are based, in relevant part, on Best's Capital Adequacy Ratio, commonly referred to in the record as BCAR. The BCAR score estimates the ability of a surety company to pay claims. The minimum BCAR score for an "A" rating is 145, meaning the value of a surety company's assets exceed its estimated claims by a minimum of 45 percent. The minimum BCAR score for a surety with an "A-" rating is 130, meaning the value of its assets exceed its estimated claims by 35 percent. Although a 15-percent differential may appear small, Best's states the differentials by reference to a range of scores. The actual differential between individual sureties with an "A" rating and an "A-" rating may be as little as one percent or as great as 29 percent. An independent evaluation by Respondent would have revealed a margin of error as large as 29 percent in the standard used to evaluate a surety company's ability to pay claims. If the proposed rejection of Petitioner's bid were based on an independent evaluation of the data underlying the Best's rating summaries, it would have been reasonable for Respondent to reject Petitioner's bid. It would have been reasonable for Respondent to reject a 29-percent margin of error for a surety company in a project that is 400 percent larger than the typical project and for which Respondent reasonably has a greater risk aversion due to the temporal limit on the availability of funds, the complexity of the project, and its environmental sensitivity. Much of the data underlying Best’s published ratings is proprietary information. However, the available evidence shows that Best's adjusts BCAR values based on qualitative factors such as: business plan, management quality, liquidity of assets, liabilities, and other operational aspects of the surety company. A qualitative analysis shows that ratings of "A" and "A-" are not the “functional equivalent” of each other. Petitioner submitted evidence that Best's "bands" surety companies with ratings of "A" and "A-" together in the Best's rating guide. However, the relevant specification in the ITB did not express the bond rating requirement in terms of a band or category. Rather, Respondent requested an "A" or better rating according to Best’s Key Rating Guide. An independent evaluation by Respondent would have provided a reasonable basis for an inference that the surety company for the bid bond and performance bond would be the same company. Petitioner has used IFIC for more than one year. During that time, IFIC has issued all of Petitioner’s bid bonds. IFIC issued Petitioner two payment and performance bonds. Petitioner was unable to identify any other surety company that had issued its payment and performance bonds within the time period during which Petitioner has used IFIC. Petitioner did not ask its insurance broker to obtain a bid bond from a company other than IFIC. When Petitioner sent a bid bond order form to its broker, Petitioner provided information to the broker about the project and the amount of the bid and Respondent’s surety requirements. The Bid Bond Order Form does not indicate the minimum bond rating requirement specified in the ITB. Mr. Fulmer had a conversation with his broker about Respondent’s bid security requirements, but it is unclear whether the relevant specifications were faxed to the broker or whether Mr. Fulmer saw the Bid Bond Order Form before it was provided to the broker. In response to the Bid Bond Order Form, the broker generated a bid bond and sent the bond to Petitioner for signature. At the time Petitioner received the bid bond, Petitioner did not consult Best’s Key Rating Guide to confirm that its surety met the minimum bond rating requirement in the ITB. It is unnecessary to determine whether the bond rating requirement was a material or immaterial requirement. If it were material, Respondent had no discretion to waive it. If it were non-material, within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60D-5.002(9)(Rule), evidence discussed in previous Findings in this Order shows that the exercise of agency discretion underlying the refusal to waive the bond rating requirement was reasonable and was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner's bid protest is not, in substance, a challenge to the bid solicitation specification identified in this Order as the bond rating requirement. If the substance of the bid protest were deemed to be a challenge to a bid specification requirement, the challenge is untimely. On October 30, 2007, Respondent opened the bids, identified Petitioner as the apparent low bidder, consulted Best's for information on the "A-" rating, consulted with counsel, and disqualified Petitioner's bid. Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest on November 8, 2007, and a Petition to Protest on November 13, 2007. A deemed challenge to the specification for the minimum bond rating requirement was untimely within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(3)(b).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order dismissing the protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of March, 2008.
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 Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The School Board of Palm Beach County advertised for sealed bids for a project consisting of structural modifications and reroofing at Atlantic Community High School, project no. 000881600. All bidders were required to be prequalified by the School Board prior to the bid opening and had to exhibit evidence that similar work of equivalent magnitude had been accomplished prior to this bid. Language in the bid advertisement notified potential bidders that the School Board reserved the right to waive minor informalities in the bids, or to reject all bids. On April 5, 1989, the bids for the Atlantic Community High School (Atlantic) project were opened and a tabulation performed. All bidders had been prequalified by the School Board and had properly submitted the required bid bond. The results of the bid tabulation established GRI as the lowest bidder, Anderson second, and Milne & Nicholls third. Only three bids were timely received. The amount indicated on the GRI bid was stated only in numbers, not written in words. The written numbers, however, were clearly noted and GRI has, at all times, stated it intends to be bound by the figures listed. No error in the amount has been suggested. On April 5, 1989, Dr. Louwers, as contract administrator for the School Board, notified GRI that its bid for the Atlantic project had been deemed nonresponsive. The basis for this determination was GRI's failure to submit the bid book intact, failure to submit bid Form 00420 at the time of the bid opening, the lack of a warranty letter at the time of the bib opening, and the failure to state the price of the bids in words. GRI sought review of the determination that it had been nonresponsive and an informal hearing was conducted on April 11, 1989. As a result of that hearing, GRI'S bid was deemed responsive and all bidders were notified. Thereafter, Anderson timely challenged the intended bid award to GRI. At the time of the bid opening, GRI did not submit its bid book intact. Instead, GRI submitted the proposal form with the amounts indicated for each section together with the bid bond. The bid proposal form required the bidders to indicate an amount in several categories. These categories included a base bid and six alternates numbered 1 through 6. The amounts listed by all bidders were tallied and are specified on joint exhibit no. 10. GRI's bid was the lowest of the three bids received. Once the bids were opened, and it was determined who the three low bidders were, GRI immediately submitted its list of major subcontractors on Form 00420. Within 24 hours of the bid opening, GRI submitted its list of subcontractors and suppliers, Form 00430. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions found in the Instructions to Bidders, section 00100 of the bid package: BIDDING PROCEDURES: 3.01 All bids must be prepared using the forms contained in these specifications and submitted in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders. * * * 3.05 Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: Each bidder shall use Proposal Form contained in these specifications, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for the alternates. Proposal Forms shall remain attached to the specifications.... Each proposal shall specify a unit price written in ink in both words and figures, * * * (d) The specification book is to be left INTACT, the cover signed by the Contractor, the proposal bid guarantee (Certified Check or Bid Bond) to be signed and filled out in the specification book which will be enclosed in a sealed envelope which shall be marked: * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the bid opening each bidder submitting a bid shall have in his possession a written list of the major subcontractors; namely, structural metal work and metal covering, structural manufacturer, lightweight insulating concrete, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical, whom he proposes to use on this work. The three (3) apparent low bidders will be required to submit Form 00420 (list of major subcontractors) to the Owner at the time of the opening of the bids.... Within 24 hours of the bid opening, the apparent low bidder shall submit Form 00430 (list of subcontractors and suppliers), completed in full to the Owner. Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive bid. * * * 6. REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received. In addition, the bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a bid if the bidder failed to furnish any required bid security, or to submit the data required by the bidding documents, or if the bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the bid of a bidder who is not in a position to perform the contract; and to re- advertise for other or further bid proposals. In addition to the foregoing, the apparent three lowest bidders were required to submit certifications to verify information regarding the roofing system included in their proposals. These certifications included: a certification verifying that the pre-engineered metal roofing system had been tested and approved by Underwriter's Laboratory as Class 90; a dealer certification verifying the supplier is a manufacturer's authorized and franchised dealer of the roofing system to be furnished including the date on which authorization was granted; an installer certification specifying that the installer had been regularly engaged in the installation of pre-engirieered metal buildings of same or equal construction to the system proposed including a list of successful installations performed within 200 miles of West Palm Beach, Florida; and a manufacturer's certification verifying that the manufacturer will provide warranties in accordance with the bid specifications. These certifications were to be provided with Form 00430, within 24 hours of being determined an apparent low bidder. GRI did not provide the certifications identified in paragraph 8 within 24 hours of April 5, 1989; however, all certifications were submitted prior to the final hearing in this cause. GRI was not deemed responsive by School Board personnel until after the informal hearing conducted on April 11, 1989. The letter to GRI notifying it of the results of the informal hearing was dated April 19, 1989. The issue of the certifications, therefore, did not arise until Anderson sought to challenge the decision reached by the informal hearing (that GRI was responsive). Anderson submitted all data required by the bid package at the time of the bid opening or within 24 hours of being determined an apparent low bidder. Anderson submitted the bid package intact and complete. According to bark Lottes, the project architect for the Atlantic bid, the manufacturer's certification required to be submitted within 24 hours of the the bid package was to assure the School Board that it would obtain the warranty designated in the bid specifications. Typically, a warranty is not issued until the work is completed. The purpose of the manufacturer's certication is to verify that the warranty, when issued, will be of the type and terms designated by the bid package. No structural deck replacement will be required for the Atlantic job. A general contractor would be required to perform structural deck replacement. GRI listed a general contractor, Mancini Building, among its list of subcontractors and suppliers. The roofing system proposed by GRI is to be manufactured by Varco- Pruden. The installer to perform the structural metal work for the roofing system proposed by GRI is Bretsnyder Netals, Incorporated (Bretsnyder). Bretsnyder has prior experience with metal roofs of the type designated by this bid project. Varco-Pruden has acknowledged Bretsnyder to be an authorized installer of the Varco-Pruden roofing system proposed by GRI. Varco-Pruden has provided a certification that it will warranty the roofing system pursuant to the bid specifications. GPI is registered as a roofing contractor with Gregg Wallick as its licensed roofing contractor. Anderson is a registered general contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order awarding the bid for the Atlantic project, project no. 000881600, to GRI, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division ofAdministrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2175BID Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Anderson: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Whether or not a general contractor is required to perform portions of the work for the Atlantic project is irrelevant to the resolution of the issue in this case. First, because a general cortractor was listed among GRI's subcontractors (the list of which was timely filed) and second, because the weight of the testimony established the project to be roofing in nature with no structural work required. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the School Board: Paragraphs 1 through 15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by GRI: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted to the extent that it states the GPI bid to be lowest; however, as to the exact amount of the difference, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument. To the extent that the paragraph is addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 4 and 5, it is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as conclusion of law or argument except as provided in paragraphs of the preliminary statement, together with paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack S. Cox Merola, McCarthy & Cox, P.A. 4114 Northlake Boulevard Suite 301 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Robert A. Rosillo Associate Counsel School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Nathan E Nason Gary N. Gerson Nason, Gildan, Yeager & Gerson, P.A. Post Office Box 3704 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
Findings Of Fact During the month of March 1996, the Pinellas County School Board, pursuant to an advertised invitation for bids, (IFB), solicited bids for the construction of a new facility for John H. Sexton Elementary School (Sexton school). Each party submitting a bid was required to do so on a bid proposal form which was contained in the bid documents prepared by the project architect, Mr. Hoffman, and furnished to each prospective bidder who requested the bid package. One section of the bid proposal form related to "dewatering" potentially required at the construction site, and consistent with that potential two sentences were contained on the bid proposal form relating to dewatering of footings and of utilities, both of which provided for election by checking of an affirmative or a negative, and both of which had been pre-checked in the affirmative by the Board. It was the position of the Board that the pre- checked sentences as to dewatering on the bid proposal form constituted an acknowledgment by each bidder that that bidder's submittal included dewatering in the base bid. In addition to the check, the dewatering section also included blanks for the insertion by the bidder of figures representing lineal feet of header pipe and unit price per foot which figure would constitute a credit given by the bidder to the Board against the total bid price if dewatering were found not to be necessary, both as to footings and to utilities. Even further, the form also contained blanks to be filled in by the bidder for unit prices to be charged the Board in the event additional dewatering was required by virtue of the Board's later inclusion in the project of additional footings or utilities. Prior to the time for bid submittal, the Board conducted a meeting of all prospective bidders at which the project was explained and bidders given an opportunity to ask questions raised by the bid package. Johnson did not ask any questions regarding dewatering or that portion of the package relating thereto. Numerous bids were submitted in response to the proposal, including those from Johnson and Ellis. By stipulation at the hearing, the parties agreed that in all ways other than in that section of the bid proposal form for this project relating to dewatering, Johnson was and is a responsive and responsible bidder, as is Ellis. The bid proposals were opened by the Board at 2:00 PM on April 11, 1996 and the base bid prices on each proposal were read aloud to all in attendance by a Board representative. The project architect was present at the opening and tabulated and reviewed the bid proposals as opened. Johnson submitted the lowest base bid with a price of $7,965,000. The next lowest bid was that of Ellis, whose base bid price was $7,945,200. At the time of opening, no Board representative indicated anything was wrong with Johnson's bid Mr. Hoffman, the project architect, immediately noticed that Johnson had altered the Board's pre-checked bid proposal form by striking out the pre- checked "is" space regarding inclusion of dewatering in the base price of the two dewaterings, and making an X in each of the "is not" spaces. Mr. Hoffman considered that alteration by Johnson as a material alteration of the Board's solicitation which rendered Johnson's bid non-responsive. It must be noted that each change bears the initials, R. Y. Reza Yazdani is Johnson's president who initialed the changes and signed the bid proposal form for the company. In addition, Johnson also inserted a "0" in those spaces which dealt with amount of credit and cost of additional dewatering in the event additional work is required by the Board. In that regard, Hoffman opined that had Johnson not changed the check marks, but inserted the "0" figures as it did, the bid would have been responsive and Johnson would still have been lowest responsive bidder. The reason for this is that the bid form specifically notes that "the unit costs described in A & B above shall in no manner influence the School Board's selection of a firm to whom to award the Contract." The Board now recognizes that there is no part "B", as referenced in the proposal form. Since the "0's" would not influence the selection, use of an unmodified Board form, along with the lowest submitted base price would, in Hoffman's opinion, probably have meant that Johnson would have been awarded the contract. Johnson's representative, Mr. Mohme, who drafted the company proposal, specifically indicated he did not believe dewatering was a potential in this project. He recognized that such dewatering as was necessary was required by other provisions in the project specifications and he could not figure any way to recognize this and yet accurately reflect his belief that dewatering would not be necessary, other than to strike the pre-checked block and insert the check in the alternative block. He felt that by doing so, he was more accurately reflecting Johnson's bid. This reasoning is rather obscure. By letter dated April 12, 1996, written to the Board after the bids were opened, Mr. Mohme reiterated Johnson's position that dewatering is not necessary on this project, but further stated that if dewatering were to be necessary, Johnson would do so solely at its own risk and without any risk of additional cost to the Board. Bids may be clarified by a bidder, but such clarification must take place before the bids are opened. Bids may not be modified after bid opening. Before that letter was written, however, when the bids were opened and Mr. Hoffman observed what he considered was Johnson's alteration of the bid form, Hoffman consulted with a representative of the Board's purchasing department, Ms. Maas, who also reviewed Johnson's bid. Ms. Mass was of the opinion that Johnson may have attempted to qualify its bid, and she and Mr. Hoffman thereafter met with Mr. Rivas, the Board's director of facilities design and construction, to explain the problem. Mr. Rivas took the problem to two other Board personnel to see if there were some way Johnson's bid could be deemed responsive so that the Board could benefit by Johnson's low bid price. Within the context of those aforementioned discussions, Hoffman took the position that the alteration might leave the Board open to a possible change order and additional liability if dewatering were to be required and the Board had accepted Johnson's bid indicating that process was not included in the base price. Mr. Rivas, after consulting with the Board's attorney, also concluded that Johnson's alteration expressly excluded dewatering as an included factor and its exclusion constituted a serious and material deviation from the Board's solicitation. It was deemed material in that the deviation apparently gave Johnson a competitive advantage over other bidders who did not amend the form. This appears to be a valid conclusion and is adopted herein. The decision to recommend rejection of Johnson's bid and acceptance of Ellis's as the lowest responsive bid was ultimately reached by the Board's administrative staff. The Ellis bid was responsive to the solicitation whereas the determination was made that Johnson's was not responsive because of the alteration. It was not the actual act of alteration that caused that determination but rather the potential effect of the alteration. This was consistent with long standing Board policy not to accept a bid which does not conform to a bid solicitation and not to accept bids from bidders who alter the Board's bid proposal form or otherwise attempt to qualify their bids. It is the opinion of the Board personnel that such consistency in bidding procedure has resulted over time in more qualified bidders submitting bids for Board work which, in turn, has resulted in more competitive prices for the work let for bid. This is a reasonable policy. Mr. Gottschalk, Johnson's expert architect, who has designed schools for the Board, offered an alternative disposition to this dilemma. While admitting that Johnson's shifting of the risk of loss as a result of possible dewatering was a material matter, he suggested the Board could have disregarded the dewatering clause on every submittal and thereafter awarded the contract to Johnson, the lowest bidder, whose bid was responsive to the solicitation except for the dewatering provision. Recognizing this solution would have placed each bidder on an equal footing and allowed award to the lowest bidder at a substantial savings to the Board, he nonetheless also understood the decision made by Mr. Hoffman and the Board staff here and could not fault it. He agreed that reasonable men could differ on the issue of responsiveness here and how to deal with it. It is so found. After a review of the evidence submitted, including the testimony indicating the remoteness of the likelihood that extensive dewatering would be required, there appears to be no evidence that the Board, or its staff, acted dishonestly, fraudulently, illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting Johnson's bid on this project and recommending award to Ellis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order denying and dismissing G. H. Johnson Construction Company's protest and awarding a contract for the construction of Sexton Elementary School to Ellis Construction Company, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1942BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Johnson's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted but not a proper Finding of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. Rejected. Accepted but not a proper Findings of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. &11. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted as a literal statement of what appears in the specifications. Second and third sentences accepted but not probative of any material issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not Finding of fact but argument. Ellis' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3.-6. Accepted. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted but word "certain" is changed to read "likely." 17.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23.&24. Accepted. 25.&26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27.-29. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not relevant to any material issue of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jawdet I. Rubaii, Esquire Clearwater Executive Suites, No. 213 1345 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942 E. A. Mills, Jr. Esquire Dale W. Vash, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601 Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Avenue, S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942
