The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Respondent on the ground that the proposed space was not "dry and measurable" at the time of the bid.
Findings Of Fact The bid specifications in the solicitation by the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES) for its Lease No. 540:0977 (office space in Orange County) required that proposed space be in an existing building "dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage at the time of bid submittal." The requirement that proposed office space in response to Lease No. 540:0977 be "dry and measurable," as described in the preceding finding, is a long-standing, standard requirement found in the bid specification form developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS) (formerly the Department of General Services (DGS)) for use by all agencies of the State of Florida. DMS' (and, formerly, DGS') long-standing interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement in the standard bid specification form is that the building must have a roof and walls, with windows either in place or covered over so that the building interior stays dry in adverse weather conditions. In response to the DLES solicitation for bids for its Lease No. 540:0977, the Petitioners submitted a bid for space in a former Publix strip shopping mall, formerly known as the Northgate Shopping Center, located at 5023 Edgewater Drive, in Winter Park, Florida. At the time of the bid, the mall was unoccupied and in the process of being renovated and was a designated construction site. The building had been gutted, and the glass in the front of the building had been removed. The glass could be referred to as "windows" but actually would make up the top two-thirds of the front wall of the building. As a result, without the glass, the front "wall" consisted of a three to four foot rise of concrete blocks, and the front of the building was otherwise open. There was a 12-foot, eight-inch overhang over the front "wall," but wind-blown rain could enter the building, and apparently did. (There was standing water on the floor of the gutted building. There also were missing or unsecure doors along the back wall of the building.) When Susan Early, the DLES employee in charge of the bid solicitation, received the Petitioners' bid and saw the photographs of the building required by the bid solicitation, she questioned whether the building was "dry and measurable." To help answer her question, she asked another DLES employee, who was located in the Orlando area, to go to the site, take pictures, and send a report of her findings, together with the photographs. The report and photographs indicated to Early that the building was not "dry and measurable." But, instead of relying on the information she had, she sent another, Tallahassee-based DLES employee to the site and received confirmation of her understanding as to the condition of the building. She then contacted Mary Goodman, the person at DMS who had the most experience in the area of soliciting and evaluating bids of leased office space, and who ultimately would be responsible for approving the DLES lease. Goodman advised Early that the DLES should reject the Petitioners' bid as non-responsive because it was not "dry and measurable." The DLES also rejected, as being non-responsive, the only other bid received in response to the bid solicitation. In the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, DOAH Case No. 88-3357BID, entered September 21, 1988, the Division of Administrative Hearings rejected a bid as not offering "dry and measurable" space because the building "had a roof, a slab, and walls, which comprised 50 percent of the vertical plane from the slab to the roof." The bidder's argument that the building "had a four foot overhang" and that "the overhang prevented rain from entering the building" was rejected as not being credible "given the large amount of window space which was not enclosed." The winning bid, which was upheld as being a "dry and measurable" was an abandoned bowling alley that "had walls, a slab, and portions of the exterior walls were boarded over, possibly in the location of existing windows or window openings. The roof did have a hole, which was approximately three feet in length and allowed water to leak into the building." (Citations to the record omitted.) The facts derived from the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, supra, do not in themselves prove that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid. Although the Petitioners' bid in this case was for a building that once had a certificate of occupancy, the Petitioners' bid in this case is more similar in other respects to the rejected bid than the successful bid in the Koger Company case. For example, like the rejected bid in the Koger Company case, the Petitioners' bid had partial exterior walls. The Petitioners proved that they also submitted a bid for the lease of office space in the Northgate Shopping Center in response to a bid solicitation by the Florida Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission). The bid was evaluated, along with others, and the lease was awarded to another bidder. It can be inferred from this that the Department of Corrections made a determination that the Petitioners' bid was "dry and measurable." However, those facts alone do not prove the DLES, in this case, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly. They only would prove that the two agencies interpreted the phrase "dry and measurable" differently. There also was evidence that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) interprets the phrase "dry and measurable" differently than DLES does. But it was not proven whether HRS would have accepted a bid for space having the characteristics of the Petitioners' bid. The Petitioners argued persuasively from the evidence presented that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities. Sometimes, space in a building under construction or substantial renovation can be leased at lower rates. Presumably for that reason, the Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission) and HRS interpret the requirement differently. But, given the requirement that bid space be "dry," it cannot be said that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, enter a final order rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Department in Winter Park, Florida, Lease Number 540:0977. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1993, 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 9th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3922BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should be noted, however, that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Rejected as not proven, according to the DLES interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement, that the bid space was "existing." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected in part as not proven, in part as argument, and in part as irrelevant. It also should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. In part, rejected as irrelevant and not proven. (Evidence as to the HRS manual and related facts was excluded as being irrelevant.) The rest is accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Irrelevant and unnecessary. (It was established at the hearing that the Petitioners' bid was rejected only because the bid space was not "dry"; DLES does not contend that it was not "measurable.") Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In part, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary (what Mr. Taylor's definition is.) In part, cumulative. In part, rejected as argument. In part, accepted and incorporated (that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities.) Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. (Assuming it acts consistently from case to case, an agency's choice not to waive technicalities cannot be called "acting fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.") Rejected as being argument and as not proven. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Except for the number of square feet, which is in error, accepted and incorporated. 2.-5. Accepted and incorporated. 6. Rejected as contrary to the findings of fact and the greater weight of the evidence that there were no walls in front. (They extended only about a third of the way up to the ceiling.) 7.-8. Accepted and incorporated. 9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Taylor 170 East Lake Elbert Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The Department of Corrections sought bids for construction of a health services building for a correctional facility. A discrepancy existed between the written specifications and the architectural drawings for the project. An addendum was issued to clarify the matter. The low bidder (Intervenor) did not acknowledge receipt of the addendum until several hours after the opening of bids. The Department accepted the Intervenor's bid. The Petitioner timely protested the action. The issue in this case is whether, in accepting the Intervenor's bid, the Department acted contrary to the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1990, the Department of Corrections (hereinafter "Department") issued an Invitation To Bid ("ITB") for PR-35-JRA, Project #90015, consisting of the construction of a Health Classification Building at the Columbia County Correctional Institution. In relevant part, the ITB requested price proposals for said construction, provided that the bid would be awarded to the responsive bidder submitting the lowest cost proposal, provided that "in the interest" of the Department, "any informality" in bids could be waived, and provided space on the bid form for acknowledgment of receipt of all addenda to the ITB. Bids were to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 11, 1990, the time scheduled for bid opening. Documents issued with the ITB included architectural drawings and written specifications for the building. The architectural firm of Jim Roberson and Associates, (hereinafter "JRA") had been employed by the Department to prepare the drawings and specifications. JRA was responsible for preparation and distribution of related addenda. Further, a JRA representative presided over the opening of bids on behalf of the Department. Following release of the ITB and supporting documents, JRA became aware of a conflict between sink faucets required by the drawings and those required by the written specifications. The specifications provided that sink faucets operated by hand levers or foot pedals were to be installed in the facility. The architectural drawings JRA indicated that sink faucets were to operate by means of "electric-eye" activators, rather than by hand levers or foot pedals. On September 10, 1990, JRA issued an addendum (identified as Addendum #2) 1/ to clarify that "electric-eye" type operators were to be included in the bids. The addendum was sent by telephone facsimile machine to all anticipated bidders. In part the addendum provides as follows: "This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Specifications and Drawings, dated 31 July 1990, as noted below. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to Disqualification." On September 11, 1990, the eight bids submitted in response to the ITB were opened by the JRA representative. The Intervenor, Custom Construction (hereinafter "Custom"), submitted the lowest bid at $898,898. The Petitioner, David Nixon (hereinafter "Nixon"), submitted the next lowest bid at $900,000. The bid form provided by the Department as part of the ITB materials to prospective bidders provided space for acknowledgment of addenda to the ITB documents. Upon opening the bid submitted by Custom, the JRA representative officiating at the opening noted that the Custom bid failed to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the appropriate space on the bid form. 2/ Robert L. Harris, president of Custom Construction, attended the bid opening. When the JRA representative noted the lack of acknowledgment of Addendum #2, Mr. Harris stated that he was unaware of the addendum. At hearing, Mr. Harris testified that his secretary told him that Addendum #2 was not received by his office. The JRA representative testified that his review of JRA's FAX transmission records indicated that the FAXed Addendum #2 was received by all bidders. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Addendum #2 was transmitted to and received by, all bidders. Upon leaving the bid opening, Mr. Harris immediately contacted his plumbing subcontractor, Jerry Stratyon, and discussed the situation. Approximately two hours after the bid opening, and after talking with Mr. Stratton, Mr. Harris notified JRA, in a letter transmitted by FAX machine to JRA, that his bid price did include plumbing fixtures required by Addendum #2. Mr. Harris concluded the letter, "[w]hen can we start work. I know you don't want the alternate." On October 8, 1990, JRA recommended to the Department, that the Custom bid be accepted. The letter of recommendation, in part, provides: The apparent low bidder however, did not verify receipt of Addendum No. 2 on the Bid Proposal. Our office did receive a, facsimile after the bid verifying Addendum NO. 2 receipt from the Contractor's Office." However, the actual letter from Custom to JRA states, not that Addendum #2 was received, but that it was included in the price bid by Custom's plumbing subcontractor. Both Nixon and Custom obtained plumbing bids from the same subcontractor, Jerry Stratton. The cost increase attendant to the requirements of Addendum #2 is approximately $2,400 over the plumbing fixtures indicated in the written project specifications. Mr. Stratton was aware of Addendum #2 and testified that the requirements of Addendum #2 were reflected in his price quotes to both bidders. Mr. Stratton provided the same price bid to Nixon and Custom. Mr. Stratton also provided bids to Nixon and Custom for HVAC work. Mr. Stratton was accepted as Custom's HVAC subcontractor. Nixon's bid indicates that another HVAC subcontractor will perform the cork should Nixon receive the contract. The ITB provided that bid modification or withdrawal was permitted on written or telegraphic request received from a bidder prior to the time fixed for opening. Mr. Harris did not attempt to either withdraw or modify Custom's bid prior to bid opening. No bid modification was permitted subsequent to the bid opening. The Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of the State and would not be unfair to other bidders. The evidence does not establish that Custom Construction's failure to acknowledge the addendum was purposefully designed to permit withdrawal of their bid subsequent to the public bid opening. The omission of acknowledgment of Addendum #2 provided Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid that was not available to other bidders. Custom could have informed the Department that the bid price did not include the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bid could have been withdrawn. Custom was therefore provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had no opportunity to, and would not have been permitted to, withdraw their aids. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order rejecting the bid submitted by Intervenor as nonresponsive and awarding the contract to the Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner's bid is the lowest and the best and whether it is responsive concerning bid specifications, as amended by one addendum, issued by the Respondent as an Invitation to Bid (ITB).
Findings Of Fact On September 21, 1993, the University issued an ITB for Project 2230 calling for replacement of a fire alarm system at the Museum. The bids were scheduled to be opened on October 28, 1993, at 1:30 p.m. A project manual was written incorporating the "Simplex" addressable fire alarm system in the specifications, but substitutes were permitted in the ITB. Specifications did not sole-source Simplex. The project manual allows for substitutions providing for "fire alarm system equal to Simplex . . .". The project manual provides that "if bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid proposal form (Bid Form 00310-1) the manufacturer's name and catalog number. Bidder shall submit at the time of bidding, cut sheets, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications." The bidder is also required to explain in detail the reason why the proposed equivalent would meet the specifications. The specifications also provide that "bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to quote an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form." Thus, if a bidder did not indicate any alternate system in its bid and did not indicate any written intent to quote an alternate system, then it would be presumed by the University that the bidder would comply with the Simplex specifications and that would be deemed responsive. The advertisement for the ITB was submitted on September 22, 1993, to be published on October 1, 1993 but, instead, was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 8, 1993. Mr. Sontag, the Senior Purchasing Agent at the University, opined that that allowed sufficient time for bidders to respond. Irene Thomas is a Senior Clerk at the University Physical Plant Purchasing Office. She works for A.J. Sontag. Mr. Sontag has been with the University for six years and has prior purchasing experience. The project manual provides the address for obtaining copies of the proposed contract documents, including addenda, as the Physical Plant Purchasing Building No. 705, on Radio Road, in Gainesville, Florida. The project manual requires that in order to receive consideration, bids must be made upon forms provided therefor, properly signed, and with all items filled out. Potential bidders could get a bid package by calling Ms. Thomas and requesting one for pick-up or for mailing. Additionally, the bid package was transmitted to the "Dodge Room", which is a clearing house or depository for contracting plans whereby contractors interested in bidding on public projects may learn of the projects and obtain the relevant bid documents, plan specifications, and the like. The Dodge Room provides the specification manual, any addenda, and the drawings. The ITB general conditions were not a part of the bid package sent to the Dodge Room. The Petitioner learned of the project through the Dodge Room and obtained a set of plan specifications for the installation of the fire alarm system from that source. Mark Thomas Kerrin is the President and founder of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) in electrical and fire contracting by the Department of Management Services (DMS) for four to five years. The Petitioner has never been invited by the University to bid on the project, although it has a practice of inviting MBE contractors to bid on projects. The University was not aware that the Petitioner was an MBE until they were so informed by Mr. Kerrin. For unknown reasons, the Petitioner was not in the most recent issue of the directory of MBE contractors, which the University employed in identifying potential MBE bidders. The pre-bid meeting for the project was held on October 7, 1993 at Building 700, on Radio Road, on the University campus in Gainesville, Florida. It was not a mandatory meeting, but Mr. Kerrin testified that he attended the pre-bid meeting. He arrived a few minutes late, however, because he had some difficulty finding the site and because he had a job to perform for a customer of the Petitioner in Gainesville on that day. By the time he arrived, the pre- bid meeting was nearly over, and the sign-in sheet, whereby attendees at the meeting signed to show their attendance, had already been taken up. Mr. Kerrin felt no need to sign, showing his attendance, since the meeting was not mandatory in any event. Mr. Kerrin described in his testimony the matters that were discussed at the pre-bid meeting after the time he arrived. He described much of the discussion as involving questions about the Edwards fire alarm system. He also described the discussion concerning a "remote annunciator panel", a certain type of electrical wire conduit (wire mold), phasing in of the new system and the use of a temporary system during installation of the new system. The consulting engineer, Lynn Hodge, who promulgated the technical specifications for the project, was at the meeting. In his testimony, he confirmed that the remote annunciator panel, conduit, phasing in of the new system and use of the temporary system were discussed at the pre-bid meeting in order to alert prospective bidders so that they would be aware of those items desired by the University for inclusion in the project. The potential bidders attending the meeting were advised that those items might be included in an addendum to the project manual. Mr. Hodge assumed that these potential bidders would reflect those items in their bids. Mr. Kerrin testified that he met A.J. Sontag, the Senior Purchasing Agent, at the conclusion of the pre-bid meeting. He states that he introduced himself to Mr. Sontag and gave him a business card. Mr. Kerrin advised Mr. Sontag that his business is an MBE and he inquired as to why he had not been sent an ITB by the University. Mr. Kerrin also advised Mr. Sontag at that time that he intended to bid on the project, not as a subcontractor but, rather, as a prime contractor. Mr. Sontag, however, denies attending the pre-bid meeting on October 7, 1993 or meeting Mr. Kerrin prior to the bid opening, which occurred on October 28, 1993. Mr. Sontag testified that at the time of the pre-bid meeting, he was opening a bid for a different project at his nearby office. He acknowledged, however, that he could have walked to the pre-bid meeting on the Museum project at issue, which was only a short distance away. The Petitioner presented the testimony of Maxwell Petzold of PCR, Incorporated, a chemical manufacturing business located in Gainesville, Florida. He confirmed that Mr. Kerrin had come to his place of business in October to perform some testing, because his company was having some difficulties with its security and fire alarm system. The Petitioner, in turn, submitted evidence in the form of a computer printout, from its business records, concerning activity with respect to the equipment of PCR, Inc. in Gainesville, Florida. That printout shows that Mr. Kerrin personally tested PCR's equipment in Gainesville, Florida, on October 7, 1993, the day of the pre-bid meeting. It is found that Mr. Kerrin was in attendance at the pre-bid meeting in the manner he described. On the day after the pre-bid meeting, October 8, 1993, the ITB was advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University has no written procedure concerning the issuance or dissemination of addenda to ITB's. On October 21, 1993, the addendum was transmitted to the physical plant office for dissemination to those interested in bidding on the Museum alarm project. On October 22, 1993, the 22-page addendum to the bid document was transmitted by telefacsimile (fax) to most prospective bidders. Other prospective bidders were telephoned and picked up a copy at the physical plant office. The fax cover letter accompanying the addendum stated "failure to acknowledge your addendum could constitute rejection of your bid." All but two pages of the addendum were non-technical in nature. The technical changes in the addendum principally provided for the installation of the remote annunciator panel. The remote annunciator panel provides the same read-out capability and control capability as the main panel, but was to be in a supervised location easily found by the fire department when responding to calls. Other technical changes provided for a transitional monitoring system, while the old alarm system was being replaced and also a minor specification concerning use of wire molding, as opposed to common round electrical conduit. On October 26, 1993, Mr. Kerrin was again in Gainesville, Florida, to test the equipment of his customer, PCR, Inc. See Mr. Kerrin's testimony at pages 156-157 of the Transcript and Petitioner's Exhibit 25 in evidence. While in Gainesville, Florida, on that day, Mr. Kerrin stopped at the University to attempt to ascertain why the Petitioner was not given information on other bidding opportunities and to see if there were any addenda or changes to the specifications of the project in question. Mr. Sontag advised him that no addendum had been issued, although his office had distributed the addendum to other prospective bidders four days earlier. Mr. Sontag testified that he was in Tennessee on the day the addendum was issued. It was issued from his office, by those acting in his stead. The Petitioner's bid is for the Notifier alarm system in the amount of $74,500.00. Preston's bid was for $80,510.00 using the specified Simplex system. Shine submitted a base bid of $82,460.00 with a $15,000.00 deduction if the Edwards system was used, which resulted in a bid of $67,460.00. The Edwards system was determined to not comply with the specifications; however, and that fact is undisputed in this proceeding. Thus, Shine's bid in the amount of $67,460.00 was unresponsive, was not awarded, and is not contested. Fire Alarm also bid the Notifier system, and its bid was for $78,459.00. The Petitioner attached literature describing the Notifier system (Notifier AFP1010) to its bid form. Both Mr. Kerrin and his secretary, Mary Johnson, who helps him prepare bids, testified that the "cut sheets" or informational literature concerning the Notifier alarm system was attached by staples to the Petitioner's bid form. The Notifier system was ultimately determined by the University, in its evaluation process, to equal the Simplex type of equipment specified in the bid specifications. It, therefore, was the "equivalent" of Simplex. Mr. Sontag, the Senior Purchasing Agent, described the normal procedure for opening bids. On October 28, 1993, the bids were opened with the contending bidders, including Mr. Kerrin, being present. The bid opening procedure began with the contending bidders signing their names on the reverse side of the bid tabulation sheet. Each bid was then opened and read aloud by Mr. Sontag and recorded by his Senior Clerk, Ms. Irene Thomas. After each bid package was opened, it was laid on a stack of bid packages on Mr. Sontag's desk. After all bids were opened, Mr. Sontag testified that he provided each attendee with a copy of the bid tabulation sheet. He then turned the original bids over to the Senior Clerk, Ms. Thomas, who photocopied them. This is a normal procedure in each bid opening that Mr. Sontag's office handles. Mr. Sontag testified that he had no specific recollection of any specific bid opened that day, although he knows that he opened all of them, including the Petitioner's bid. In any event, he turned the bids over to Ms. Thomas after they were all opened and entered on the bid tabulation sheet. Concerning the process of photocopying the bids, Mr. Sontag testified that no staples were removed from the bids when they were copied, instead the pages were merely folded over for copying of each page. He reiterated his testimony, several times, that no pages are unstapled in the process of copying bid forms and that no staples are removed in making copies of bids, in the interest of the time required in unstapling bids for copying each individual page. Later, however, when Mr. Sontag again testified at the hearing, he retracted his statements that bid forms are copied without removing staples. Ms. Thomas, the Senior Clerk who copies bid forms approximately 95 percent of the time, had testified and confirmed that, indeed, it is normal practice to actually remove staples attaching bid documents during the copying process. Additionally, Ms. Thomas testified that Mr. Sontag would have no way of knowing how bids were copied since he is not present during the copying process. Copies of the bid packages made by Ms. Thomas are then transmitted to the Department of Architecture and Engineering for evaluation. In the bidding situation at issue, Donald C. Jennings, the Assistant Director of Purchasing, took the copies of the bids and the bid tabulation sheet. Mr. Jennings was Acting Project Manager in the absence of John Jones. Mr. Jennings was present at the bid opening. On the same day as the bid opening, Mr. Jennings prepared a tabulation of the bids and submitted it to the Project Manager, John Jones, with a memorandum. The bid tabulation sheet submitted by Mr. Jennings to Mr. Jones listed beside the name of each bidder the amount of the bid and the type of alarm system bid by that proposed vendor. The Petitioner's entry on the tabulation has beside the name of the Petitioner on the tabulation sheet the word "Notifier". The official bid tabulation retained by Mr. Sontag did not list the Petitioner as having bid the Notifier system. It did not list Fire Alarm Service Corporation as having bid the Notifier system either, although there is no dispute that Fire Alarm did bid the Notifier system. The original bid form of the Petitioner, produced by the University at hearing, (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), shows several staples had been removed from the form, including the staple on the back page where a "cut sheet" describing the type of system bid, would have been attached. Mr. Kerrin and his secretary, Ms. Johnson, both testified that the cut sheets for the Notifier system had been attached to the Petitioner's bid form when it was submitted. Their testimony is corroborated by the evidence showing that Mr. Jennings had in his possession a tabulation of the bids, which he transmitted to Mr. Jones on the same day as the bid opening, which indicates that the Petitioner was bidding the Notifier system. Thus, it is found, and the preponderant evidence establishes, that the Notifier system cut sheets and description of the Notifier system were submitted with the Petitioner's bid. The testimony of Mr. Kerrin and Ms. Johnson to this effect is accepted. Once delivered to the University, the Notifier information or cut sheets were removed for unknown reasons or inadvertently lost, (although a number of University witnesses testified to never having seen any extra cut sheets lying around their offices, that testimony is not probative of any finding that the cut sheets were not submitted with the bid). Further, in this regard, on November 16, 1993, Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Jennings a memorandum inquiring "how did you know ESP was bidding Notifier system?" Mr. Jennings replied the following day, in writing, that he knew "from their bid." Since the Petitioner's bid form itself did not specify the Notifier system, Mr. Jennings should only have learned this from the attached literature or "cut sheets." Mr. Jennings acknowledged in his testimony that the Petitioner was still under consideration for the bid award more than a month after the bids were open. The University's concern at that time was apparently whether the Petitioner had actually bid the Notifier system and not that the Petitioner had failed to acknowledge the addendum to the ITB. The University maintained that the Petitioner did not attach the descriptive literature or cut sheets concerning Notifier to its bid to show that it complied with specifications. The University, however, did not request of the Petitioner any descriptive literature as to Notifier to determine whether it equalled the bid specifications, but it did consult by telephone and in writing with Fire Alarm Service Corporation regarding the Notifier system, which Fire Alarm had also bid. Eventually, through these contacts, the University concluded that the Notifier system met the specifications. The preponderant, credible evidence shows, however, as found above, that the University, through Mr. Jennings at least, was aware that the Petitioner was bidding the Notifier system on the same day the bids were opened. Initially, in the evaluation process, the award was recommended to be given to Preston, which had bid an amount of $80,510.00. Then, when the Notifier system was approved as complying with the specifications, the award was recommended to be given to Fire Alarm Service Corporation, which bid $78,459.00. This was in spite of the fact that the University at that time knew that the Petitioner had bid the Notifier system, as well, and knew that the Petitioner's bid was in the amount of only $74,500.00. Ultimately, Fire Alarm Service Corporation was disqualified because it failed to meet the MBE requirements regarding "good faith effort". The bid evaluators at that point then recommended that the award go back to Preston, although its bid was $6,010.00 more than the Petitioner's bid. The Petitioner was disqualified by the University for allegedly not attaching the descriptive literature concerning the Notifier system and for failing to acknowledge the addendum to the ITB. The University's specification documents associated with the ITB indicate that "failure to acknowledge your addendum could constitute rejection of your bid." This language indicates that rejection of a bid for failure to acknowledge the addendum was discretionary and not an automatic disqualification in the view of the University, according to its specification. However, the University's Associate Director of Architecture and Engineering, Mr. C.P. Tate, rejected the Petitioner's bid when he learned that the Petitioner had not acknowledged the addendum. Mr. Tate was aware that the addendum had been promulgated but did not draft it nor had he read or reviewed it. He was not shown to have known whether failure to acknowledge the addendum amounted to a material deviation from the specifications of the ITB, especially in the instant situation, where the the Petitioner had not been given a copy of the addendum. Mr. Hodge, the Project Engineer, testified that all potential bidders at the pre-bid meeting would have known that the remote annunciator panel was a necessary part of the project and would have included the cost of the panel in their bids. In fact, the annunciator panel was a legal requirement of the State Fire Marshal's Office, in its enforcement function concerning the relevant fire safety statutes and rules. Mr. Kerrin was at the pre-bid meeting and testified that the Petitioner, in fact, included the cost of the remote annunciator panel and related materials and equipment in its bid. Moreover, Mr. Kerrin believed that the remote annunciator panel and a temporary monitoring capability, to be installed during the replacement of the permanent fire alarm system, was required by law, as also shown by Mr. Hodge's testimony. Mr. Kerrin therefore considered that to be implicit in the original bid specifications themselves. The wire mold, which was the other chief technical portion of the addendum, is a relatively inexpensive item which many contractors keep on hand. Mr. Kerrin considered that element of the technical changes posed by the addendum to be of negligible cost. Mr. Hodge, in his testimony, stated that the estimated cost of the remote annunciator panel and other technical changes contained in the addendum would amount to approximately $8,000.00. He testified that the remote annunciator panel itself, including the cost of the panel plus the cost of installation, would be approximately $5,000.00 and the related technical items in the addendum would amount to $2,000.00-$3,000.00, for a total of approximately $7,000.00-$8,000.00. Petitioner's Exhibit 39 in evidence, however, concerning which Mr. Kerrin testified, is a letter by Mr. Hodge himself, dated September 2, 1993, which shows that he estimated the remote annunciator panel to only cost approximately $1,300.00, as opposed to $5,000.00. In fact, Mr. Kerrin testified that the remote annunciator panel and the related items in the addendum would cost approximately $1,500.00. He included such costs in his bid. In light of this evidence and in careful consideration of Mr. Hodge's testimony, together with the September 2, 1993 letter, authored by Mr. Hodge, concerning the purported cost of the remote annunciator panel, as well as Mr. Kerrin's testimony, it is determined that Mr. Kerrin's testimony is more credible. It is accepted over that of Mr. Hodge in these particulars. Thus, the actual established cost of the technical items contained in the addendum would amount to somewhat less than 2 percent of the bid price submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's bid price, in turn, was $6,010.00 less than that of Preston, the recommended awardee. University personnel in the Purchasing, Physical Plant and Architecture and Engineering Offices are well familiar with Preston as a Gainesville-based business. Mr. Hodge knows certain personnel at Preston personally, sees them around town, and has recommended them to others for jobs, although he does not know them socially. Preston has received a great many jobs, both competitively-bid jobs and those which were submitted "on quote" because they were below the monetary threshold requirement for competitive bidding. In fact, during the period from December 22, 1992 through October 5, 1993, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit 8 in evidence, Preston did more than 30 jobs of all types for the University, both competitively-bid and non- competitively-bid jobs. Since the Edwards system was never considered to be responsive, which is undisputed, Shine was disqualified as not meeting bid specifications. That left the Petitioner as the lowest remaining bidder. Later in the evaluation process, Fire Alarm was disqualified for not meeting MBE requirements or the good-faith requirement to use 21 percent minority subcontractors. Thus, the practical result was that by disqualifying the Petitioner, or not approving the Notifier system at all, Preston would receive the bid. It is particularly noteworthy that later in the evaluation process, when the University determined that the Notifier system met specifications, it elected not to award to the Petitioner but, rather, to Fire Alarm Service Corporation because it had bid the now-compliant Notifier system, and its bid was slightly over $2,000.00 cheaper than Preston's. That award decision might have stood had Fire Alarm not been disqualified for the problem concerning MBE status, referenced above, even though the University was aware on the day of bid opening that the Petitioner was, in fact, bidding the Notifier system, as well, with a bid almost $3,000.00 cheaper than Fire Alarm's bid. Mr. Kerrin complained in his testimony of the University failing to notify him of bidding opportunities even since the bid opening in question. After the bid opening, Mr. Hodge and other purchasing employees and agents of the University were well aware of his MBE status. Mr. Sontag explained in his testimony that the Petitioner had not been invited to bid on any projects in the year since the Museum project at issue was bid because "we haven't done any alarm system work since this." Mr. Sontag's testimony is contradicted by that of Mr. Hodge, who acknowledged doing other fire alarm addition projects through Mr. Sontag's office since the bidding at issue in this case. The Petitioner was informed of one project and bid on it. It involved an alarm system for the P.K. Yonge High School, operated by the University. The owner decided, however, to cancel that project. The bid invitation was withdrawn so that no award was made to any vendor in that situation. In summary, the preponderant weight of the evidence, the credibility of which has been weighed and determined by the Hearing Officer and which has thus culminated in the above Findings of Fact, shows that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner was the lowest, responsible bidder. Its bid was responsive to the bid specifications. The knowledge to determine that the Petitioner was the lowest, responsible bidder, and that its bid was responsive to the specifications, was available to the University at the time the various award decisions to the other vendors were made in the free-form stage of this process. Nevertheless, the University elected to make an award to a bidder who was not the lowest responsible and responsive bidder.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the University of Florida reconsider its bidding decision herein in a manner wholly consistent with the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and enter an award of the subject bid accordingly. 1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent's action to reject all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-206, relating to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Pinellas Park High School, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, as alleged in the Amended Petition.
Findings Of Fact On March 4, 2013, ITB was issued by Respondent for work related to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Pinellas Park High School in Largo, Florida. According to the Special Conditions portions of the ITB, the "scope" of the project is to "[p]rovide labor and materials to remove and replace the auditorium sound system as per plans and specifications by Keane Acoustics, Inc." The ITB was assigned bid number 13-803-206 by Respondent. Bids for the contract were to be submitted to Respondent by 3:00 p.m., April 11, 2013. Bids for the project were timely received from two companies. The first company, Becker Communications, Inc., d/b/a BCI Integrated Solutions (BCI), submitted a bid in the amount of $130,756.66. Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of $116,000.00. There is a section of the ITB titled "special conditions." The special conditions provide in part that "[t]his is an ALL or NONE bid [and] [t]he entire contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications." On April 22, 2013, Respondent posted a notice advising of its intent to award the contract to BCI. Although Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive because the bid failed to include "proof of 5 years [of] experience with this type of work" as required by the special conditions of the ITB. Petitioner interpreted this provision as requiring five years of experience as a certain type of general contractor, which Petitioner had, whereas Respondent intended for the ITB to convey that five years of experience related to the removal and installation of audio equipment was the desired type of experience. Petitioner's failure to respond to the ITB in the manner contemplated by Respondent was a technical, nonmaterial irregularity.1/ Numbered paragraph six of the General Terms & Conditions of the ITB provides in part that Respondent "expressly reserves the right to reject any bid proposal if it determines that the . . . experience of the bidder, compared to work proposed, justifies such rejection." On April 24, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent a notice advising of its intent to protest the award of the contract to BCI. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner filed its formal protest challenging Respondent's intended action of awarding the contract to BCI. Petitioner's formal protest enumerated several grounds. Of particular concern to Respondent were Petitioner's assertions that the ITB was "inconsistent with Florida law since bidders [were] not required to submit a List of Subcontractors by the time of opening bid"2/ and that provisions of the ITB were ambiguous with respect to the type of experience required to qualify for bidding.3/ Prior to receiving Petitioner's protest, Respondent was unaware of the fact that its bid specifications governing the disclosure of subcontractors did not comply with Florida law. Upon consideration of Petitioner's grounds for protest, Respondent determined that the ITB, as alleged by Petitioner, failed to comply with section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (2012),4/ and that there was ambiguity in the language regarding the experience requirements for bidders.5/ Respondent refers to the problems with the ITB as "procedural errors." These procedural errors will be referred to herein as "irregularities" as this term is more in keeping with the nomenclature of this area of jurisprudence. Given the ITB's irregularities, Respondent decided to reject all bids. In explaining Respondent's rationale for rejecting all bids, Michael Hewett, Respondent's Director of Maintenance,6/ testified that "the [irregularities] were such that [they] potentially could give an unfair advantage to one bidder over another." As for the issue related to the requirements of section 255.0515, Mr. Hewett explained that neither of the two bidders submitted a listing of subcontractors. It would have been competitively disadvantageous to BCI if Petitioner were able to successfully argue that BCI should be disqualified for failing to provide a listing of subcontractors when Petitioner also failed to provide such listing. During the same approximate time that the ITB in the present case was issued, Respondent issued an ITB for nearly identical work to be performed at one of its other facilities (Palm Harbor). In all material respects, the Palm Harbor ITB was identical to the one at issue herein. Unlike the present case, BCI was the sole bidder for the Palm Harbor project and this distinguishing fact reasonably explains why Respondent did not reject BCI's bid for the Palm Harbor Project even though the ITB therein was plagued with the same irregularities found in the present case.7/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that the rejection of all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-206 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing Tamco Electric, Inc.'s instant protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of October, 2013.
The Issue Whether the apparent low bid on contract No. SB 95C-66W should be disqualified on the grounds that the bidder does not meet the experience specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid.
Findings Of Fact On August 16, 1994, the School Board issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. SB 95C-66W, which was described as being a "term contract to provide and/or install rubberized coatings for sports surfaces." Among the bidders who responded to the ITB were the Petitioner, Papico Construction, Inc., and AAA Tennis Courts, Inc. On August 31, 1994, bids were tabulated and the School Board posted its intent to award the bid to Papico. Thereafter, the bid process was delayed as a result of a protest filed by another bidder. On December 12, 1994, Petitioner filed the formal bid protest that resulted in this proceeding. The School Board does not challenge the timeliness of Petitioner's protest. Among the special conditions of the ITB is the following pertaining the qualifications of the bidder: E. QUALIFICATIONS: The bidder shall have maintained continual work experience in coatings for running tracks for a period of three years prior to the bid date. Bidder must submit written documentation with bid or within three days upon request, substantiating experience requirement. The bidder shall have a place of business for contact by the owner during normal working days. Petitioner framed its challenge to the bid process by the following portion of its formal bid protest: . . . To award this project to Papico or AAA Tennis Courts is not only directly in contradiction to the 3 years of continuous work experience section of the specifications (Special Conditions - E), but also deprives the school system of our experience. . . . Papico timely submitted to the School Board written documentation that substantiated that it met the experience requirement contained in Special Condition - E. The evidence presented at the formal hearing established that Papico is an experienced contractor for recreational surfaces and has been involved in coatings for running tracks since 1989. Between 1989 and the time of the formal hearing, Papico had been involved as either the contractor or as a subcontractor for the surfacing or resurfacing of running tracks at Indiantown Middle School, Parkland High School, Hidden Oaks Middle School, J.D. Parker Elementary School, Florida Atlantic University, Martin County High School, South Plantation High School, and Deland High School. At the formal hearing, Petitioner asserted that Papico also did not meet the experience criteria contained in Special Condition - M. That provision is as follows: M. QUALIFICATIONS: The contractor will submit a list of five all-weather running tracks the firm has resurfaced during the past three years. The list shall contain: owner name, location, phone number, number of tracks, and year constructed or resurfaced. (The district reserves the right to contract these owners as references.) Notwithstanding the fact that this issue was not properly preserved by Petitioner, the evidence established that Papico provided this list to the School Board, thereby complying with Special Condition - M.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, dismisses the bid protest filed by Recreational Surfaces, Inc., and awards the subject contract to Papico Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of February, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James Petrucelli Recreational Surfaces, Inc. 2123 Oregon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Dr. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended rejection of all bids submitted in response to Respondent's solicitation of bids for two separate painting projects (the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School and the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School) is "arbitrary," as alleged by Petitioner, and if so, what alternative action should Respondent take with respect to these two projects.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a district school board responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida (including, among others, Greenacres Elementary School, South Olive Elementary School, and Belvedere Elementary School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. In or around August 2009, Respondent, through its Construction Purchasing Department (Purchasing Department), issued a single Invitation to Bid (ITB) soliciting separate bids for three different painting projects: the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School; the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School; and the painting of the exterior of Belvedere Elementary School. The bid package contained the following: an Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form (PBSD 1186, Rev 2/2001); Special Conditions; Specifications; and Addenda, including a Bid Summary Sheet, a Drug-Free Workplace Certification (PBSD 0580, New 3/91), a Statement of No Bid, Inspection forms, and a Beneficial Interest and Disclosure of Ownership Affidavit. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form contained the following provision entitled, "Awards": AWARDS: In the best interest of the District, the Purchasing Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity or minor technicalities in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." All awards made as result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form also included "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" (General Conditions), among which were the following: SEALED BIDS: One copy of this executed Invitation to Bid page and Bid Summary page(s) must be returned with the bid in order to be considered for award. All bids are subject to all the conditions specified herein; all General Conditions, Special Conditions on the attached bid documents; and any addenda issued thereto. Any failure on the part of the bidder to comply with the specifications, terms and conditions of this Invitation to Bid shall be reason for termination of contract. EXECUTION OF BID: Bid must contain a manual signature of an authorized representative in the space provided above. Failure to properly sign proposal shall invalidate same, and it shall not be considered for award. All bids must be completed in ink or typewritten. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The original bid conditions and specifications cannot be changed or altered in any way. Altered bids may not be considered. Clarification of bids submitted shall be in letter form, signed by the bidders and attached to the bid. * * * 20. SIGNED BID CONSIDERED AN OFFER: This signed bid shall be considered an offer on the part of the bidder, which offer shall be deemed accepted upon approval by the Board. In case of a default on the part of the bidder after such acceptance, the District may take such action as it deems appropriate including legal action for damages or specific performance. * * * 25. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Among the "Special Conditions" were the following: SCOPE: The purpose and intent of this invitation to bid is to secure firm pricing for Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools. The rate shall include all materials and labor for preparation, sealing and painting. AWARD: Time of completion is of the essence. Contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder(s) for each item as listed on the Bid Summary Sheet. The District reserves the right to use the next lowest bidder(s) in the event the original awardee of the bid cannot fulfill their contract. The next lowest bidder's price must remain the same as originally bid and must remain firm for the duration of the contract. The anticipated award will be approved by the superintendent designee. B. MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION: ALL BIDDERS MUST ATTEND PRE-BID WORKSITE WALK-THROUGH. THE WORK DETAILS ARE OUTLINED IN THIS BID AND ANY QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED AT EACH WORKSITE INSPECTION. BIDS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM ANY BIDDERS THAT HAVE NOT ATTENDED THE SITE INSPECTION FOR THAT PARTICULAR WORKSITE. THIS MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL PAINT MANUFACTURERS AND/OR PAINT DISTRIBUTORS. * * * BIDDERS RESPONSIBILITY: Before submitting their bid, each bidder is required to carefully examine the invitation to bid specifications and to completely familiarize themselves with all of the terms and conditions that are contained within this bid. Ignorance on the part of the bidder will in no way relieve them of any of the obligations and responsibilities that are part of this bid. SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "INVITATION TO BID" bidder's acknowledgment sheet must be completed, signed, and returned. In addition, the Bid Summary Sheet page(s) on which the bidder actually submits a bid, needs to be executed and submitted with this bid. Bids received that fail to comply with these requirements shall not be considered for award.[2] CONTRACT: The submission of your bid constitutes an offer by the bidder. . . . * * * Q. USE OF OTHER CONTRACTS: The District reserves the right . . . to directly negotiate/purchase per School Board policy and/or State Board Rule 6A-1.012(6) in lieu of any offer received or award made as a result of this bid, if it is in its best interest to do so. The District also reserves the right to separately bid any single order or to purchase any item on this bid if it is in its best interest to do so. * * * HH. POSTING OF BID AND SPECIFICATIONS: Invitation to bid with specifications will be posted for review by interested parties in the Construction Purchasing Department on the date of bid electronic mailing and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. II. POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATION/ TABULATIONS: Bid recommendations and tabulations will be posted in the Construction Purchasing Department, within 10 days of the opening date, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. If the bid tabulation with recommended awards is not posted by said date and time, [a] "Notice of Delay of Posting" will be posted to inform all proposers of the new posting date and time. Any person adversely affected by the decision or intended decision must file a notice of protest, in writing, within 72 hours after the posting. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. OO. BID PROTEST: If a bidder wishes to protest a bid, they must do so in strict accordance with the procedures outlined in F.S. 120.57(3), and Section FF., Lobbying Paragraph 3, of this proposal and School Board Policy 6.14. Any person who files an action protesting bid specifications, a decision or intended decision pertaining to this bid pursuant to F.S. 120.57(3)(b), shall post with the Purchasing Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond secured by an acceptable surety company in Florida payable to the School District of Palm Beach County in an amount equal to 1 percent (1%) of the total estimated contract value, but not less than $500 nor more than $5,000. Bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs that may adjudged against the protester in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond, a cashier's check, certified bank check, bank certified company check or money order will be acceptable form of security. If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the District prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges included in the final order of judgment, including charges by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protester, the protest security shall be returned. If the protest prevails, he or she shall recover from the District all costs and charges, which shall be included in the final order of judgment. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. * * * PP. INFORMATION: Any questions by the prospective bidders concerning this invitation to bid should be addressed to Helen R. Stokes, Purchasing Agent, Construction Purchasing . . . , who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Stokes nor any employee of the District is authorized to interpret any portion of the bid or give information as the requirements of the bid in addition to that contained in the written bid document. Interpretations of the bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, will be communicated to bidders by written addendum. Site visits to the three schools to be painted were made by prospective bidders on August 13, 2009, following which a First and Final Addendum, dated August 25, 2009, was issued by the School Board. This First and Final Addendum included the following Revised Bid Summary Sheet: REVISED BID SUMMARY SHEET THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Ph: 561-882-1952 Fax: 561-434-8655 EXTERIOR PAINTING OF GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SEALED BIDS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 27, 2009 NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. TO: Helen Stokes, Construction Purchasing Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Bids will only be accepted from those contractors in attendance at the Mandatory Site Visit and who are registered with the School District of Palm Beach County as a Small Business Enterprise. The rate shall include paint, preparation, sealing and painting per the attached specifications and detailed scope of work. EXTERIOR PAINTING AT GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ITEM 1: GREENACRES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 2: SOUTH OLIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 3: BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) RE-TEXTURING TEXCOAT $ (Per Sq. Ft.) ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUMS CONTRACTOR: Name Date Address Current License # City, State, Email Address Zip Phone Fax There were no instructions on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet itself directing that an authorized representative sign the document, nor was there any signature line for such purpose. Bids were submitted by Austro Construction, Inc. (Austro); Dynamic Painting, Inc. (Dynamic); Fleischer's, Inc. (Fleischer's); JIJ Construction Corporation (JIJ); and Petitioner. Austro bid $83,900.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $87,500.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $105,500.00 and $3.50 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Dynamic bid $55,955.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $74,800.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $82,900.00 and $3.00 per square foot for re- texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Fleischer's bid only on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School).3 Its bid was $73,000.00 and $1.25 for re-texturing. JIJ bid $80,000.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $95,000.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $95,000.00 and $1.15 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Petitioner bid $89,349.00 (or $33,394.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $93,885.00 (or $19,085.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $94,306.00 and $3.95 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets that were submitted in response to the ITB (one each by Austro, Dynamic, Fleischer's, JIJ, and Petitioner), only two, those submitted by Fleischer's and Petitioner, contained the signature of an authorized representative of the bidder. The other three had no signatures on them. All of the "blanks" on each of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets submitted, including the three sheets without signatures, were filled in and completed, however.4 Furthermore, each Revised Bid Summary Sheet was accompanied by an appropriately signed Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form. Bids were opened on August 27, 2009. As announced on the Bid Tabulation Form that was posted on August 28, 2009, the Purchasing Department recommended that Items 1 and 2 be awarded to Dynamic and Item 3 be awarded to Fleischer's. Petitioner, on or about September 8, 2009, protested the award of Items 1 and 2 to Dynamic on the ground that Dynamic's bids on these items were non-responsive because its Revised Bid Summary Sheet had not been signed by an authorized representative of the company. The award of Item 3 to Fleischer's was not protested by Petitioner or any other bidder. By letter dated September 15, 2009, Sharon Swan, Respondent's Director of Purchasing (and head of the Purchasing Department), advised Petitioner of the following: We have completed the review of your protest of Bid for "Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools," specifically your protest of the recommendation for award for Greenacres and South Olive Elementary Schools, Items 1 & 2 of this bid. A revised recommendation will be posted later today reflecting a change in our recommendation for Items 1 & 2. The revised recommendation will be to reject all bids on these two items[5] and re-bid with revised bid documents which will clarify the ambiguity relating to the requirement to execute the Bid Summary Sheet when no signature line was indicated. Therefore, I am returning your bank check and closing the file on this protest. You are invited and welcome to compete on the re-bid of these projects. As promised, a second, revised bid tabulation form was posted that same day (September 15, 2009) containing the following "revised recommendation": Item[s] 1 & 2: Reject bid Item[] 1 (one) and Item 2 (two) due to an ambiguity in the bid language, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, paragraph E, Sealed Bid Requirements. Item 3: Fleischer's, Inc. The belatedly perceived "ambiguity" referred to in the Purchasing Department's revised bid tabulation form concerned the intended meaning of the term "executed" in Special Condition E. of the ITB. It had been the Purchasing Department's intent, in using this term in Special Condition E., to require that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet be signed by an authorized representative of the bidder; however, the Purchasing Department had not included a signature line on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet (such as the one appearing on the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form), nor had it specified anywhere in the ITB that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet had to be "signed" (in contrast to the instructions, given in the first sentence of Special Condition E., regarding the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form). Upon its consideration of Petitioner's protest, the Purchasing Department had come to the realization that it had not clearly communicated to prospective bidders its intent concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to bear an authorized representative's signature. Believing that its failure to have done so effected the outcome of the competitive bidding process in the case of both Item 1 and Item 2 (in that, with respect to each of these items, the lowest bidder, as well as all other bidders bidding on these two items with the exception of Petitioner, submitted an unsigned Revised Bid Summary Sheet, making these bidders, in the School Board's view, ineligible for an award), the Purchasing Department decided "to reject all bids [with respect to these two items] and rebid so [the Purchasing Department] could correct this ambiguity" concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to be signed.6 It is this intended action which is the subject of Petitioner's instant protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board take the action described in numbered paragraph 51 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 10, 1979, HRS caused a legal advertisement to be published concerning its Purchase Order No. 52579, requesting bids for window film installation pursuant to HRS Bid No. 30-497WR. The Invitation to Bid provided, in part, that: As the best interests of the State may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual item, group of items, all or none or a combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. When it is determined there is competition to the lowest responsive bidder, then other bids may not be evaluated. Bidders are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their bid has been evaluated as being responsive. Among the special conditions of the Invitation to Bid was the following: The successful bidder will furnish and install window insulation film on all glass exposures of buildings designated as one through eight with the exception of these [sic] windows now having film installed. These buildings are commonly known as the Winewood Complex which is located at One Winewood Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Subleased or other occupied space will be an addition to the basic glass square footage of buildings five, six, seven and eight now occupied by the Department of Corrections, Winewood Office Park Lmtd. and the Parole and Probation Commission. Prospective bidders will be provided these applicable locations by the project manager. The bid will contain a diagram and listing of these square footages. The computations of total square footages of applicable glass areas will be separated by buildings. This is necessary so that after the installation of the film on each building is completed and accepted by the project manager, an invoice can be submitted for payment. [Emphasis added]. In addition, tee following clause was also contained in the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid: All work performed by the Contractor in completing the subject project shall be guaranteed by the Contractor against all defect resulting from the use of materials, equipment and workmanship for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the subject project. If, within any guarantee period, repairs or changes are required in connection with the guarantee work, which in the opinion of the Owner is rendered necessary as a result of the use of materials, equipment or workmanship which are defective or inferior or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract, the Contractor shall, promptly upon receipt of notice from the Owner and without expense to the Owner, proceed to: Place in satisfactory condition in very [sic] particular all of such guaranteed work, correct all defects therein; and make good all damages to the structure or contents thereof, which in the opinion of the Owner, is the result of the use of materials, equipment, or workmanship which are inferior, defective, or not in accordance with the terms of the Contract; and made [sic] good any work or materials or the equipment and contects [sic] of structures or site disturbed in fulfilling any such guarantee. [Emphasis added]. The Special Conditions also provided that: No interpretation of the meaning of the Drawings, specifications, or other Bidding Documents, no correction of any apparent ambitquity [sic], inconsistency or error therein, will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Project Manager. All such interpretations and supplemental instruction will be in the form of written addenda to the Bidding Documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Project Manager in writing, shall be binding and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret the Bidding Documents. Finally, the Invitation to Bid also provided for modification of bids if received in writing prior to bid opening. HRS distributed more than 25 bid invitations pursuant to the aforementioned bid, and in response thereto received four bids, one of which was a "no bid". Of the three remaining bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee submitted a total bid of $34,624.88, based upon a measurement of 29,096 square feet at a price of $1.19 per square foot; Florida Solar Power, Inc. submitted a total bid of $30,079.14, based upon 30,693 square feet at $.98 per square foot; and, finally, Petitioner submitted a total bid of $43,555.10 based upon a calculation of 37,874 square feet at $1.15 per square foot. The bids of Solar-X of Tallahassee and Florida Solar Power, Inc. were determined to be unresponsive to the Invitation to Bid for reasons not here pertinent. Although Petitioner's bid contained a total square footage on which it proposed to install window film, the bid did not break down the area of glass on a per-building basis as required by the conditions of the Invitation to Bid. In addition, the conditions of the Invitation to Bid required that building space occupied by sublessors be separately computed in bid responses in order to attempt to pass on to those sublessors their pro-rata share of the cost. Petitioner did not separate this space in its bid as required. Petitioner also failed to furnish with its bid a diagram of exposed glass area in each building as required in the special conditions. Finally, Petitioner's bid response contained the following warranty provision: . . .3M Company and the [Petitioner] warrants [sic] "SCOTCHING" Brand Solar Control films against peeling, cracking, crazing, or loosening for a period of five (5) years after installation in the event the product is found to be defective under this warranty. [Petitioner] will replace such quantity of the film proved to be defective with the [Petitioner] additionally providing the reapplication labor free of charge for the first two (2) years of the warranty. The customer shall pay for any reapplication labor charges during the last three (3) years of the warranty. . .[Emphasis added]. At final hearing, a representative of Petitioner testified that this warranty was the manufacturer's warranty, and that Petitioner, as the seller of the product, intended that full warranty protection in accordance with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid be part of Petitioner's bid. However, nothing to this affect appears in Petitioner's bid, nor did Petitioner attempt to modify its bid in writing before bid opening to make HRS aware of its intentions in this regard. Although bid opening was initially scheduled for August 24, 1979, the opening date was extended to September 4, 1979, by addendum to the Invitation to Bid. After opening, bids ware reviewed by the staff of the Director of the Office of General Service in HRS for technical compliance with the Invitation to Bid. As a result of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid was the only bid submitted which complied with all provisions of the bid specifications, and the staff, therefore, recommended award of the contract to Petitioner. At this point the question of the award of the contract came to the attention of the Purchasing Director of HRS's Central General Services, whose office is responsible for evaluation of bids for compliance with the terms and conditions of an Invitation to Bid, state purchasing law and administrative rules relating to state commodity purchases. During the course of this review, it was determined that Petitioner's bid did not comply with the conditions of the Invitation to Bid in that it failed to break down its bid on a per-building basis and, additionally, improperly qualified the five-year warranty requirement contained in the Invitation to Bid and its conditions. At the Federal hearing in this cause the Purchasing Director for Central General Services also testified that he had received oral communications from other vendors, some of whom submitted bids and some who did not, to the effect that the technical specifications of the Invitation to Bid were tailored to the products sold by Petitioner to such an extent as to effectively close the bidding process to competition. None of these vendors protested the content of the specifications as required in the Invitation to Bid, nor was any direct testimony adduced at final hearing in this cause from these vendors. Although the Division of Purchasing of the Department of General Services also concluded that the bid specifications were too restrictive, there is insufficient evidence in the record in this proceeding upon which to base a conclusion that the specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid were either tailored to Petitioner's product, or were so restrictive as to limit competitive bidding. Indeed, one of the actual bidders, Solar-X of Tallahassee, submitted a bid which complied with the technical specifications, but was rejected because it included an unacceptable contingency clause for late delivery. After extensive in-house review by various HRS employees, a letter dated October 4, 1979, was forwarded to all vendors advising that HRS, after ". . .an extensive analysis of the bid responses. . ." had decided to reject all bids and issue a second call for bids. This letter also indicated that ". . .areas of concern which were expressed relative to the initial invitation will be addressed in the second call." The letter did not attempt to further identify the "areas of concern." The facts of record in this proceeding clearly establish that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner did not include in its bid a diagram of each building on which window film was to be installed, nor did the bid indicate the number of square feet contained in each building. The two vendors whose bids were rejected apparently had no difficulty complying with this requirement. As a result, HRS was precluded from comparing the per-building cost of the competing bids, and, had the contract been awarded to Petitioner, HRS could not have determined the proper amount of periodic progress segments without performing independent measurement. Most importantly, however, Petitioner improperly qualified the five- year warranty provision contained in the Special Conditions. Petitioner's bid, on its face, limited its responsibility to replacement of defective window film during the five-year warranty period, and required that HRS be responsible for payment of labor charges for reinstallation during the last three years of the warranty period. This warranty qualification was clearly contrary to the requirement that any product replacement or reinstallation be without expense to HRS for a period of five years from the date of final completion of the project. There was extensive testimony at final hearing concerning allegations by Petitioner of improper conduct on the part of the HRS Purchasing Director for Central General Services which allegedly resulted in the decision to reject all bids and submit a second call for bids. Testimony on this issue involved Petitioner's assertion that the HRS employee's relationship by marriage to one of the unsuccessful bidders led to his conclusion that the technical specifications were so narrowly drawn as to preclude a consideration of his relative's product, and that the specifications should be redrafted so as to allow consideration of products other than Petitioner's. In light of the fact that Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid, in that it improperly qualified the warranty required, and did not contain square footage computations on a per-building basis, it is unnecessary to reach the question of the propriety of any conduct on the part of the HRS employee. The propriety of the rejection of Petitioner's bid was determined by Petitioner's failure to comply with the Special Conditions of the Invitation to Bid, and could not have been affected by the alleged misconduct on the part of an employee of HRS. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issues are whether Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool (MPP), is the lowest qualified bidder on Contract No. R- 2119 or whether Suwannee Valley Medical Personnel Corporation (Suwannee) is entitled to the award of Contract No. R-2119 or is entitled to have all bids rejected and the contract relet for bids.
Findings Of Fact The ITB on Contract No. R-2119 was developed jointly between the Department's Central Office and the Region II contracting staff. The Region II staff sent a draft of the ITB to the Central Office, where it was reviewed by Gerald Ellsworth, the Department's Human Service Program Specialist. Mr. Ellsworth is responsible for reviewing the Department's contracts and plans, as well as for development of the Department's proposed invitations to bid and other related types of documents. Mr. Ellsworth has considerable experience in drafting and reviewing governmental contracts for purchasing of services at the state, local and federal government levels. The ITB was also reviewed by the Department's legal office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Correctional Medical Authority, with regard to both the specifications and the contract language in the ITB. The Department properly published the ITB on or about June 28, 1989. The ITB was published under cover of a formal State of Florida Invitation to Bid for Contractual Services, Form PUR: 7031 (Rev. 10/18/88), containing the State of Florida standard general conditions for bids for contractual services. Among those conditions were detailed requirements regarding the sealed nature of bids, requirements for the execution of bids, requirements regarding the opening of bids and conditions regarding prices, terms and payment, interpretations and disputes, conflict of interest, awards, governmental restrictions, default, legal requirements, advertising, assignment, liability, facilities, cancellation and public records. The same general conditions on the first page of the ITB specifically provided an exclusive mechanism for the bidders to resolve questions and disputes regarding the conditions and specifications of the ITB: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions con- cerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. (Emphasis added.) The body of the ITB stated that the Department was soliciting bids for registered and licensed practical nurse services in the Department's Region II, on all shifts, for the care and treatment of inmate patients, as further defined in the ITB's section entitled "Responsibilities of Successful Bidder; Scope of Work." The ITB also contained detailed requirements regarding Nurse Professional Qualifications, Quality Management Standards, Scheduling of Nurses, Records, Invoicing, Insurance, Legal Requirements, Conflict of Interest, Unsatisfactory Performance, Brokering of Contract, Subcontracts, Verbal Instructions, detailed procedural requirements regarding the submission, review and evaluation of the bids, a description of the institutions covered and a copy of the sample contract. One of the procedural requirements in the body of the ITB repeated that: All inquiries from Bidder's [sic] concerning this Invitation to Bid shall be submitted in writing to the office identified on the cover of this Invitation to Bid. Such inquiries shall be received by the office on or before the date indicated above in the Calendar of Events as the "Last Day for Written Inquiries" [July 10, 1989]. (Emphasis added.) The ITB contained a "Bid Price Sheet" which contained separate blanks for RN and LPN services, separate blanks for each service for weekdays and weekend/holidays, and separate blanks for each of these categories for each of the three geographic areas of Region II, in each of the three years of the contract. That Bid Price Sheet stated that prices quoted "shall be firm net prices regardless of travel involved. . . " The body of the ITB specified that bidders must submit "all costs in the format specified on the Price Quote Sheet provided." (Emphasis added.) Further, the "Proposal Evaluations" section of the ITB specified that the figures to be inserted in the blanks on p. 15 were to be "hourly rates" for each type of nursing service. The next paragraph of this section of the ITB, however, stated that "Total cost, and cost breakouts on the Price Quote Sheet shall be clearly stated." The undisputed testimony of Gerald Ellsworth established that the intent of these provisions of the ITB was to require the bidders to state the total cost (i.e., net firm price) for each hour of nursing services in a particular geographic area at a particular point in time. Even though the ITB set forth an estimate of the hours that would be required under the contract, this information was clearly only in the nature of an estimate, and it was never the intent of the ITB to require the bidders or the Committee to project or evaluate, respectively, the total cost of the contract (as opposed to the total cost of each hour of service) by multiplying the bidders' bid costs for each hour of service by the corresponding estimate of hours needed over the three- year life of the contract for each of those categories. The primary reason for this focus upon the cost of an hour of service, rather than the cost of the entire contract, is that the estimated hours needed, as indicated by the ITB, are only estimates. Actual demands for service and workloads are likely to vary considerably, both by type of nursing position and geographic area. These demands could also vary as a result of factors such as the vacancy levels in the Department's own staff of employee nurses or changes in administrative personnel at a given institution. The ITB called for a mix of both objective and subjective evaluation of materials submitted by the bidders. The cost data, submitted in response to p. 7, para. E; p. 12, para. F.2.e; and p. 15, para. 7 was entirely objective, as was the Committee's role in evaluating that data. On the other hand, the information required from bidders under p. 12, para. F.2.a ("Project understanding and statement of work and reference from clients"), and p. 12, para. F.2.b ("Nurse Professional Qualifications"), called for a mix of both subjective and objective information and evaluation. The former, referred to throughout the testimony as "Criterion A," required the bidder to submit "a narrative statement of work to be performed, and references from clients in accordance with the specifications appearing at p. 4, para. 2.A. The latter, referred to in the testimony as "Criterion B," required bidders to: submit professional qualifications, experi- ence, and CPR certification for Department reviewers which documents the Bidders [sic] capability to provide registered and licensed practical nurse personnel that meet the training specifications. as set forth at pp. 4-5, para. 2.B. Within Criterion B, for example, an entirely objective requirement is the proof of the bidders' nurses' CPR qualification. A subjective element of this same criterion would be the quantity and quality of documentation of available nurses. The ITB required the Committee to award points to the respective bidders based on a formula which takes into account each of these objective and subjective criteria. That Formula, at its first level, assigned a point value of 20 points for Criterion A (Project understanding and statement of work, and references from clients), 30 points for Criterion B (Nurse Professional Qualifications) and 50 points for Criterion C (Bid Cost). Specifically as to Criterion C (Bid Cost), this criterion was entirely objective and did not require any subjective analysis by the Committee. The ITB specified that the lowest bidder "shall" be awarded 50 points, based on the average of the three years' quotes for cost of hours of nursing services. The ITB specified that the remaining bidders "shall" be awarded points for bid cost based on the following formula: Points Awarded Equals 50 x (1-A/B) where A equals the difference between the respective bidders' average bid and the lowest average bid, and B equals the lowest bidder's average bid. Unlike Criterion C, the Committee members' evaluation of the bidders' responses to Criteria A and B was left to their judgment and discretion. While the ITB set forth factors that were to be taken into consideration by the Committee members under these criteria, there was no required method by which an evaluator was to assign points for Criteria A and B. Specifically, there was no requirement in the ITB that the evaluators rank the bidders under Criteria A and B. An evaluator was free, for example, to give all bidders full point credit under either criterion, or to assign them any variation of points. This type of point system for mixed weighing of subjective and objective criteria is not unusual in governmental purchasing contracting and competitive bidding and is, in fact, normal procedure. The bid criteria set forth in the ITB, as well as the system set forth therein for evaluation of those bids by a mix of subjective and objective criteria, is rational. Further, and specifically, the ITB's requirement that costs be quoted as a rate per hour of service, by geographic area and point in time, is rational. It would be irrational to evaluate bid cost under this ITB by multiplying each bidder's price quotes for individual hours of service, broken down by geographic area and point in time, by the corresponding estimates of hours needed, set forth at p. 3 of the ITB, and then comparing the resulting "total cost" of the contract under each bid, since the estimated hours were intended to be no more than estimates, and the Department recognizes that these hours are subject to significant variation over the term of the contract. This probable variation would make the latter calculation entirely meaningless and baselessly speculative. It was not the intent of the ITB to find the "lowest and best" bidder. Instead, the intent of this ITB was to find the lowest bidder who met the qualifications and specifications set forth in the ITB. This is not the same as "lowest and best." The Bidders and Their Bids Medical Personnel Pool MPP, the successful bidder on Contract No. R-2119, timely submitted its bid for that contract. MPP's bid showed that MPP is a nationally recognized health care provider, with over twenty years of experience in serving the health care needs of both home health clients and facility clients. Its franchise office in Gainesville, Florida, is one of four offices operated in the Region II area by Mr. Ed Bixby, a former vice president of MPP's parent company, Personnel Pool of America, Inc. Mr. Bixby personally has over fifteen years of experience in medical staffing. All MPP offices follow the same national corporate standards for quality assurance, office operation and general business practice. Further, MPP is a financially sound and viable business, with an ongoing corporate recruitment program that regularly attracts new employees. MPP's client service representatives are on-call and available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet the Department's staffing needs. The agency has been managed since October 1987, by Mr. Duane Gorgas, who has seventeen years of experience in facility clinical laboratory medicine, and who is licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as a clinical laboratory supervisor. MPP demonstrated compliance with Criterion B of the ITB by showing that each of its nurses is carefully and personally screened and tested for nursing skills prior to being sent into the field. In addition, MPP personally verifies all nurses' licenses with the Department of Professional Regulation, as well as their CPR certifications. A minimum of one year's documented current clinical experience is required prior to a nurse's being sent into the field. Further, MPP is itself an approved provider of nursing and other professional continuing education programs (DPR Provider No. 27M0938) and provides continuing education directly to its employees on a regular basis. MPP's Gainesville franchise already provides RN's and LPN's to correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes throughout sixteen counties in north central Florida. A list of the prisons and county jails currently and historically staffed by MPP in both Regions II and III was included in the bid, and includes thirteen corrections facilities in those two regions. A broad range of references from these and other clients, both institutional and personal, was included as Attachment II to MPP's bid. Copies of the licenses of 48 experienced MPP nurses, qualified and available to provide the services called for under Contract No. R-2119, were attached to the bid as Attachment III. Suwannee Suwannee's bid was also timely submitted. Whereas Suwannee now protests that the Department's manner of determining bid costs as net cost per hourly unit of service is irrational, that contention is belied by Suwannee's own bid. In the first place, Suwannee did not quote cost as a multiplication of hourly rates times total estimated hours anywhere in its bid, even though its president, Mr. Fortner, now contends this is the only rational way to quote or determine bid cost under the ITB. Further, Mr. Fortner expressly conceded that the ITB did not call for any such calculation of "total cost" by multiplication of rates by estimated hours. Even so, Suwannee has waived any objection or question it may now have as to the method of determining bid cost. Mr. Fortner conceded that he was fully aware of the standards set forth at pp. 1 and 11 of the ITB, requiring that questions or objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB be submitted in writing in a timely manner prior to July 10, 1989. Mr. Fortner nevertheless conceded that he failed to submit any such questions or objections regarding the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, until the filing of his protest after the award of the bid to MPP, and long after July 10, 1989. Having failed to file any timely written objections to the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB, therefore, Suwannee has waived any objections to the Department's method of calculating bid costs by averaging each bidder's unit net price for an hour of service by geographic area and point in time, as opposed to Suwannee's after- the-fact preferred method of multiplying these rates by estimated hours to determine Suwannee's definition of "total cost." Suwannee's bid, as supported by its president's testimony, showed that Suwannee was only incorporated in late July 1988, less than a year before the ITB was published. Prior to that time its then-22-year-old president's business experience consisted of operating a video store. Mr. Fortner conceded he had no prior experience whatsoever in providing any sort of nursing or medical services. Prior to the bid letting, Suwannee's sole experience in attempting to staff a correctional facility was at Baker Correctional Institute. Mr. Fortner testified that his first client was Lake City Medical Center, yet no reference from that facility appears in his bid. On the other hand, MPP's bid contains a highly favorable reference from Lake City Medical Center's director of nursing, indicating a completely satisfactory contractual relationship with MPP since 1987. Whereas MPP directly provides continuing education to its nurses under its own provider number, Suwannee takes the position that continuing education requirements are the nurses' responsibilities, and that they must meet these requirements at their own expense. Further, while Mr. Fortner stated that he believes Suwannee tests its nurses, he admitted he did not know how, and Suwannee's bid was silent on this aspect of Criterion B of the ITB. Suwannee's bid was also silent on screening of new nurse applicants. Suwannee has only recently hired a full-time director of nursing. Whereas MPP submitted qualifications for 48 nurses to staff the estimated hours under contract, Suwannee proposed to staff the same number of estimated hours with only 31 nurses. Mr. Fortner testified that the number of licenses in Suwannee's bid constitutes the full complement of nurses he deems necessary to provide the number of hours of service estimated in the ITB. The Bid Evaluation Process Objective Evaluation of Criterion C Initially, because of a confusing misprint in the ITB regarding the mathematical formula for calculating points to be awarded to bidders, other than the lowest average cost bidder, under Criterion C (bid cost), some of the four Bid Evaluation Committee members calculated the ranking of bidders under that criterion differently. That calculation was corrected by Dr. Rechtine, the Committee chairperson, however, in consultation with officials of the Region II office. The correction did not alter the ultimate overall ranking of the bidders, although it made slight differences in the points awarded individual bidders by some members of the Committee, and in one case the second and third bidders under Criterion C were reversed on one evaluator's tally sheet. All four of the Committee members testified that they agreed with the corrected calculation of points to be awarded each of the bidders under Criterion C. At no time was any other part of any Committee member's points awarded altered or changed. Subjective Evaluation of Criteria A and B Steven Smith Committee member Steven Smith, Regional Health Services Administrator for Region II, responsible for assisting institutions in the region with health service issues, including contracting for health services, evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Mr. Smith thoroughly reviewed the entire bid document of each bidder and made judgments as to the merits of each bid. His evaluations were based on how the bidders presented their respective documents, including the presentation and content of the narratives. While he did not assign any greater weight to either MPP's or Suwannee's references, Mr. Smith felt that MPP better articulated its understanding of the nature of the work. Mr. Smith was particularly impressed with MPP's understanding of the Department's court-ordered duty to improve access for inmates' to nursing services, which Mr. Smith felt was indicative of MPP's understanding of the contract's service requirements. He was also impressed with MPP's documentation of its 24-hour coverage. In sum, Mr. Smith felt MPP's bid was much clearer than Suwannee's. Cynthia Vathauer Committee member Cynthia Vathauer is a Department accountant, in charge of the inmates' welfare fund, who has previously served as an evaluator of competitive bids. Ms. Vathauer evaluated the respective bids of MPP and Suwannee in a rational and reasoned manner. With respect to Criteria A and B, Ms. Vathauer reviewed the ITB and next performed a detailed analysis of whether the bid components called for by the ITB under Criteria A and B were present in each bid. Her review of the bids under Criteria A and B consisted of listing all of the required components under each criterion and then checking off whether each bidder had adequately provided the required components, making notes where there was partial or questionable compliance and deducting points from the total allowable for each criterion which was missing or incomplete. Whereas Suwannee contends Ms. Vathauer made "no analysis" of the bids under Criteria A and B, simply because Ms. Vathauer stated that she did not read these components of the bids in detail for comparative content, this allegation is not supported by the weight of the competent, substantial evidence. Ms. Vathauer's detailed analysis of the presence or absence of the factors called for by the ITB, supported by her contemporaneous notes, shows that Ms. Vathauer made a rational and reasoned analysis of the bids under those criteria, fully supporting her allocation of points to the bidders under those criteria. She admitted candidly that she was not familiar with the clinical or operational aspects of health service provision. Thus, for example, rather than attempt to compare the relative quality of nurse evaluations (which, incidentally, was not required under the ITB), Ms. Vathauer based her judgment of compliance with this criterion on the presence or absence of valid copies of actual licenses. Dianne Rechtine, M.D. Dianne Rechtine, M.D., is the medical executive director at North Florida Reception Center and acting medical services director for Region II. Dr. Rechtine also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids under the standards of the ITB. Dr. Rechtine read the respective bids and, with respect to Criteria A and B, assigned points based on her evaluation of those bids. Her notes of how she allocated points under these criteria appear as Joint Exhibit No. 4D and show that Dr. Rechtine actually scored Suwannee higher than MPP under Criterion A and the same as MPP under Criterion B. Suwannee has not been heard to assert that Dr. Rechtine's analysis under these criteria was other than rational and reasoned. Thus, it is found that Dr. Rechtine's analysis and evaluation of the bids was in fact rational and reasoned. Peggy (Richardson) Patray Since Peggy (Richardson) Patray was not called to the witness stand, MPP offered into evidence, without objection, her deposition testimony, taken prior to MPP's intervention and without benefit of cross-examination by MPP or its counsel. Nevertheless, that deposition and Ms. Patray's own evaluation notes appearing as Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate that Ms. Patray, a registered nursing services consultant employed by the Department and previous nursing supervisor at New River Correctional Institute, carefully reviewed the ITB and analyzed and evaluated the bids under Criteria A, B and C prior to awarding points to the bidders. Ms. Patray looked at the types of facilities from which references were obtained and considered, for example, related jail-type experience to be a positive factor. Ms. Patray actually scored Suwannee superior to MPP under Criterion A for reasons related to the bidders' statements of understanding of work. She scored the two bidders evenly under Criterion B, even though she was favorably impressed by one (at the time of her deposition, she could not recall which) bidder's emphasis on pre-employment screening and in-service training, when contrasted with the other bidder's leaving of this responsibility to the individual nurses. Finally, Ms. Patray testified that she was favorably impressed with MPP's sources of references, as opposed to Suwannee's, and that there was not enough information in Suwannee's bid, in her opinion, regarding nurse professional qualifications. In sum, Ms. Patray's testimony and notes in Joint Exhibit No. 4E demonstrate clearly that she also performed a rational and reasoned evaluation of the bids of the parties under the terms and conditions of the ITB. Suwannee's Allegations There is no evidence on the record of this proceeding to support Suwannee's allegations that political or media pressure adverse to Suwannee influenced the decision to award Contract No. R-2119 to MPP. Each Department witness who testified in this proceeding testified that no such political pressure was brought to bear upon them or even attempted. The competent, substantial and unrebutted evidence of record demonstrates clearly that no such pressure or influence occurred or was attempted. In the same vein, Suwannee has alleged that the Committee improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors or information outside of the ITB and the bid documents. The only evidence of record of Committee members having considered information outside of the ITB or the bids was the testimony of several of the Committee members that they either were aware of or considered allegations of past difficulties with MPP, not Suwannee. For example, Mr. Smith testified that he was aware of one past problem with MPP, but none with Suwannee. In any event, he did not consider anything outside of the bid documents in his review. Ms. Vathauer said nothing relating to this issue. Dr. Rechtine testified that she was aware of, and had considered, past problems with MPP, that she had received favorable input as to Suwannee and, to the extent that this knowledge affected her evaluation, she agreed that it did so to the advantage of Suwannee (scored 20 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B), and to the disadvantage of MPP (scored 12 under Criterion A, 20 under Criterion B). Finally, even Ms. Patray testified that she had received some negative reports on MPP, whereas she mentioned no such information regarding Suwannee. In sum, there is no evidence of record to support Suwannee's allegations that the Committee members improperly considered, to Suwannee's prejudice and detriment, factors outside the bid documents. Any error which may have occurred in this regard was entirely harmless as to Suwannee, and if it had any effect at all, it worked to Suwannee's benefit. Results of the Bid Evaluation Process The result of the bid evaluation process was that MPP received 88 overall points under the formula set out in the ITB, Suwannee received 85.62, Quality Care received 73.05 and Upjohn received 58.87. MPP was also the low bidder on cost, i.e., Criterion C. The weight and preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence demonstrates that Contract No. R-2119 should have been awarded to MPP, as it was, and that there is an ample, rational, reasoned and logical basis in the record supporting the decision of the Department to award the contract to MPP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding Contract No. R-2119 to Personnel Pool of North Central Florida, Inc., d/b/a Medical Personnel Pool. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Office Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-4566BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Suwannee Valley Medical personnel Corporation 1 Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (page 5). Proposed findings of fact 2-5, 7-12, 14-16, and 18 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6, 17, and 19 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Corrections Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2 (3); 3 (19, 25); 4 (page 5); 6 (11); 7 (12); 8 (16); 9 (46); 14 (44); and 15 (45) Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, and 10-13 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Medical Personnel Pool Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 16-50 (1-35) and 53-63 (36- 46) Proposed findings of fact 12-15 are unnecessary or irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 51 is included on page 5 of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 52 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Older COPIES FURNISHED: John F. Gilroy Attorney at Law Haben & Culpepper 306 North Nonroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Drucilla E Bell Perri M. King Attorneys at Law Florida Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Thomas D. Watry Attorney at Law Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
