The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid.
Findings Of Fact On December 20, 1989, the District Board of Trustees, Okaloosa-Walton Community College, issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) for Phase I Construction of the OWCC-WUF Joint Use Campus. The total project was estimated to cost about $5,000,000.00. The funds for the project would come in large part from the Public Education Capital Outlay Funds appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget and to a limited extent from the college's renovation fund. Up to the time of hearing, the legislature had appropriated $3,000,000.00 for the project. The college's renovation fund contained approximately $70,000.00. The board hopes that the additional funding needed for the project (approximately $2,000,000.00) will be appropriated by the legislature this summer. However, until the additional funds are appropriated, the Board, by statute, is prohibited from contracting for projects in excess of the amount of money which has been appropriated for such projects. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. Michael Richardson, of Bullock-Tice Associates Architects, Inc., was the architectural project manager. Each bidder was asked to provide a base bid and a separate bid on each of ten alternatives. Eight bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. All eight bids were rejected. The bids were rejected because all eight bids for the base bid without the addition of any alternates exceeded the funds available for the project. The Board decided to rebid the project. The second ITB was issued on March 26, 1990. The second ITB was restructured in an effort to obtain a base bid within the amount of money which had been appropriated for the project. Alternates could then be added to the base bid until the funds ran out. Specifically, the project was revised to provide for a base bid and separate bids on six alternates. The base bid essentially provided for construction of a classroom (Building No. 3) and a utility plant. Alternates 1 and 2 provided for outside civil, electrical, and landscaping work related principally to the buildings covered by the base bid. Alternates 3 and 4 related principally to the construction of two additional buildings and landscaping related to those buildings. Alternates 1-4 added work to the project. Alternates 5 and 6 deleted certain work from the project. Paragraph 1A of the Instructions to Bidders required that: To receive full consideration, all bids must be executed and submitted in strict accordance with the "INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS. Paragraphs 7C and 7D of the Instructions to Bidders required that: Unit Prices: Each bidder shall state in the schedule provided on the Form of Proposal the amount he proposes for each applicable Unit Price requested. Unit price amounts shall include all costs of material, labor, equipment, insurance, bonds, taxes, overhead and profit and shall be used for determining amounts to be paid for all additional work on the project. Credits for any work omitted shall be determined by Unit Price at the amount scheduled. The Owner reserves the right to reject any Unit Price if considered excessive or unreasonable, or to accept any and all such Unit Prices which may be considered fair and reasonable. Alternates: In order that the Owner may discern an alternative use or type of material, or an increase or decrease in the scope of the Project, such items will be defined as Alternates and will be specifically described by the Drawings and/or Specifications. Alternates will be listed in the Form of Proposal in such a manner that the bidder will be able to clearly indicate the sums that will be added to or deducted from the Base Bid. Alternates shall include all costs of materials, taxes, bonds, handling, overhead, and profits and the acceptance of any alternate shall be in strict accordance with applicable Specification Sections. At some point after the initial bid instructions were sent out, and prior to the bid opening, the project architect drafted and sent to bidders a document entitled "Clarification to All Bidders." This document stated: It is the intention of the Owner to award all add Alternates upon receipt of additional funding this Summer. Due to this circumstance, the determination of Low Bidder will most likely be based upon the Base Bid plus Alternate 1 through 4 and 5 & 6 if so desired. This procedure is in accordance with rules of the Florida State Board of Education for Educational Facilities. (emphasis supplied) No bidder challenged the clarification's inclusion in the specifications for the project. Bidders generally interpreted this "Clarification" to mean that the Board of Trustees intended to award a contract for the total project, and thus would make its determination of low bid based on the total sum of the bids for base bid and alternates 1-4. However, bidders were not uniform in their application of that language to developing their specific bids and were not uniform in their interpretation of whether the Board's method of award of the bid as set out in the clarification was guaranteed by the clarification's language. In other words, some bidders realized that the use of the words "most likely" in the clarification meant exactly what it said and was not a guarantee that the project would be awarded according to the method established in the clarification. Petitioner, on the other hand, at its peril ignored the words "most likely" and altered its normal method of calculating its bid. In any event, no bidder received any advantage over another bidder due to the clarification's issuance and no bidder was favored or discriminated against because of the clarification. All bidders received the clarification and reacted to it in the normal course of their businesses and prepared their bids according to those dictates. Six bids were received on the second ITB, including Jack Moore & Company, Inc. and Sharpe, Inc. The bids on the base bid and the various alternates were as follows: CONTRACTOR BASE BID TOTAL SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1 Under the method of determining low bidder set out in the clarification, Jack Moore & Company was the low bidder. However, the Petitioner's bid, as well as all other bidders' bids, exceeded the amount of money that the Board had on hand for construction of the project. Therefore, the Board of Trustees felt that it could not award the contract according to the method set out in the clarification and examined the bids to determine the amount of construction which could be accomplished for the amount of money it had on hand ($3,000,000.00 from the legislature and $70,000.00 from the renovation fund). By using only the $3,000,000.00 from the legislature, Opus South would have been the low bidder on the base bid. However, by adding approximately $25,000.00 from the renovation fund, the college had enough money to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Money for alternates 3 and 4 was not available. The Board decided to award the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. Sharpe, Inc. was the low bidder on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board awarded the contract to Sharpe. Petitioner was approximately $100,000 over the amount bid by Sharpe on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2. The Board's reasoning was not arbitrary or capricious in the award of the bid to Sharpe. Since the language of the clarification was not binding on the Board, the method used by the Board was within the specifications. Finally, there was no substantial evidence of fraud or collusion on the part of the Board in its award of the bid to Sharpe and no evidence was submitted that Sharpe was not responsive to the ITB. In fact, all the bidders responded to the exact same specifications, thereby affording the Board an exact comparison between the various bids submitted to it for the project. The only difference in the bids was in how each individual bidder calculated its bid to arrive at it's price. Such differences occur in all bid situations and do not serve to lessen the exact comparison of the bids on the specifications. Therefore, Sharpe, having presented the lowest and best bid, should be awarded the contract on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Sharpe, Inc., submitted the lowest and best bid and awarding the bid on the base bid plus alternates 1 and 2 to Sharpe, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 13th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid (ITB) on a construction project referred to as Florida Atlantic University Modulars. The ITB required a base bid and bids on five alternates to the base project. Each bidder was instructed that it must bid on the base project and on each alternate for its bid proposal to be considered responsive. On March 19, 1990, Addendum 1 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was an informational addendum and advised the date, time, and location of the posting of the award recommendation. Addendum 1 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 21, 1990, Addendum 2 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This was also an informational addendum and advised as to a non- mandatory, pre-bid conference to be held March 27, 1990. Addendum 2 was not required to be returned by the bidder as a part of the response to the ITB. On March 30, 1990, Addendum 3 to the ITB was issued to all prospective bidders. This addendum advised that the date and time for the bid opening had been changed to April 9, 1990, at 2:00 p.m. Addendum 3 also contained modifications, explanations and corrections to the original drawings and specifications which impacted the cost and scope of the project. Immediately above the signature line on the cover page of Addendum 3 was the following: This document must be returned in it's [sic] entirety with the bid. Please sign below to verify that you have read and understand all the changes. Item 2 on page ADD-1 of Addendum 3 required each bidder to submit its per unit price structure with its response to the ITB and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: ... The unit price shall not be included in Base Bid. Submit a separate sheet with bid package. The following instructions are given in Paragraph 1(c) of the Instructions to Bidder: NO ERASURES ARE PERMITTED. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The instructions are repeated in Paragraph 1 of the General Conditions of the ITB: EXECUTION OF BID: ... No erasures are permitted. If a correction is necessary, draw a single line through the entered figure and enter the corrected figure above it. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any illegible entries, pencil bids, or corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The following is contained as part of the Instructions to Bidder: Failure to complete, sign, seal and return the required documents will result in rejection of your bid. Any questions should be directed to Susan Kuzenka, (305) 761-7460, Purchasing Department, Broward Community College. (Emphasis in the original.) Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions portion of the bid package provided, in pertinent part, as follows: 8. AWARDS. As the best interest of Broward Community College may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity in bids received ... On April 9, 1990, Petitioner submitted a bid to Respondent in response to the ITB. Petitioner had received the complete bid package, including all instructions and addenda to the bid package. At the pre-bid conference held March 27, 1990, an employee of Respondent emphasized to the attendees that it was necessary for the bidders to return Addendum 3 in its entirety. Petitioner did not attend the non-mandatory, pre-bid conference. The base bid submitted by Petitioner was $1,085,790.00. The base bid of Double E Construction Co., the next low bidder and the bidder to whom Respondent intends to award the contract, was $1,113,300.00. Petitioner's bid for each of the alternates was lower than that of Double E Construction Co. Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum 3 as instructed. On page four of the bid package Petitioner acknowledged that it had received Addendum 3, and it signed and returned the cover sheet to Addendum 3 under the language quoted in the foregoing Paragraph 4. Respondent considered this an important requirement because it wanted to prevent a bidder from later claiming that it had not received Addendum 3 or that it had received information different than that contained in Addendum 3. Petitioner made a correction to its bid for Alternate Number 3 found on page 5 of 13 of Petitioner's bid. Petitioner's bid for this alternate was $88,000. In the space for the written amount of the bid, Petitioner's president inserted by hand the words "Eighty-eight Thousand". In the space for the numerical insertion of the bid he initially wrote the sum $125,000 (which was the amount of Petitioner's bid for Alternate 4). He struck through the figure $125,000 and wrote above the stricken figure the figure $88,000. He did not initial his change. Respondent has never accepted changes to price quotations which were not initialed because it is concerned that uninitialed corrections on bids may result in challenges to the integrity of the bid process and may expose its staff to charges of collusion from a disgruntled bidder. Pioneer did not include a unit price structure in its bid as required by Addendum 3. The unit price structure is an informational item that is not separately considered by Respondent to determine the lowest bidder on this project. On April 6, 1990, Petitioner's estimator on this bid telephoned Susan Kuzenka regarding the unit price structure sheet to inquire as to the format that should be followed in submitting the unit price structure. Ms. Kuzenka is named in the Instructions to Bidder as the person in Respondent's purchasing department to whom questions about the bid process should be directed. Petitioner's estimator was told that the unit prices would be required to be submitted by the successful bidder at the pre-construction meeting after the bids were opened, but that the unit price structure need not be submitted with the bid. Petitioner's president verified this information on April 9, 1990, prior to the bid opening, during a telephone conference with the project engineer employed by Respondent for this project. In reliance on the information that was supplied by Respondent's agents, Petitioner did not submit its unit price structure sheet with its bid. Following its examination of all bids, the bid of Petitioner was disqualified on three grounds. The first reason cited by Respondent was that Petitioner failed to return the entire Addendum (3) as required. The second reason was that Petitioner did not initial a correction to a quoted price figure. The third reason was that Petitioner did not include the unit price structure as required in Addendum (3). Petitioner thereafter timely protested its disqualification and the intended award of the contract to Double E Construction Co. Petitioner contends that the reasons cited by Respondent for its disqualification are minor irregularities that should be waived by Respondent. Additionally, Petitioner contends that the third reason should not disqualify it because Petitioner acted in reliance upon the instructions of Respondent's agents in not submitting the unit price structure along with its bid package. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Broward Community College, enter a final order which denies the bid protest of Petitioner, Pioneer Contracting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2. 6 and 7 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made in paragraph 10. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last sentence of paragraph 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached because of the clear instructions contained in Addendum 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings in the last two sentences of paragraph 5 are supported by the evidence, but are not adopted as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. All proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part. Copies furnished: Eric L. Dauber, Esquire Beyer & Dauber Suite 5300 2101 W. Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 James D. Camp III, Counsel Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Janet Rickenbacker Director of Purchasing Broward Community College Fort Lauderdale Center 225 East Las Olas Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issues are 1) Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) properly rejected all bids on Lease Bid No. 590:2133, and 2) Whether either Petitioner is entitled to award of Lease Bid No. 590:2133 as the lowest and best responsive bidder.
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1989, HRS issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) on Lease Bid No. 590:2133 for 43,634 net square feet of office space in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. The bid package contained specifications, evaluation criteria, and numerical weight to be assigned to each criteria. The bid package indicated the area of emphasis placed on the facility by HRS which focused on client safety, public access, availability of public transportation, and parking. The emphasis on each area was indicated by the weighted points to be given in each area. On January 24, 1990, HRS received bids from both Wharton and Curtis. Both bids were responsive. Curtis submitted the apparent low bid and Wharton submitted the apparent second lowest bid. Curtis, as Trustee, is the owner of the property which is presently occupied by HRS in Ocala, Florida. The lease on these premises was awarded in 1980 and expires in 1990. Curtis purchased the leasehold in April of 1988 while HRS was a tenant and subject to the existing lease. Philip J. Procacci is the President of Procacci Development which is the general partner in Wharton Investment Group. The actual bids submitted were not offered into evidence by any party in this proceeding. Susanne Casey, the District Administrator of HRS District 3, is ultimately responsible for the leasing of all HRS facilities in the district, including facilities in Marion County. Casey appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and evaluate the responsive bids based on the criteria stated in the bid package. The committee was to make a recommendation regarding the lowest and best bidder. Before the bids were opened, the bid evaluation committee met and agreed upon objective parameters for each of the evaluation criteria. These parameters established standards against which each committee member could independently evaluate and award points on each bid. The evaluation criteria in the bid package assigned points in three major categories: associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. Associated fiscal coasts were further broken down into (a) rental rates for the basic lease term, (b) rental rates for optional renewal terms, and (c) associated moving costs. The maximum points available in each of these categories were fixed in the bid package and could not be altered by the committee. These criteria are standard in a lease procurement through out the state. State regulations require that all bids for lease space in the state evaluate rental rates using present value methodology. See Rule 13M-1.029, Florida Administrative Code. This means that the proposed rental rates in all bids are calculated to present value dollars for the purpose of comparison. The Department of General Services has a computer program, the sole function of which is to calculate the present value of the rental rates. The program has nothing to do with the assignment of points under the criteria, but is used as a tool to allow comparison of the bids. The present value of the Curtis bid was $662,464 lower than the present value of the Wharton bid. The rental rates were awarded points under criterion 1a of associated fiscal costs. The committee awarded the full 20 points to Curtis and awarded 5 points to Wharton. The committee members awarded these points in accordance with the standards and formula they had agreed on prior to the bid opening. The formula the committee used was not the more commonly used formula, but it was reasonable and rational and it was fairly applied to the bids in this case. There is no rule or policy of HRS or of the Department of General Services (DGS) that mandates that a particular formula be used in awarding points for the rental rate criterion 1a. There is a formula that HRS and DGS recommend as guidance of a methodology that is appropriate and reasonable, but the recommendation is not binding on the committee or on the District Administrator. There was another criterion of associated moving costs considered as part of the associated fiscal costs. Each committee member awarded 10 points to Wharton and 8 points to Curtis on this item. Wharton received 10 points because it sent a letter with its bid in which it offered to pay all moving costs incurred by HRS in a move to its building. Curtis received 8 points because HRS already occupied two of its buildings and would have limited moving costs in moving into the two additional buildings included in its bid. The bid specifications and bid package contained no indication that a bidder could offer to pay all moving costs as part of its bid. In fact, Wharton submitted its letter offering to pay all moving costs as a result of its discussion with one committee member, T.C. Little. Mr. Little is also the General Services Manager for HRS District 3 and is involved with all bids in the district. Mr. Little interpreted the bid specifications to permit such an offer even though the bid specifications were silent on the issue. At page 5 of the bid package, it is clearly stated that questions concerning the bid are to be directed to the project contact person. It further states: Any questions which might be prejudicial to other bidders will be answered in writing in the form of a clarification to the bid and will be sent to all prospective bidders. On that same page, the bid specifications address proposal of alternatives by stating: For evaluation purposes each bid submitted will be evaluated as to adherence to the specifications requested. If a bidder desires to propose alternatives to the specified specifications, he/she may do so by attaching a sheet to the bid submittal document titled Alternatives. However, these alternatives will not be presented to the bid evaluation committee for use in comparison of bids and can only be considered after an award of bid is made. The project contact person was Donald J. Cerlanek and any request for clarification should have been addressed to him and not to Mr. Little. Mr. Little's gratuitous advice and interpretation of the bid specifications made to Wharton and not to all bidders was incorrect, violated the terms of the bid specifications, and was improper. The bid specifications do not permit an offer to pay all moving costs to be considered in the award of points under the associated moving costs criteria. Such an offer can only be considered as an alternative proposal and cannot be considered by the bid evaluation committee in comparing the bids. Under the standards established by the committee, Wharton should have received 5 points on the associated moving costs criterion instead of 10 points. The committee members individually evaluated each bid and awarded points within the parameters they had established. Except for the incorrect award of points on the associated moving costs criteria, the scoring method and award of points by each committee member was rationally and reasonably related to the relative importance of each criterion as established in the bid package and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Each committee member came to the conclusion that the Curtis bid was the lowest and best based on the award of points in each member's independent evaluation. On February 13, 1990, they recommended in writing that Curtis be awarded the bid. On February 19, 1990, the District Administrator adopted the committee's recommendation and reported the recommendation to Steven Gertel, the assistant staff director for HRS Facilities Services in the Office of General Services. On March 7, 1990, Mr. Gertel sent a memo to the District Administrator. The memo said: Review of the bid evaluation committee's recommendation has disclosed that the committee used a non-standard method of evaluating present value of rental rate for the lease term. Please provide an explanation of this variation to accepted practice. In fact, the committee used the established DGS formula to calculate the present value of rental rates. However, the committee used its own formula to award points based on the present value of rental rates. There was nothing impermissible about the committee's actions or formula. Because of a fear of a bid protest, Ms. Casey, the District Administrator, sent a notice rejecting all bids on the project. No other reason was articulated for rejecting all bids. The fear of a bid protest is not a legally sufficient reason to reject all bids, particularly because it is not stated in the bid specifications and is based on speculation about a future event which may never occur. HRS did reserve the right to reject all bids in the bid package, but it may not do so for an improper purpose. Fear of a bid protest is not a proper purpose. Wharton alleged and attempted to show some level of collusion between Curtis and Mr. Cerlanek of HRS. While Mr. Curtis had several contacts with Mr. Cerlanek about the project, such contacts are not per se inappropriate because Mr. Cerlanek is the District 3 Lease Coordinator and is the proper person to discuss future projects with potential bidders. No competent, substantial evidence was presented to show that Mr. Cerlanek discussed anything that was not public record or anything that gave Mr. Curtis any advantage in the bid process. Mr. Cerlanek did not tell Mr. Curtis what would be in the bid package or what would be needed to insure award of the bid to Curtis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order awarding the bid in Lease No. 590:5133 to Gail Curtis, as Trustee, as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 27th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 90-2459BID AND 90-2666BID 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, Wharton 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: 2-4(5) and 19(27). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, 11-17, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, and 57 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 6, 8-10, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 31-34, 37, 40-44, 48- 50, 52, and 55 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 7, 28, 56, 58, and 59 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 22, 23, 26, 35, 36, 38, 47, 53, and 54 are mere summaries of testimony and are not appropriately framed as proposed findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Curtis, as Trustee 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: 4(11), 7&8(13), 9(14), and 15(25). Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, and 16-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13, 14, and 27-29 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 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: Part I paragraphs 2(1&2), 3(4), 4(8), 5(30), Part II paragraphs 2(1&2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(8), 6(9), 8(10), 19(25), and 20(26). Proposed findings of fact Part I paragraphs 1 and 6 and Part II paragraphs 1, 7, 9, 10, 12-18, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 11 is irrelevant. Copies furnished to: Robert A. Sweetapple Attorney at Law 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr. Attorney at Law Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gloria Fletcher Attorney at Law 515 North Main Street, Ste. 300 Gainesville, FL 32607 Frances S. Childers District Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The College realized that it needed a new telecommunication system about three years ago, when it began to renovate some of its buildings. On June 8, 1992, the College issued an Invitation To Bid, No. 3656, to eight vendors to replace its fifteen-year-old AT&T Dimension Private Branch Exchange (PBX) System and install a voice and data communications network among the College's four campuses. The bids were to be opened at 2:30 p.m. on July 29, 1992. The College believed replacement of the existing PBX system would result in lower operating costs, permit the system to serve more functions and permit the system to expand as the College's needs grew. Two vendors, NEC and AT & T, submitted bids. The College already has gone through two prior bids for the new PBX system, which did not result in contracts with any of the bidders. AT&T had submitted a bid in response to each of those attempts to let a contract for replacement of the College's communications system. The process of developing the bid specifications was initiated by the College's Vice President for Business Affairs, Dr. Clinton Hamilton, who asked those who would be using the communications system (the Registrar, the Learning Resources Department, the Provost, and others) to explain their needs so they could be incorporated in the new system. He also asked College employees familiar with information systems and telecommunication systems to help draft the bid documents to incorporate the functions the users desired. The College received assistance from a committee made up of representatives of the State's Department of General Services, Division of Communications; the State Department of Education; Miami Dade Community College; Nova University; and the School Board of Broward County. These groups reviewed the proposed bid specifications before each of the College's three attempts to let a contract and advised the College on them. The College made a careful effort to craft its specifications to ensure it would purchase the most appropriate communications system for its needs. The College currently has separate and independent voice and data communications systems. For data, each of the College's locations (South campus, Central campus, North campus and the College's administrative center in Fort Lauderdale) use more than one data circuit (AT&T Exhibit 5; Bid page D-1). For example, the eight controllers at the South campus are connected to the Fort Lauderdale Center by a pair of data circuits. The 15 controllers at the Central campus are linked to the Fort Lauderdale Center by four data circuits. If the controllers associated with one data circuit should go down for some reason, those connected to the other data circuits at campus will continue to operate, and the campus will only suffer "partial paralysis." The bid at issue seeks a single "voice and data T-1 network" to link each of the campuses to Fort Lauderdale Center in a unified system, which eliminates the need for separate voice and data systems. The new system is designed so that controllers at each campus will communicate with the mainframe computer at Fort Lauderdale Center through T-1 trunk lines, the same lines connecting the voice telephone system at each campus. Each campus will have its own PBX system, and the T-1 lines will allow users at each campus to place telephone calls to extensions at all campuses internally, i.e., without leaving the College's own network. They can also use the local Southern Bell network to place calls if all internal lines are in use, just as the Southern Bell network is used to place calls to numbers outside the College's campuses. Connection of the voice system (the PBX equipment) and data terminals at each of the College's three campuses to the Fort Lauderdale Center requires the use of multiplexors, devices which improve efficiency in networks by concentrating and combining signals and switching them over connecting links (i.e., the T-1 circuits) to other locations or devices. The bid solicitation document requires a multiplexor known as a "40- Series" multiplexor at each campus to perform the concentrating and combining role. The bid solicitation document also specifies a single multiplexor of a more complex type, a "45-Series" multiplexor, at the Fort Lauderdale Center. This multiplexor performs the switching function to redirect signals from one location to another. The bid solicitation document instructs bidders to supply a Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a type of software to operate the hardware components. Comsphere is manufactured by a wholly owned subsidiary of AT & T, known as "AT&T Paradyne." This software manages the entire network, and allows remote troubleshooting of any problems on the network, Comsphere's system can automatically dial out to the AT&T Paradyne Center in Largo, Florida, so that a technician can investigate and often solve problems without the need to send anyone to a campus to perform maintenance. On July 7, 1992, the College held a bidders conference to explain the bid documents and their requirements, in order to insure that the bids the College received would be accurate and complete. During that conference, the vendors were told: (1) any price corrections must be initialed or the bid would be disqualified; (2) all pages of the bid documents which contain signature lines had to be signed; (3) bidders could not modify the general conditions or special conditions of the bid documents; and (4) any questions about the specifications would be answered only by written addendum. The same instructions can be found in text of the bid solicitation document (AT&T Exhibit 4). The College issued Addendum One to its bid documents on July 9, 1992, Addendum Two on July 14, 1992, and Addendum Three July 22, 1992. Addendum Two is the source of the dispute here. As is the College's practice, all bids were opened publicly after the hour for the receipt of bids had passed on July 29, 1992. Each bid submission had two parts. The first was a bid summary sheet containing a required format for the vendor's price. The second part of the submissions were bound volumes explaining how the vendor would satisfy each of the specific requirements in the bid specifications. During the bid opening, a College employee opened the sealed envelopes containing the vendor's bid summary sheet, and read aloud the prices found on each bidder's summary sheet. Page 13, paragraph 19.6 of the Bid Specifications told bidders that the bid summary sheets must recite the total bid price for the entire system, which had to include any upgrades to the standard features of the vendor's equipment so that the equipment provided would meet the College's specifications. When the bids were opened, representatives of AT & T, AT&T Paradyne, and NEC were present. As the bid summary sheets were opened and the prices announced, no one from AT&T objected to the prices read out or contended there was an error in AT&T'S pricing. The College's Director of Purchasing, Janet Rickenbacker, and the senior buyer handling the acquisition, Susan Kuzenka, then reviewed the extensive responses to the specifications submitted by the two bidders. They determined that NEC was the low responsive bidder. The amount AT&T bid based on the bid summary sheet found in its sealed bid was $1,558,836.57, NEC's bid was $1,549,895.15. 1/ After the bid opening, Mr. Zinn of AT&T had two conversations with Ms. Kuzenka about the AT&T bid. These conversations focused on the conflict in the entry for system maintenance on the bid summary sheet for AT&T which had been opened and read aloud on July 22, 1992, and the backup data for the system maintenance figure found in a section of AT&T'S bid response documents. On the bid summary page, AT&T had listed its "four-year maintenance totals M[onday] through F[riday] 8 a.m. through 5 p.m." as $755,536.16. But on page 53 of its bound bid response, AT&T listed the "total maintenance" cost as $530,204.00. This lesser figure is consistent with other maintenance price information found on page 61 of the AT&T bound bid documents, which set out total monthly maintenance costs for Monday through Friday maintenance from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for all four college locations as $11,045.92 per month. If this monthly figure is multiplied by the maintenance term (48 months) the sum is the $530,204.00 shown on page 53. During his first conversation, however, Mr. Zinn told Ms. Kuzenka that the higher figure of $755,536.16 was correct, because AT&T had neglected to add in the maintenance for the AT&T Paradyne multiplexor in the entries in the bound bid documents at pages 53 and 61. During a second conversation, Mr. Zinn reversed his position and indicated that he had added the maintenance for the multiplexor twice, which resulted in an erroneously high figure of $755,536.16 on the bid summary sheet, and that the $530,204 figure on page 53 was correct. One week after the bid opening, on August 5, 1992, AT&T sent a fax letter to Ms. Kuzenka, which confirmed Mr. Zinn's second conversation, and stated that the correct maintenance price was the $530,204.00 found on page 53 of the AT&T bid, rather than the $755,536.16 figure found on its bid summary sheet. Ms. Kuzenka had not asked anyone from AT&T to submit this price change to its bid, and it was not accepted by the College, under its standard policy that price changes will not be accepted once a sealed bid has been received and opened. The College has consistently adhered to this practice through the entire term of Ms. Kuzenka's employment. While a lower maintenance price can be found in one portion of the voluminous response of AT&T to the Bid Specifications, the figure on the bid summary sheet controls. See the "Special Instructions" found at page 5 of the bid solicitation documents (AT&T Exhibit 4). A bidder should not be permitted to look for ambiguities in the supporting documentation to contradict clear entries of price components found on its bid summary sheet. Use of the bid summary sheet permits the College to rely on a specific portion of the bid submission, which will be comparable from bidder to bidder, and to avoid wading through voluminous and perhaps internally inconsistent submissions to try to determine exactly what the bidder's price is. The "Special Instructions" state: "Bidder must use bid pages provided by the College and submit bid in the order issued; failure to do so will result in rejection of your bid" (AT&T'S Exhibit 4). Over and above the maintenance price differential, the College staff found the submission by AT&T to be materially non-responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Ms. Kuzenka found five problems with the AT&T submission, which led her to conclude that the response submitted by AT&T failed to meet the bid specifications: (1) AT&T qualified or modified the terms and conditions of the specifications; (2) price corrections were not initialed by AT & T; (3) the maintenance contract was partially assigned to another vendor; (4) the bid was not signed by AT&T on all pages which have required signature lines; and (5) AT&T failed to provide a qualification statement. Modification of terms and conditions The College's bid document stated in paragraph 54.1 that the terms and conditions of the bid and purchase order constitute the contract and "no other terms and conditions apply" (Tr. 157). The maintenance agreement, titled "Product Agreement," which is appended to the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan is a standard AT&T form (College Exhibit 6). It contains a provision in paragraph 20G., which states "THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LOCAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY" (emphasis in original). The general conditions of the bid required that the contract be governed by Florida law (Tr. 152). AT&T argues that the standard product agreement it attached to its bid response had not been signed by a representative of AT & T, and that the College had the right to accept or reject the terms of the Service Offerings and Support Plans and the attachments to it. This is true, but the inclusion in its bid response of the New Jersey choice of law provision certainly creates an ambiguity over the applicable law, if AT&T'S bid were accepted. This ambiguity would be completely avoided had it not been proposed by AT & T, in contravention of the bid's general conditions. Paragraph 2 of the Product Agreement states "Terms and conditions on any non-AT&T order form shall not apply." Fairly read, AT&T was attempting to have its duties under its standard Product Agreement governed by the laws of New Jersey, not the laws of Florida. As a matter of sovereignty, Florida agencies do not subject themselves to foreign law. The College acted within its legitimate range of discretion when it rejected the choice of law provision as inconsistent with its bid documents. The same problem is caused by similar language in paragraph 12F of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The AT&T Product Agreement also has an integration clause, Paragraph 20H, stating that it constitutes the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes any other oral or written agreements. This provision also attempts to modify the terms and conditions of the bid specifications to give the terms of AT &T's Service Offerings and Support Plan priority over the specifications. The College was entitled to reject this as inconsistent with the bid specifications. The same problem is presented by similar language in paragraph 12G of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The Service Offerings and Support Plan also contained a provision allowing AT&T to assign the agreement, which violates the anti-assignment provisions of paragraph 56.1 of the bid specifications. AT&T'S bid response stated that the College would be required to pay the cost for installing any additional cable. The bid specifications required vendors to inspect existing facilities at the College during a pre-bid walk- through, so that bidders could determine whatever cabling would be needed, and incorporate all necessary cable in their bid price. AT&T'S attempt to make the College liable for any cabling over and above that estimated by AT&T when submitting its bid is inconsistent with the bid specifications. The AT&T submission includeds a statement that the College was obligated to pay for the cost of a site survey to be performed by the project manager before the execution of the contract. Yet a site survey had already been performed, and the bidder's price was to have been inclusive of a total system, with no additional cost to the College for items such as surveys. Finally, the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan required the College to provide, at the College's expense, a secured and protected area for storage of tools and equipment near the equipment room, which was not part of the bid specifications. At the walk-through, AT&T should have determined whatever its security needs were and included those costs in its bid price. In essence, AT&T submitted preprinted forms without tailoring them to the carefully crafted requirements of the College's bid specifications. It cannot now disavow the contents of its forms which violate or fail to conform to these specifications. The time to review the company's standard forms was before they were submitted in its bid response, not afterward. Price correction There is a price correction on page 48 of the AT&T bid which is not initialed. The bid specifications require that "all corrections, manual or written or white-out must be initialed by the person signing the bid" (Bid Specifications, page 63, paragraph C). This was not done. The specifications stated "Failure to initial price corrections will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 2). Assignment provisions There was also confusion in the AT&T bid arising from the attachment of two proposed maintenance agreements, one from AT&T itself, another from AT&T Paradyne. The two maintenance contracts are not identical. 2/ College personnel believed that one contract was for part of the equipment, while the other contract was for another block of equipment. The College had been concerned about the difficulty in having to deal with different companies; it had drawn its specifications so that the bidder would be the single entity responsible to the College for maintenance. The submission of a proposed maintenance contract from an entity other than the bidder was inconsistent with the bid specifications. Signature Not all pages with signature lines had been signed by AT&T'S representative. These included page D1, which had a bearing on the equipment allowance being provided for the existing system traded in by the College. While AT&T regards these failures as trivial, the College went to pains to require bidders to sign pages with signature lines. Page 5 of the Bid Specifications stated: "Failure to sign all pages with a signature line will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 3). It is not arbitrary for the College to insist that these requirements be followed or to enforce the penalty stated in the specifications. Qualifications statement The special conditions for the bid required that vendors submit a qualifications statement listing similar work done for others (Tr. 168; Bid Specifications Section 25.1 at page 25). The College intended to consult those listed to determine whether they were satisfied with the equipment the vendor installed and the service it provided. AT&T did not provide that list, but rather provided an annual report which contains no customer references. This was not responsive to the bid. The College had experience with AT&T'S fifteen- year-old Dimension system, but not with the new equipment AT&T bid. The failure to submit the qualifications statement deprived the College of the opportunity to check with entities which had purchased the equipment AT&T had bid, something it had been careful to require of bidders. Deciding how to treat these inadequacies is a matter of discretion. Staff recommended rejection of the AT&T bid for genuine instances of noncompliance with specific requirements of the bid specifications the College had carefully crafted. This action cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The College's decision The College's purchasing department recommended to Dr. Hamilton that the bid be awarded to NEC as the low responsive bidder. A bid tabulation was posted on August 7, 1992, awarding the contract to NEC and rejecting AT&T'S bid. The protest AT&T filed a Notice of Protest, and later a Formal Written Protest on August 18, 1992, which dealt with a number of technical aspects, but did not claim that NEC's rival submission failed to conform to the bid specifications. Dr. Hamilton advised the College's president that, to be fair to both bidders, an outside consultant should be retained to evaluate the issues raised by AT&T in its Formal Written Protest. This was done, and the College retained Technology Associates for $8,600 to report to the College on the issues raised by AT & T. Technology Associates found that AT&T did not meet the emergency 911 requirements outlined in the College's bid documents. Southern Bell requires that when 911 calls are made from the College, the telephone system be capable of identifying to the police dispatcher which campus, which room and which extension number originated the emergency 911 call. The consultant also found that NEC's system met this requirement. AT&T did not attempt to refute this determination at the final hearing. The consultant found that AT&T'S proposed system was "over designed," in that it included elements not required by the bid documents. AT&T argues that Addendum Two, issued on July 14, 1992, 14 days before the bid opening, was so ambiguous with respect to necessary redundancy that the two bidders were bidding on fundamentally different systems, so that the matter should be bid for a fourth time. The portion of the addendum at issue states: The College requires two additional T-1 lines; not one as previously stated, to be added to diagram D-2 to ensure redundancy. A T-1 line is to connect North Campus with Central Campus and an additional T-1 line is to connect Central Campus with South Campus. (Tr. 85) Addendum Two explains that these lines are required to "ensure the ability to redirect calls if required, enabling the system to be fully redundant" (Tr. 86- 87, emphasis added). The addendum directed only the addition of two T-1 lines. This can be done, as NEC proposed, by connecting additional T-1 lines, one from the PBX at the North Campus to the PBX at the Central Campus and the other from the PBX at the Central Campus to the PBX at the South Campus. AT&T chose to feed each of the PBX installations at the North Campus, Central Campus and South Campus first into its own additional 45-Series multiplexor (the complex multiplexor, see Finding 10 above) so that a 45-Series multiplexor will handle T-1 connections from North Campus to a 45-Series multiplexor at Fort Lauderdale center, and to a 45-Series multiplexor at Central Campus. The PBX at Central Campus, because it has its own 45-Series multiplexor, then can be connected by T-1 lines to the 45- Series multiplexors at North Campus, South Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center. The PBX at South Campus, through its 45-Series multiplexor, then can connect to the 45-Series multiplexors at Central Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center (this configuration is shown on the final page of AT&T Exhibit 5). This is a more complex way to provide the T-1 connections between North and Central Campus and Central and South Campus than the addendum required, and uses four 45-Series multiplexors rather then one. AT&T argues its more complex solution was necessary so that both voice and data systems would be redundant, thus meeting the requirement in the addendum that the system be "fully redundant." The problem with the approach taken by AT&T is that it fails to follow the language of Addendum Two. There is no reference to alternative routing or redundancy for data, the redundancy is required to redirect calls, i.e., PBX or voice components. See the final quotation in Finding 40, above. Redundancy for data transmissions, something the AT&T solution provides, was not required. AT&T'S solution is overdesigned. This is not a pivotal issue, however, because for the reasons stated in the foregoing findings, the submission by AT&T was properly rejected by College staff as non-responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. NEC is the low responsive bidder. Software certification AT&T argues in pages 16 through 20 of its proposed recommended order that the bid of NEC fails to conform to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid. AT&T had not raised the issue of whether the bid of NEC was responsive in its Formal Written Protest, and the attempt to do so at the beginning of the final hearing was rejected. As a result, this is not an issue which should have been addressed in the proposed recommended order. Nonetheless, it may be easily disposed of. The bid documents require that each bidder provide the College with a certification that the bidder: [O]wns, leases or controls the software it offers in response to this bid. If the bidder does not own the software, their certificate must include the source from which the software shall be obtained, and that the bidder has a right to sell or lease this software (Bid Specifications at 26, AT&T Exhibit 4.) The bidder also must certify that it is "eligible to maintain and support the software." (Id.) In its certification, NEC stated: NEC is the manufacturer of the NEAX2400 IMS that has been proposed to Broward Community College. As the manufacturer, we developed all software utilized on the NEAX2400. NEC owns all the rights to the software and has over 600 software engineers in Dallas dedicated to maintain and support the software. (AT&T Exhibit 4, final page) AT&T objects that this certification goes only to NEC's hardware, and does not constitute a certification that NEC has the rights to convey to the College the software necessary to operate the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a product of AT&T Paradyne. When reviewing the submissions of both bidders, the College staff found that their software certifications were equivalent. Both companies certified that they had the right to sell the software to operate the system each offered to the College. The College is entitled to rely on the certification given to it by NEC. If NEC is wrong, and does not have the right to provide the necessary software because AT&T or AT&T Paradyne will refuse to permit it to use that software, NEC may be liable in damages for failure to meet its contractual obligations to the College. NEC did not offer at the hearing evidence on why it believes it is entitled to use the software for the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, because AT&T's attempt to raise this issue had been rejected when AT&T's motion to amend its Formal Written Protest of August 18, 1992 was denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Trustees of Broward Community College awarding Bid No. 3656, the rebid of the College-wide PBX system, to NEC for a bid price of $1,549,895.15. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 March 1993.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's intended award of a lease for office space to Intervenor, Anthony Abraham Enterprise, is arbitrary and capricious and whether the proposal of the Petitioner, Adlee Developers, the current lessor, is responsive.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that on April 7, 1991, the Department issued an Invitation to Bid entitled, "Invitation To Bid For Existing Facilities State Of Florida Lease Number 590:2286, Dade County" This procurement was for the provision of 30,086 net rentable square feet to be used for office space in Dade County. A 3% variance was permitted. The facility was to house the District's Aging and Adult Services office which has been a tenant in Petitioner's building for several years and remained there during the pendancy of this protest process. According to the published advertisement, a pre-proposal conference was to be held on April 22, 1991, with all bids due by the bid opening to be held at 10:00 AM on May 30, 1991. The pre-bid conference was conducted by Philip A. Davis, then the District's facilities service manager and included not only a written agenda but also a review of the evaluation process by which each responsive bid would be examined. Petitioner asserts that the potential bidders were told, at that conference, that annual rental increases for the ten year lease period could not exceed five per cent (5%) and claims that Abraham's bid exceeded those guidelines. Thorough examination of the documentary evidence presented and the transcript of the proceedings, including a search for the reference thereto in Petitioner's counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact, fails to reveal any support for that assertion as to an increase limitation. The ITB for this procurement, in the section related to the evaluation of bids, indicated that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5-3 and 5-11 of HRSM 70-1, dealing with the procurement of leased space, the responsive bids would be reviewed by an evaluation committee which would visit each proposed facility and apply the evaluation criteria to it in order to determine the lowest and best bidder. The evaluation criteria award factors listed in the ITB defined a successful bid as that one determined to be the lowest and best. That listing of evaluation criteria outlined among its categories associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. As to the first, the committee was to look at rental rates for both the basic term of the lease and the optional renewal period. The rates were to be evaluated using present value methodology applying the present value discount rate of 8.08% and rates proposed were to be within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. The total weight for the rental rate category was to be no more than 40 points with 35 points being the maximum for the basic term and 5 points for the option. Evaluation of the location was to be based on the effect of environmental factors including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it on the efficient and economical conduct of the operations planned therefor. This included the proximity of the facility to a preferred area such as a co-location, a courthouse, or main traffic areas. This item carried a maximum weight of 10 points. Also included in location were the frequency and availability of public transportation, (5 points); the proximity of the facility to the clients to be served, (5 points); the aesthetics of not only the building but the surrounding neighborhood, (10 points); and security issues, (10 points). The third major factor for evaluation was the facility itself and here the committee was to examine the susceptibility of the offered space to efficient layout and good utilization, (15 points), and the susceptibility of the building, parking area and property as a whole to possible future expansion, (5 points). In that regard, the Bid Submittal Form attached to the ITB called for the successful bidder whose property did not have appropriate zoning at the time of award to promptly seek zoning appropriate to the use classification of the property so that it might be used for the purposes contemplated by the department within 30 days. In the event that could not be done, the award could be rescinded by the department without liability. The committee could award up to 100 points. The basic philosophy of this procurement was found in paragraph 1 of the Bid Award section of the ITB which provided: The department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the department and the state. After the bid opening, three of the four bids received, excluding Petitioner's which was initially determined to be non-responsive, were evaluated by the Department's bid evaluation committee according to the above point system which allowed no discretion or deviation from the formula in comparing rental rates between bidders. Once Petitioner's bid was thereafter determined to be responsive, it, too was evaluated by the committee. At this second evaluation session, relating to Adlee's bid only, the committee scored the bid and added its scores to the original score sheets upon which the other three bidders' scores had been placed. Abraham had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease and received the maximum award of 35 points for that category while Adlee received points. Abraham received an additional 2.29 points for the optional period rates while Adlee got 0. In the other categories, "location" and "facility", which comprised 60% of the points, Adlee's facility was routinely rated superior to Abraham's except for the area related to susceptibility for future expansion in which Abraham was rated higher by a small amount. Overall, however, Adlee was awarded 620.41 points and Abraham 571.03 points and as a result, Adlee was rated by the committee to be the lowest and best bidder. RCL, another bidder, was rated second, with Abraham third and DCIC fourth. Thereafter, the committee chairman, Mr. VanWerne, forwarded the new (and complete) evaluation results to the District Administrator on June 14, 1991 by an addendum dated June 27, 1991 which recommended award of the bid to Petitioner, Adlee Developers. No award was made at the time. Several factors not pertinent to the issues here caused that delay. Among the major of these was pending legislation which would have transferred the operation needing this space to another agency. This transfer was never consummated, however. On or before March 20, 1992, the new District Administrator, Mr. Towey, who had been appointed to his office in December, 1991, and who was made aware that this procurement had not been finalized, requested all available material on it so that he could study it and make his decision based on his own review of the submission. As a part of his determination process, he visited and inspected both the Adlee and the Abraham sites. One of the factors he considered was what appeared to be the significant monetary discrepancy between the two pertinent bids. Initial calculations indicated that Abraham's bid was approximately $835,000.00 lower than Adlee's over the ten year basic term of the lease. This amount was subsequently determined to be somewhat lower but the discrepancy is still significant. Nonetheless, because of that difference, Mr. Towey called a meeting with the members of the evaluation committee which had evaluated the bidders and had recommended Adlee. His stated reason for calling that meeting was to allow him to hear their reasons for rating the submissions as they had done and to take that information into consideration when he made his final decision. None of the committee members who testified at the hearing at Petitioner's behest indicated any feelings of pressure or intimidation by Mr. Towey. During his meeting with the committee members, Mr. Towey went over several of the evaluation criteria award factors to determine the committee's rationale. Of major importance was the issue of cost, of the availability of the facility to transportation to and from the building, employee security and the ability to control access to the facility, and the availability of on-site parking without cost to both employees and clients. It appears the Adlee facility is a multistory building with some parking available on site and would be easier to control. In addition, it is closer to public transportation access points. There is, however, some indication that on-site parking for clients would not be free and the closest free parking is some distance away. According to Adlee's representative, this matter would not be a problem, however, as adequate, free on site parking, which apparently was not initially identified as a problem, could be provided in any new lease. The Abraham facility is a one story building surrounded by on-site parking. In that regard, however, at hearing, Petitioner raised the claim that the Abraham site did not, in actuality, provide adequate parking because the zoning requirements of the City of South Miami, the municipality in which the facility is located, did not permit the required number of parking spaces to accommodate the prospective need. Petitioner sought and received permission to depose the Building and Zoning Director for the city, Sonia Lama, who ultimately indicated that the Abraham site was grandfathered in under the old zoning rule and, thereby, had adequate parking available. In any case, had this not been true, under the terms of the ITB, any zoning deficiencies could have been corrected after award, or the award rescinded without penalty to the Department. After the meeting with the committee, Mr. Towey indicated he would probably go against the committee's recommendation. One of his reasons for doing so, as he indicated to them, was the appearance certain amenities in the facility would give. In the period between the time the committee met and Mr. Towey was ready to decide, there were several newspaper articles published in the Miami area which were negative in their approach to Department leasing policies and this publicity had an effect on him. In his response to a reporter's question, in fact, Mr. Towey indicated he would not permit the lease of any property which contained such amenities while he was District Director. There is some evidence that the wet bar referred to here was a sink and counter used by agency employees to make coffee. However, before making his decision, Mr. Towey also met with Herbert Adler of Adlee. Mr. Towey advised him he was concerned about the fact that the Adlee property provided a wet bar, a private bathroom and some other amenities in that suite of offices occupied by the Department. Mr. Towey was adamant in his public and private pronouncements on the subject that there would be no such amenities in HRS offices in his District while he was in charge. At the meeting in issue, Mr. Adler made it very clear he was willing to remove all the offending amenities to bring the space into conformity with Mr. Towey's standards. Mr. Towey obviously took Adler at his word as he did not consider this matter to be an issue when he evaluated the bids. Based on his independent evaluation of the proposals, and considering all the pertinent factors, Mr. Towey decided not to concur with the committee's recommendation and instead recommended to the Department's Office of General Services that the bid be awarded to Abraham. Because his recommendation differed from that of the evaluation committee, under the provisions of Section 5-13, HRS Manual 70-1, he was required to forward additional justification for his position. In his forwarding memorandum dated March 20, 1992 to Mr. King Davis of the Department's Office of General Services, Mr. Towey listed as his reasons for disagreement with the committee's recommendation, (1) the lower term cost of Abraham's bid, (2) his opinion that the one story floor plan of Abraham was more convenient and accessible to clients, and (3) the provision for ample free parking at the Abraham site as opposed to the limited parking at the Adlee building. Petitioner claims that Mr. Towey's justification for disagreement was improper because, (a) the rental difference he cited was not based on the ITB formula and did not consider the difference in square footage offered; (b) the rental rate comparison compared a proposed lease with an existing lease, not with a proposal; and (c) the reference to on-site parking referred to the situation under the existing lease with Adlee and not to what could occur under a new lease. The major factor in Mr. Towey's decision was the price differential between the two offerings. While the difference may not have been as great as presented initially by the department staff, even taken in its most conservative light of about half that amount, and considering the appropriate figures, the difference was still considerable and significant. In the continuing period of budgetary austerity under which state operations have been and must continue to be conducted, the financial consideration loomed large in his thinking. As for the parking situation, no change for the better was provided for in Adlee's proposal and even if it were, it was but one of several factors. When Mr. Towey's March 20, 1992 memorandum in justification of his disagreement was evaluated at the Office of General services, it was determined that his decision was rational and objectively justified. Thereafter, by letter dated April 2, 1992, the Office of General Services authorized District 11 to award the lease to Abraham and this decision was transmitted to all responsive bidders by letter dated April 7, 1992. It was this action which prompted Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the protest by Adlee Developers, Inc., of the award of procurement No. 590:2286 to Anthony Abraham Enterprises. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2798 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted that the pre-bid conference was held but reject the finding that a 5% limit was mentioned. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted except for the next to last sentence which is rejected. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 30. Rejected. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell 200 East Broward Blvd. P.O. Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Paul J. Martin, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Suite 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Peter W. Homer, Esquire Greer, Homer & Bonner, P.A. 3400 International Place 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation sought bid proposals for mechanical sweeping on three road projects identified as Project No. 87906-9175, Project No. 87906-9176 and Project No. 87906-9177, which involve street sweeping in Dade County, Florida. The contract documents provided that a mandatory pre-bid conference would be held in Miami on August 7, 1986. The purpose of the pre-bid conference was to answer any questions the contractors might have to assure that the contractors understood the full scope of each of the contracts and to assure the Department that it would receive responsible bids. Two prospective bidders attended the pre-bid conference: Dave Smith & Company and Power Sweeping Services, Inc. Charles Larry Roberts attended the pro-bid conference on the three subject projects as the sole representative of Dave Smith & Company. Florida Sweeping, Petitioner herein, did not exist at the time of the pro-bid conference. Roberts was in attendance at the pro-bid conference from the beginning until the end of the conference. The pre-bid conference would not have been conducted in a different manner had Roberts signed in as agent for Petitioner rather than as agent for Dave Smith & Company. Although there was a mandatory pro-bid conference requirement, the contracts were routine in nature. Prior to the bids being submitted for the subject contracts, the relationship between Dave Smith & Company and Roberts was terminated. Other than the attendance by Roberts at the pre-bid conference, Roberts did not participate in the preparation of the bids on behalf of Dave Smith & Company. After Roberts and Dave Smith & Company terminated their relationship, Roberts chose to submit bids for the contracts himself under the name of Florida Sweeping. Subsequent to the pro-bid conference, Roberts went to the Department and picked up the bid specifications for the three projects, signing his own name as the party receiving the packages. Laurel Bryan, the District Contracts Coordinator, was aware that Roberts signed his own name in picking up the bid specifications. In response to the Department's request for bids, bids were submitted on all three projects on behalf of three bidders: Dave Smith & Company, Power Sweeping Services, Inc., and Petitioner. At the time scheduled for bid opening, Roberts delivered to Bryan the three bids on behalf of Petitioner, at which time they were accepted by Bryan who knew that while Roberts had in fact attended the pre-bid conference, he did not attend the conference in the capacity of representative of Petitioner. She also knew that Roberts had previously bid on other similar projects. At the time the bids were submitted and accepted, they were in sealed envelopes and Bryan was unaware as to which of the three bidders was the low bidder. At the time of the bid opening, the Department made no inquiry as to whether the Dave Smith & Company bids were prepared with the benefit of Roberts' attendance at the pre-bid conference. The bids submitted by all three bidders were opened on August 14, 1986, and tabulated, disclosing that Petitioner was the low bidder with respect to all three contracts. The Department admits that attendance by Roberts at the pre-bid conference as representative of a company other than Petitioner would not affect his ability to bid for and to perform the work under the subject contracts. On August 18, 1986, the Department of Transportation advised Petitioner that its bid proposals had been declared nonresponsive and irregular for two reasons: (a) Petitioner did not send a representative to the mandatory pre-bid conference; and (b) Petitioner did not present adequate proof of ability to obtain a performance bond. Part of the bidding specifications included a document entitled "Instructions to All Bidders". Paragraph 4 of "Instructions to All Bidders" reads as follows: 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 OF THE MINI-CONTRACT GENERAL: SPECIFICATIONS, ALL BIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND. AS PROOF, ALL BIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTARIZED LETTER FROM A BONDING COMPANY, BANK OR OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION STATING THAT THEY INTEND TO ISSUE A BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID, WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT, SHOULD YOUR FIRM BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT. Petitioner with respect to each contract, submitted a notarized letter dated August 12, 1986, from A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited. A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited, is a financial institution. The letter stated that A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited, would "cash" bond any contracts awarded to Petitioner by the State of Florida. Although the Department of Transportation's written requirement concerns a bond from either a surety or insurance company, or from a bank or other financial institution, a cash bond is acceptable to the Department. It is, therefore, not necessary that a bond be provided by a surety. After rejection of Petitioner's bids, the Department determined that Power Sweeping Services, Inc., was the lowest responsible bidder. The bid from Power Sweeping Services, Inc., includes a letter from William Douglas & Associates, an independent insurance agent, as the letter intended to comply with the bonding letter requirement of the Instruction to Bidders. That letter states in part: With regard to Item #1, Qualifying Bonding Company, I have been advised by the present carrier, Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company that they do not anticipate any problems in issuing the Payment and Performance Bond in the total aggregate amount of $158,915.70, which consists of the following . . . . The bond letters submitted with the Power Sweeping Services, Inc., bids are not notarized and do not bind any bonding company, bank, other financial institution or even Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company, to issue a bond for Power Sweeping. The Department accepted the letter from William Douglas & Associates, Inc., as opposed to requiring a letter directly from Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company due to the fact that Bryan had prior independent knowledge of the agent as she had dealt with the agent on previous occasions. If Bryan had any questions about the William Douglas & Associates, Inc., letter, she would have called the agent. Although Bryan could not read the signature on the letter from William Douglas & Associates, Inc., she felt she could recognize the signature of a Mr. Savoie on behalf of William Douglas & Associates, Inc., by virtue of her previous dealings with him. The Department rejected Petitioner's letter from A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, for the following reasons: (a) because Bryan could not read the signature of the person who signed it; and (b) because Bryan did not know the cities or countries or islands where the company was located, did not see a recognizable to her address on the letter, and did not see a recognizable to her telephone number with a three digit area code and a seven digit number. Bryan did not ask Roberts at the bid opening or at any subsequent time where A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, was located, whether A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, was a financial institution, or how A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, could be contacted by telephone. The only reasons why Petitioner's bids were rejected were the two specific reasons stated in the letters of August 18, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping with respect to State Project Nos. 87906-9175, 87906-9176 and 87906-9177, to be the lowest responsive bids, accepting those bids, and awarding the three contracts in question to Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barry S. Webber, Esquire Post Office Box 8549 Hollywood, Florida 33084-0549 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact During March 1988, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid by which it sought to lease 17,973 net usable square feet of office space to be located within a specified geographic area in Tampa, Florida, under a nine year lease with two additional three year option periods. This Invitation to Bid is referred to as Lease Number 590:1927. Three bids were received in response to the Invitation to Bid, and they were opened on May 13, 1988. Bids were received from the Petitioner, 8900 Centre, Ltd., and the Allen Morris Management Company. All bidders were determined to be responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Despite the fact that petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated June 10, 1988, of its intent to award Lease Number 590:1927 to 8900 Centre, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. Petitioner has timely filed its protest seeking review of that decision. It is undisputed that Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. For the first year of the lease, Petitioner bid $7.85 per square foot, while 8900 Centre bid $7.95 per square foot. Thereafter, Petitioner proposed a yearly increase of 50 cents per square foot, reaching $11.85 per square foot in the ninth year of the lease, while 8900 Centre proposed annual increases of approximately 75 cents, reaching $14.00 per square foot in the ninth year. This equates to an actual dollar difference over the nine year term of approximately 185,000. However, using a present value methodology and a present value discount rate of 8.81 percent referred to on page 17 of the bid submittal form, the present value difference in these two bids is approximately $1,000 per month, which would result in a present value difference between Petitioner and 8900 Centre of approximately $108,000 over the nine year period. Neither the Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, nor the actual bids were offered into evidence. One page of the bid submittal form, designated as page 17 of 18, was offered and received in evidence. This portion of the bid submittal form states that the "successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best." It also sets forth evaluation criteria, and assigns weights to each criteria. The evaluation criteria include associated fiscal costs (35 points), location (40 points) and facility factors (25 points) . A synopsis of bids was also offered and received in evidence showing the points awarded to each bidder by the Respondent's bid evaluation committed. Out of a possible 100 points, 8900 Centre received 95.17 points, while Petitioner received 82.25 points and the Allen Morris Management Company received 70.67 points. Petitioner asserts that the members of the evaluation committee were not qualified or knowledgeable in basic construction, design and engineering principles, and therefore could not competently evaluate the bids submitted. However, Petitioner did not offer competent substantial evidence to support this contention. Only the chairperson of the committee, Susan Jennings, was called to testify, and she appeared thoroughly knowledgeable in the bid process, the needs of the agency, the bid requirements and the representations made to the committee members by each bidder, including Petitioner, when the committee made its site visit to each location. Since the actual Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, and evidence about the other committee members were not introduced, it is not possible to know what the specific duties of the committee were, how they were to carry out their duties their qualifications and training, and whether they failed to competently carry out these duties, as alleged by Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's lower bid, Respondent awarded this lease to 8900 Centre, Ltd., based upon the evaluation committee's determination assigning 8900 Centre the highest number of evaluation points. Out of a possible 35 points for fiscal costs, Petitioner received 34 and 8900 Centre received 31.5. Thus, Petitioner's status as low bidder is reflected in the points awarded by the committee. Since neither the bid invitation or specifications were introduced, no finding can be made as to whether the difference between these two bidders comports with any instructions or directions provided by the agency to potential bidders, or whether this difference of 2.5 points on this criteria reasonably reflects and accounts for the dollar difference in these two bids. Petitioner received 34.75 points out of a possible 40 points on the general evaluation criteria "location," while 8900 Centre received the full 40 points. Within this criteria, there were three subcategories, and on the first two subcategories (central area and public transportation) there was an insignificant difference of less than one-half point between Petitioner and 8900 Centre. The major difference between these two bidders which accounts for their significant difference on the location criteria, was in the subcategory of environmental factors, in which Petitioner received 15.17 points and 8900 Centre received the full 20 points. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence to discredit or refute the committee's evaluation in the subcategory of environmental factors. To the contrary, the only testimony from a committee member was that of Susan Jennings, and according to her, Petitioner failed to explain the availability of individual air conditioning and heating controls, or the possibility of separate program entrances, which could be made available under its bid. Although Petitioner sought to explain at hearing that these desires of the agency could be accommodated in its bid, there is no evidence that such an explanation was provided in its bid or during the bid process when the evaluation committee visited the Petitioner's site. The committee was aware, however, that 8900 Centre would provide individual heating and air conditioning controls, as well as separate outside entrances for the three programs which would occupy the leased space. Additionally, the committee was concerned, according to Jennings, that parking areas at Petitioner's facility were more remote and removed from the building entrance than at 8900 Centre, and were somewhat obscured by trees and shrubbery, thereby presenting a potential safety concern for employees working after dark. Finally, every employee would either have a window or window access at 8900 Centre, while it was not explained that Petitioner's site would offer a similar feature. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the evaluation committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for environmental factors to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. The evidence reflects a reasonable basis for this difference. The other significant difference between these two bidders was in the subcategory for layout and utilization under the evaluation criteria "facility." Petitioner received 13.67 points while 8900 Centre received a full 20 points. Jennings explained that the separate outside entrances leading directly into the three programs that would occupy this space was preferred to a single reception area for all three programs. Petitioner offered the single reception area in its bid and site visit presentation, while 8900 Centre made it clear that each program would have its own entrance. Since these programs do not have a receptionist position, and none wanted to give up a secretarial position to serve as receptionist for all three programs, the committee did not consider the single reception area entrance to be desirable. Additionally, Petitioner's facility was a two-story building, while 8900 Centre is a single story facility. Jennings explained that the committee considered a ground level facility to be preferable to a two story building, particularly since the Medicaid program was to occupy the major portion of this space. The Medicaid program would have to be split up at Petitioner's facility, either in two separate buildings or on two levels of the same building, while at 8900 Centre, Medicaid could be accommodated in one, single story building, with the other two programs in a second, single story building. Finally, parking at 8900 Centre was directly next to, and outside the entrance of the building, while Petitioner offered to make assigned spaces available in a general parking area which serves its entire 100,000 square foot complex. The parking offered by Petitioner is more remote than that offered by 8900 Centre, and would be less secure at night due to a greater distance from the building entrances and the parking lot. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for layout and utilization to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. There is a reasonable basis for this difference, according to the evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest to Lease Number 590:1927. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of December 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 88-3765 BID) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted, in part, in Finding of Fact 1, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but Rejected in 7. 6-7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3-4. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5 and 6, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record of this case. Adopted In Findings of Fact 5, 7-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the point difference in this subcategory is insignificant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael V. Giordano, Esquire 7821 North Dale Mabry Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Jack Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Fifth Floor, Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent should award a contract in accordance with an invitation to bid to the Petitioner, to some other bidder, or reject all bids and reissue an invitation. Petitioner contends that it was the low bidder in response to the invitation; that its bid was responsive; and to the extent that it was not responsive, any defects were of a minor sort which should be waived. Petitioner contends that the Respondent has previously waived irregularities such as existed in the Petitioner's bid and should therefore waive them in this case. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner's bid was not responsive, that the irregularities in Petitioner's bid are not minor, that any mistakes the Respondent has made in past acquisitions should not be repeated, and that the contract should be awarded to another company.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent issued an invitation to bid for a project known as the "Animal Science/Dairy Science Building" at the University of Florida. The project was given No. BR-108 by the Respondent. Petitioner was the lowest bidder in response to the invitation. The next lowest bidder, Charles R. Perry Construction Company, submitted a bid approximately $37,000 higher than Petitioner's bid. Perry has not filed any formal protest nor intervened in this proceeding. Petitioner is a responsible contractor and has in the past entered into construction contracts with the Respondent. Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Respondent. The Petitioner protested the rejection of its bid in a timely manner. Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications provides in pertinent part, as follows: In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent sub- contractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit with his Proposal a list of the subcontractors who would perform the work for each Divi- sion of the Specifications as indicated by the "List of Subcontractors" form contained in these Specifications... only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. * * * No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section "B" of the invitation for bid provided space for the bidder to list the name and address of subcontractors for the roofing, masonry, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, meat processing equipment, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. In Section "B" of its bid, Petitioner listed two subcontractors for the plumbing, mechanical, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. Listing two subcontractors does not comport with the bid specification requiring that only one subcontractor be listed for each phase. Petitioner listed two subcontractors because one of the subcontractors submitted a proposal to Petitioner only fifteen minutes prior to the time when the bid had to be submitted, and Petitioner was unsure of whether the last-minute proposal included all of the work that the Petitioner anticipated would be required. In addition, Petitioner felt that one of the subcontractors may not have been acceptable to the Respondent. The requirement that bidders list only one subcontractor for each phase of a project helps to discourage "bid shopping." Bid shopping is a practice whereby a contractor who receives a bid from a subcontractor approaches another subcontractor with that bid and encourages the other subcontractor to reduce its price. If the other subcontractor responds, this reduced price can be taken back to the original subcontractor. The original subcontractor is then confronted with the choices of either lowering its bid or losing the project. Bid shopping that occurs after a bid has been accepted by the owner does not benefit the owner. It benefits only the bidder, who is able to reduce its costs and therefore increase its profit. Requiring that one subcontractor be listed for each phase cannot serve to completely eliminate bid shopping. A contractor could still bid shop by listing itself as the subcontractor, then after winning the contract shop between several subcontractors. A contractor could also bid shop by changing subcontractors after the bid award. In either case, however, the contractor would need to secure the approval of the owner. The practice is thus discouraged. If a bidder lists two subcontractors for a phase of the project, that bidder would have an advantage over those who listed only one subcontractor. Listing two subcontractors enables the bidder to make a choice as to the best subcontract bid at a time later than the choice is made by bidders who list only one subcontractor. In addition, listing two subcontractors makes it easier for the bidder to engage in bid shopping, which would be more difficult for bidders who listed only one subcontractor. Paragraph "B-24" of the bid specifications for this project provides in pertinent part: The Contract will be awarded . . . to the lowest qualified bidder pro- vided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. * * * The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The listing of two subcontractors for phases of the project is not a mere informality in the bid. It is directly contrary to Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications. It would not be in the interest of the owner to accept a bid in which two subcontractors are listed for phases of the project. The integrity of the acquisition process would be damaged by allowing such a deviation because a bidder who listed two subcontractors would have gained an advantage over bidders who complied with the bid specifications. It is not in the best interest of the Respondent to waive the defect in the Petitioner's bid. On at least two prior occasions, the Respondent awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor per phase of the work. One of these projects was for a gymnasium at Florida Atlantic University (Project No. BR-603). Another was for a window replacement project at Florida State University (Project No. BR-342). In at least three other projects, the Respondent awarded contracts where the bidder failed to list the name of any subcontractor for one or more phases of the work. These were for the cancer center at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-569), the student housing facility at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-576), and an expansion project at Florida A & M University (Project No. BR-343). The bid specifications for all of these projects were not offered into evidence; however, the Respondent had utilized the same specifications as required in this project at all pertinent times. Failing to list any subcontractor for a phase of a project constitutes approximately the same defect in a bid response as listing two subcontractors. It provides even greater opportunities for bid shopping and an advantage to the bidder over those who list subcontractors as required by the specifications. In several other projects, it appears that the Respondent has awarded contracts to bidders whose bids contained defects of the same magnitude, but a different sort than the listing of two subcontractors. It does not appear that the Respondent has awarded contracts where bidders have listed more than one subcontractor, no subcontractor, or otherwise violated bid specifications because of any policy or because of any expressed waiver of the defect. Rather, it appears that the Respondent has not adequately policed bids to determine responsiveness to the bid specifications. This is especially true with respect to the listing of subcontractors. It appears that no one on the Respondent's staff took the responsibility to consider whether one subcontractor was listed for each phase of a project as required in the specifications. The only policy that the Respondent established was a policy of being too lax in examining bids. The Petitioner did not list two subcontractors for various phases of this project because of any reliance on past conduct of the Respondent. Petitioner's agent overlooked the bid requirements in Preparing its bid response. In prior bids submitted by the Petitioner in response to bid invitations issued by Respondent, Petitioner listed only one subcontractor, as required. Generally, unless it is otherwise required, Petitioner prefers to list two subcontractors because of the flexibility it provides to the owner and to Petitioner. Petitioner was not aware that Respondent had previously awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor for a phase of the work when it submitted its bid in this instance.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in selecting Intervenor as the lowest bidder for a contract to supply the state with lamps valued at $3,692,499.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for soliciting bids to establish a contract for the purchase of large lamps by state agencies and other eligible users. Petitioner is a Florida corporation and the incumbent vendor under similar contracts for the preceding 10 years. Petitioner does not manufacture lamps. Petitioner sells lamps manufactured by Osram-Sylvania ("Sylvania"). Intervenor is an Ohio corporation doing business in Florida. Intervenor manufactures the lamps it sells. The ITB On March 15, 1996, Respondent issued Invitation To Bid Number 39-285- 400-H, Lamps, Large, Photo and STTV (the "ITB"). The purpose of the ITB is to establish a 24 month contract for the purchase of Large Lamps (fluorescent, incandescent, etc.), Photo Lamps (audio visual, projection, flash), and Studio, Theatre, Television, and Video Lamps ("STTV") by state agencies and other eligible users. The contract runs from July 10, 1996, through July 9, 1998. The ITB estimates the contract price at $3,692,499. The ITB contains General and Special Conditions. General Conditions are set forth in 30 numbered paragraphs and elsewhere in DMS Form PUR 7027. Special Conditions are set forth in various unnumbered paragraphs in the ITB. General Conditions Paragraphs 5, 11, and 24 of the General Conditions are at issue in this proceeding. The terms of each paragraph are: 5. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and effect and are inapplicable to this bid. If submitted either purposely through intent or design or inadvertently appearing separately in transmittal letters, specifications, literature, price lists, or warranties, it is understood and agreed the general and special conditions in this bid solicitation are the only conditions applicable to this bid and the bidder's authorized signature affixed to the bidder's acknowledgment form attests to this. 11. QUALITY ASSURANCE: The contractor, during the contract term, upon mutual agree- ment with the Division of Purchasing, will provide reasonable travel and lodging accommodations for one (1) to three (3) government employees to perform an on-site inspection of the manufacturing process(es) and review of the manufacturer's product quality control(s) and total quality manage- ment program(s). The contractor will reim- burse the State for actual transportation cost, per diem and incidental expenses as provided in Section 112.061, F.S. It is the State's desire that the contractor provide demonstration of quality control for improvement rather than post production detection. 24. FACILITIES: The State reserves the right to inspect the bidder's facilities at any reasonable time with prior notice. Included Items Special Conditions in the ITB require bidders to submit prices for "Item 1" and "Item 2" lamps ("included items"). 1/ Item 1 lamps consist of Group 1 and 2 lamps. Group 1 lamps are Large Lamps such as fluorescent, incandescent, quartz, mercury vapor, metal halide, and high-pressure sodium lamps. Group 2 lamps are Photo Lamps such as audio visual, projection, flash, and STTV lamps. The total price for each group is multiplied by a weighted usage factor. The product calculated for Group 1 is added to the product calculated for Group 2 to determine the total price for Item 1 lamps. Item 2 consists of a category of lamps described as "T- 10 Lamps." The total price for Item 2 lamps is determined without application of the weighted usage factor used for Item 1 lamps. The total price for Item 2 lamps is a de minimis portion of the contract price. Special Conditions in the ITB require Respondent to award a single contract for included items to a single bidder. Special Conditions state that, "During the term of the contract established by this bid, all purchases of items will be made from the successful bidder." 2/ Excluded Items Special Conditions require that, "The bidder shall offer a fixed discount from retail prices on all excluded items." Excluded items include high technology lamps. The requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items is not considered in evaluating bid prices for included items. Rather, the requirement is intended to reduce the state's cost for both included and excluded items by assuring a meaningful discount on excluded items. Formatting Requirements Special Conditions prescribe the format in which bids must be submitted. Price lists and authorized dealers' lists are required to be submitted in hard copy and on computer diskette. The format prescribed for computer diskette includes requirements for font and graphics. The Special Conditions state that, "Failure to comply with this requirement will result in disqualification of your bid." The Bids The ITB prohibits the alteration of bids after they are opened. Respondent opened bids on April 10, 1996. Seven vendors submitted bids in response to the ITB. Included Items Four vendors, including Petitioner, submitted a bid for both Item 1 and Item 2 lamps. Intervenor and two other bidders did not submit a bid for Item 2 lamps. General Conditions Intervenor deleted paragraphs 11 and 24 of the General Conditions from its bid. At the direction of Intervenor's legal department in Cleveland, Ohio, Intervenor's regional sales manager struck through paragraphs 11 and 24 and initialed the deletions. The deletions are consistent with Intervenor's corporate policy. Intervenor routinely objects to contract provisions requiring inspection of Intervenor's facilities. Excluded Items Petitioner's bid includes a fixed discount of 44 percent on excluded items. Intervenor's bid includes a fixed discount of 0 percent. Formatting Requirements Intervenor included the information required by the ITB on the diskette it submitted with its bid. However, Intervenor supplied the information in Courier 12 characters per inch ("cpi") font, not the Courier 10 cpi font prescribed in the ITB. Proposed Agency Action Respondent determined that Intervenor's bid was responsive. The purchasing specialist for Respondent who reviewed each bid to determine if it was responsive failed to observe the deleted paragraphs in Intervenor's bid. The purchasing specialist forwarded those bids determined to be responsive to the purchasing analyst assigned by Respondent to: determine if the lamps offered in each bid met the specifications prescribed in the ITB; and evaluate bid prices. The purchasing analyst noted that paragraphs 11 and 24 were deleted from Intervenor's bid. The purchasing analyst and purchasing specialist conferred. They determined that paragraph 5 of the General Conditions cured Intervenor's deletions without further action. The purchasing analyst correctly determined: that lamps offered by Petitioner and Intervenor met ITB specifications; that Intervenor's bid is the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps; that Petitioner's bid is the second lowest such bid; and that Petitioner's bid is the lowest bid for Item 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid for Item 1 lamps is approximately five percent greater than Intervenor's bid. Respondent proposes to award one contract for Item 1 lamps to Intervenor. Respondent proposes to award a second contract for Item 2 lamps to Petitioner. At 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Respondent posted its intent to award the contract for Item 1 lamps to Intervenor. Petitioner timely filed its formal protest on June 3, 1996. Respondent did not award a contract for excluded items. Respondent's failure to award a contract for excluded items is not at issue in this proceeding. Arbitrary Respondent's proposed award of a contract to Intervenor for substantially all of the items included in the ITB is a decisive decision that Respondent made for reasons, and pursuant to procedures, not governed by any fixed rule or standard prescribed either in the ITB or outside the ITB. Respondent's proposed agency action is arbitrary. Excluded Items The requirement for bidders to offer a fixed discount on excluded items operates synergistically with the requirement for Respondent to award a single contract on included items to a single bidder. The combined action of the two requirements operating together has greater total effect than the effect that would be achieved by each requirement operating independently. The requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items, operating alone, may not induce a bidder who could receive a contract solely for Item 2 lamps to offer a discount that is as meaningful as the discount the bidder might offer if the bidder were assured of receiving a contract for Item 1 and 2 lamps upon selection as the lowest bidder. 3/ By assuring bidders that a single contract for Item 1 and 2 lamps will be awarded to a single bidder, the ITB creates an economic incentive for bidders to provide a meaningful discount on excluded items. Respondent frustrated the synergy intended by the ITB by applying the requirements for a fixed discount and for a single contract independently. Respondent penalized the bidder conforming to the requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items by awarding only a de minimis portion of the contract to the bidder. Respondent rewarded the bidder not conforming to the requirement for a fixed discount on excluded items by awarding substantially all of the contract to that bidder. If Respondent elects to purchase all excluded items from Petitioner, Respondent will have used the contract for Item 1 lamps to induce a meaningful discount from Petitioner without awarding Petitioner with the concomitant economic incentive intended by the ITB. Such a result frustrates the ITB's intent. Paragraph 5 Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 fails to explicate its proposed agency action. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5: leads to an absurd result; is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms of the ITB; and is inconsistent with Respondent's actions. Respondent's interpretation imbues paragraph 5 with limitless curative powers. Respondent's interpretation empowers paragraph 5 to cure the deletion of all General Conditions in the ITB whether stricken by pen or excised with scissors. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 would transform a bid containing no General Conditions into a responsive bid. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms. Paragraph 5 operates to cure "additional" terms. It does not operate to restore deleted terms. Respondent's interpretation of paragraph 5 is inconsistent with Respondent's actions. Respondent did not rely on paragraph 5 to cure Intervenor's deletions without further action. Respondent took further action to cure the deletions. Further Action On the morning of May 20, 1996, the purchasing analyst for Respondent telephoned Intervenor's regional sales manager. The purchasing analyst demanded that Intervenor accept the conditions Intervenor had deleted from its bid by submitting a letter of acceptance before the bid tabulations were posted at 4:00 p.m. on the same day. The regional sales manager contacted Intervenor's corporate headquarters in Cleveland, Ohio. Intervenor authorized the regional sales manager to accept the deleted paragraphs. By letter faxed to Respondent at approximately 3:20 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Intervenor accepted the paragraphs it had previously deleted. The letter stated that, "GE Lighting [will accept] the Contract Conditions noted in Paragraphs 11 and 24 of the Lamp Quotation." [emphasis not supplied] At 4:00 p.m. on May 20, 1996, Respondent posted the bid tabulation form. The bid tabulation form stated that the "award is contingent upon General Electric's acceptance of all the terms in conditions (sic)" in the ITB. Respondent argues that the purchasing analyst who contacted Intervenor on the morning of May 20, 1996, exceeded her authority. Respondent characterizes the word "contingent" in the bid tabulation form as "poorly written" and a "bad word." Agency Construction Of ITB Terms Respondent construes terms in the ITB in a manner that is inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning. The ITB requires that, "The bidder [shall] offer a fixed discount from retail price list on all excluded items." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning the bidder may offer such a fixed discount if the bidder elects to do so. The purpose of the ITB is to establish "[a] 24 month contract" to supply large lamps to the state. [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that the purpose of the ITB is to establish two contracts. The ITB states that, "During the term of the contract established by this bid, all purchases of items [will] be made from [the] successful bidder." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that purchases of some items will be made from one successful bidder and that purchases of other items will be made from a second successful bidder. The ITB states that the contract "[shall] be made statewide on an all or none basis" to the responsive bidder who satisfies the conjunctive requirements for: "[the] lowest "Award Figure Item (1; [and] lowest Award figure for Item (2." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted provision as meaning that separate contracts may be made statewide on less than an all or none basis to separate responsive bidders who satisfy the disjunctive requirements for either the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps or the lowest bid for Item 2 lamps, or both. The ITB requires offers to be submitted for all items listed within a group for a bid to qualify for evaluation. Respondent interprets the requirement as meaning that a bidder who does not qualify for evaluation for all of the groups in the contract nevertheless qualifies for evaluation for the contract. Finally, the ITB states that failure to comply with the formatting requirements for the diskette "[will] result in disqualification of your bid." [emphasis supplied] Respondent interprets the quoted language to mean that failure to comply with prescribed formatting requirements may result in disqualification of a bid. The interpretations of the quoted terms proposed by Respondent, individually and collectively, frustrate the purpose of the ITB. They also ignore material requirements of the ITB. Material Deviation Respondent deviated from the rule or standard fixed in the ITB in several respects. First, Respondent altered the bid evaluation procedure prescribed in the ITB. Second, Respondent ignored the requirement to award a single contract to a single bidder. Third, Respondent ignored the requirement that bidders provide a fixed discount on excluded items. Fourth, Respondent ignored the requirement to comply with the formatting requirements prescribed in the ITB. Each deviation from the rule or standard fixed in the ITB is a material deviation. Each deviation gives Intervenor a benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Each deviation affects the contract price and adversely impacts the interests of Respondent. 4/ 5.5(a) Benefit Not Enjoyed By Others Intervenor enjoyed a benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. Intervenor obtained a competitive advantage and a palpable economic benefit. Respondent altered the bid evaluation procedure prescribed in the ITB. On the morning of May 20, 1996, Respondent disclosed the bid tabulations to Intervenor alone, 5/ gave Intervenor an opportunity that lasted most of the business day to determine whether it would elect to escape responsibility for its original bid, allowed Intervenor to cure the defects in its bid, accepted Intervenor's altered bid, and conditioned the bid tabulations on Intervenor's altered bid. Respondent used a bid evaluation procedure that is not prescribed in the ITB and did not allow other bidders to participate in such a procedure. 6/ In effect, Respondent rejected Intervenor's initial bid, with paragraphs 11 and 24 deleted, and made a counter offer to Intervenor to accept a bid with paragraphs 11 and 24 restored. Intervenor accepted Respondent's counter offer. Respondent excluded other bidders from that process. Respondent gave Intervenor an opportunity to determine whether it would elect: to escape responsibility for its original bid by declining Respondent's counter offer; or to perform in accordance with an altered bid by restoring paragraphs 11 and 24. A bidder able to elect not to perform in accordance with its bid has a substantial competitive advantage over other bidders unable to escape responsibility for their bids. 7/ Respondent awarded substantially all of the contract to Intervenor even though Intervenor failed to provide a meaningful discount on excluded items. Respondent provided Intervenor with a palpable economic benefit. 5.5(b) Bid Price And Adverse Impact On The State Respondent did not award a contract for excluded items. Respondent's proposed agency action allows Respondent to purchase excluded items from either Intervenor or Petitioner. If Respondent were to purchase all of the excluded items it needs from Intervenor, Respondent could pay substantially more for excluded items than Respondent would save from the five percent price advantage in Intervenor's bid for Item 1 lamps. In such a case, Respondent's proposed agency action would effectively increase costs to the state that are inherent, but not stated, in the ITB. 8/ Conversion of incorrectly formatted data to the required font shifts prices to incorrect columns and causes other problems in accessing information in the diskette. Such problems can not be rectified easily but require substantial time and effort. Responsive Bidder Respondent did not award the contract intended by the ITB to the lowest responsive bid. Although Intervenor's bid is the lowest bid for Item 1 lamps, it is not the lowest responsive bid for Item 1 and 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid is the lowest responsive bid for Item 1 and 2 lamps. 9/ Respondent is statutorily required to award the contract to the lowest responsive bidder. 10/ Illegal Intervenor's bid is not responsive within the meaning of Sections 287.012(17), Florida Statutes (1995). 11/ It does not conform in all material respects to the ITB. Intervenor's unaltered bid deletes paragraphs 11 and 24. It does not include a fixed discount on excluded items, does not include a bid for Item 2 lamps, and does not conform to the formatting requirements in the ITB. Section 287.057 requires Respondent to award the contract to the bidder who submits the lowest responsive bid. Respondent has no authority either: to consider bids that are not responsive; or to award the contract to a bidder other than the lowest responsive bidder. Respondent's attempt to engage in either activity is ultra vires and illegal. Minor Irregularities The ITB encourages, but does require, bidders to include quantity discounts for Item 1 and 2 lamps. Petitioner's bid does not include quantity discounts. Petitioner's bid does not fail to conform to material requirements in the ITB. Petitioner does not manufacture Item 1 and 2 lamps. Sylvania manufactures the lamps Petitioner sells. Petitioner has no legal right to require Sylvania to allow inspection of its facilities pursuant to paragraph 11 of the General Conditions. Petitioner's ability to provide the requisite inspections requires the cooperation of Sylvania. Petitioner's bid requires payment by the state within 30 days of an invoice. Section 215.422 and the ITB provide that Respondent has 40 days to issue warrants in payment of contract debts and that interest does not accrue until after 40 days. The defects in Petitioner's bid are minor irregularities within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60A-1.001(16). 12/ They neither affect the bid price, give Petitioner a competitive advantage, nor adversely impact Respondent's interests. Petitioner has the practical ability to arrange inspection's of Sylvania's facilities. Petitioner is legally responsible for failing to do so. Respondent's employees have never visited Sylvania's facilities during the 10 years in which Petitioner has been the contract vendor to the state. The requirement for payment within 30 days does not obviate the provisions of Section 215.422. Private contracts can not alter mutually exclusive statutory provisions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's protest of Respondent's proposed agency action. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1996.
