The Issue The issues to be considered in the course of this Recommended Order concern the question of whether Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. or White Construction Company, Inc. should be accepted as a successful bidder on State Project No. 53050-3514, Jackson County, Florida, as advertised by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, (DOT), advertised for bids on State Project No. 53050-3514, Jackson County, Florida. This was a project in which DOT had determined that 10 percent of the funding within the State Department of Transportation Trust Fund, as allotted for the project, would be devoted to economically disadvantaged individuals, also referred to as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). This decision was in keeping with Section 339.081, Florida Statutes. Consequently, interested bidders were called upon to submit bids reflecting a DBE participation of a minimum of 10 percent of the bid submitted. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. (Baxter) and White Construction Company, Inc. (White) responded to the bid opportunity. The bids were opened on July 25, 1984, and Baxter's bid was the apparent low bid. The bid amount was $882,641.25. White was the second low bidder offering a bid of $928,353. Both bids were within the DOT estimate of construction costs. When the bids were reviewed, Baxter's bid was rejected by DOT based upon the belief that the bid failed to meet the DBE 10 percent requirement or to offer explanation of good faith attempts by Baxter to comply with the DBE contract requirement amount. See Section 14-78.03(2)(b)4., Florida Administrative Code. No other claim of error was made by DOT on the subject of the acceptability of the Baxter bid. The White bid is conforming. In preparing the bid, bidders are required to use DBE Utilization Form No. 1 to reflect the amount of DBE participation as a percentage of the overall bid estimate. In submitting its form as part of its bid blank, Baxter indicated that the total project cost was $884,000, and indicated that Ozark Striping, a DBE subcontractor, would be given $20,000 of that work or 3 percent, and that Glenn Powell, DBE subcontractor, would be afforded 7 percent of the total contract in the amount of $55,000. The total percentage according to Baxter is 10 percent, thus meeting the required DBE participation. This form is found as part of the joint Exhibit No. 1 offered by the parties. In fact, the Ozark Striping participation was 2.26 percent, and the Glenn Powell participation was 6.22 percent, for a total of 8.48 percent of the estimate reflected in the Form No. 1. Contrasted against the actual estimate of $882,641.25, these projections constitute 8.49 percent of that estimate. Thus, they are less than the 10 percent required. Given the fact that this DBE projection is less than the 10 percent, and in the absence of any attempt to offer a good faith explanation why Baxter failed to comply with the requirement, the bid was rejected for this irregularity. The Contract Awards Committee of DOT, when confronted with the irregularity of the Baxter bid, then determined to recommend the rejection of all bids. This was in keeping with the fact that the difference between the unsuccessful apparent low bid, with irregularities, and the second low bid exceeded 1 percent of the contract amount. At the time of this decision to reject all bids, DOT felt that the difference would justify re-advertising the bids. That policy position had been abandoned at the point of final hearing in this cause, wherein DOT expressed the opinion that it would be better served to accept the bid of White, and not re-advertise, again for cost reasons. In the face of the initial action to reject all bids and in accordance with Section 120.53, Florida Statutes, Baxter and White appealed that decision and by that appeal requested recognition as a successful bidder. This led to the present Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Baxter has never attempted to offer a good faith explanation of its non-compliance. It chooses to proceed on the theory that the mistake in computation can be rectified by allowing Baxter to submit a supplemental Form No. 1, bringing its total above the DBE requirement. In its contention, Baxter indicates that Glenn Powell could have provided $126,000 of the DBE goal, which is in excess of the 10 percent requirement. Baxter also alludes to the fact that it had contacted other DBE enterprises, such as Oglesby and Hogg, Michael Grassing, and J.E. Hill. All told, Baxter indicates that if given the opportunity, it would allow $146,000 of DBE participation to include $126,000 by Glenn Powell, and $20,000 by Ozark. This comment is suspect, given the lack of compliance in the initial bid response, and the realization that within that bid response on the item related to Glenn Powell, the original amount of work attributed to Glenn Powell was $100,000, and was struck through in favor of the $55,000, leaving a fair inference that Baxter was attempting to meet the DBE goal with a projection as close to the 10 percent as could be achieved. They fell short because in adding the $20,000 for Ozark, and the $55,000 for Glenn Powell, the addition in the Form No. 1 showed $85,000, which is more than 10 percent of the $884,000 shown on the form, when in fact the two amounts were $75,000, and less than the 10 percent required. Baxter characterizes its mistake in computation as a technical error, which can be remedied without harm to the bid process. The Baxter position must be examined in the context of action by DOT relating to compliance with DBE requirements. Prior to June 1984, a time before the subject July 25, 1984 bid opening, bidders had been allowed to amend the Form No. 1 to show compliance with the DBE requirements or demonstrate good faith efforts of compliance. That amendment as to compliance through listing of the DBE subcontractors or submission of good faith effort documentation had to be offered within 10 days per former Section 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code. Beginning with the June 1984 bid-lettings, all documentation had to be submitted with the bid, reflecting compliance or describing good faith efforts at compliance per Section 14-78.03(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 1984. This change was brought about to prevent the apparent low bidder, as indicated at the point of bid-letting, from shopping the quotations by the DBE's found in its original quote against other quotes from DBE's not listed in the bid documents initially submitted, and by amendment to the DBE statement prejudicing the former DBE group. The change was also made to avoid the possibility that the apparent low bidder could evade his bid by rendering it non-conforming, in the sense of refusing to submit the required documentation of compliance with DBE requirements or to the offer of a good faith explanation of non-compliance after the bid-letting. The change of May 1984, removed the possibility of bid shopping and bid avoidance. Both versions of Section 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code, pre and post May 1984, indicate that failure to satisfy the DBE requirements or offer a showing of a good faith attempt at compliance, would result in the contractor's bid being deemed non-responsive, and cause its rejection. Baxter has been able to comply with the DBE goals of DOT in its bidding prior to the present controversy.
Findings Of Fact In order to meet its need for new equipment in the new district administration building, the School Board advertised for competitive bid proposals for clerical, professional task, guest and conference chairs (task seating). Five bids were timely received by the School Board, two of which were determined to be responsive. The bid opening occurred on April 17 1990, and the Knoll Source was determined to be the lowest responsive bidder. In spite of this determination, the bid was rejected by the Director of Purchasing or the appointed designee because sales tax was not included in the bid. The Notice of Award was issued to Haworth, who submitted its bid showing the price it was willing to accept for the sale of the task seating, with and without sales tax. The initial decision to reject the Knoll Source bid, which was $10,393.72 less than Haworth in Sequence I; $12,231.94 less in Sequence II; and $994.17 less in Sequence III, was based upon Section 9.2.2.a in the "Instructions to Interior Bidders". This section of the bid documents provided that the contract for purchase of the task seating would not be exempt from sales tax. This bid specification is incorrect because the School Board does not pay sales tax on acquisitions of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System. Knoll Source was aware of the School Board's sales tax exemption prior to its bid submission. As Section 9.2.2.a of the instructions was inappropriate, the vendor relied on Section 9.2.2.c, and excluded sales tax from the bid because the cost of such tax was not applicable. Section 9.2.2.c instructed bidders to exclude inapplicable taxes from their bids. Pursuant to Section 5.3.1 of the bid instructions, the School Board has the right to waive any irregularity in any bid received and to accept the bid which, in the Board's judgment, is in its own best interest. The Knoll Source and Haworth bids can be comparatively reviewed, and Knoll Source is the lowest responsive bidder if the failure to include sales tax in the bid amount is waived by the School Board. It is in the Board's best interest to waive Knoll Source's failure to include a sales tax in the bid because sales tax does not apply to this purchase.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On the evidence, it is found and determined that: I. The RFP and Stage I, II and III Evaluation Respondent issued the RFP on August 19, 2004, seeking competitive proposals for a contract for administration of the FCAT. Respondent's intent in this procurement is to contract with a qualified vendor who will be capable of performing the contract at the lowest possible cost to the State. This contract impacts all Florida public schools. The RFP included the following provisions regarding the general scope of the requirements and bidder responsibilities. 1.0 . . . A contract, if awarded, will be awarded by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the state, while taking into consideration price and other criteria specified by the RFP. 1.3 . . . This RFP defines the requirements for implementing the FCAT assessment program. The RFP and the selected contractor's proposal, together with clarifying documents, define the work to be conducted under contract. These documents will be incorporated into the contracts resulting from the FCAT project award. Because the FCAT assessment program is technical and complex, it is possible that a responsive proposal may not totally or clearly reflect RFP requirements in all details. If the proposal of a contractor selected as a result of the bidding process is inconsistent with the RFP, the requirements of the RFP prevail; the selected contractor will be expected to perform all RFP requirements without an increase in cost above the proposed cost. * * * 5.18 Acceptance of a Proposal The Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in a proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the RFP that does not affect the price of the proposal, or give one bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impact the interest of the Department. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the bidder from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the bidder is awarded the contract. Rejection of Proposals Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of this RFP may be rejected by the Department. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal contains unauthorized amendments, either additions or deletions, to the requirements of the RFP. The proposal is conditional or contains irregularities that make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous. The proposal is received late. The proposal is not signed by an authorized representative of the bidder. The bidder is not authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida or has not included a statement that such authorization will be secured prior to the award of a contract. A bid bond is not submitted with the proposal. The proposal contains false or misleading statements or provides references that do not support an attribute, capability, assertion, or condition claimed by the bidder. The proposal does not offer to provide all services required by this RFP. Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received. 5.22 . . . In the event of conflict between the language of a proposal and the language of the RFP, the language of the RFP shall prevail. * * * 7.1 Stage I: Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements (Part I) During the Stage I evaluation, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will determine if a proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will evaluate each proposal according to the process described in this section. The RFP required prospective vendors to submit sealed proposals in two parts, a technical proposal and a price proposal. The technical proposals were reviewed and scored by an evaluation committee prior to opening of the sealed cost proposals. Failure of a bidder to meet every item on the Stage I list would not necessarily result in elimination of the proposal from consideration. A proposal would be eliminated only if it contained a material irregularity. "Stage I" of the process was identified in the RFP and is basically a check list of documents and commitments that are to be included with proposals. In accordance with Section 7.1, the purpose of the Stage I review is to determine whether the proposals are sufficiently responsive to be considered by the evaluation committee. Two of Respondent's employees opened the technical proposals and checked the proposals against the Stage I list to make certain "Mandatory Documents and Statements" required by Section 7.1 of the RFP were present. They did not make any substantive judgments about the extent of compliance. In performing this Stage I review, Respondent's employees followed the department's standard operating procedures. No scoring points were associated with the Stage I check list review. The technical portions of the RFP were categorized into two parts: Part II titled, "Bidder Qualification and Experience"; and Part III titled, "Technical Proposal for Administration." Bidders could receive a maximum of 50 points for Part II and a maximum of 50 points for Part III, a total maximum possible points of 100 for the technical proposals. The RFP is designed to ensure that only qualified, responsible bidders will be eligible for award of the contract. In order to be considered eligible, a bidder was required to receive a minimum of 70 cumulative points for the technical proposals. Each of the two parts of the technical proposals was broken down into ten categories or criteria. The RFP provided that an evaluation committee would assign scores from one to five, with five being the highest possible score, for each of the criteria. The RFP consists of approximately 200 pages of technical specifications, instructions, and guidelines including appendices and addenda issued after the original release date. Each of the bidders submitted technical proposals in excess of 400 pages. The RFP provided that evaluation of proposals would be based on a holistic approach so that the proposals could be scored based on consideration of the whole package proposed by the bidders without artificial limitations on the evaluators' ability to evaluate the entire proposal and score it accordingly. The evaluation process was designed to be as objective as possible, but a degree of subjective judgment is involved in the scoring of the proposals. The 20 scoring criteria for Parts II and III were designed to cover broad categories of qualifications against which the proposals were judged. Because of the holistic evaluation approach, there was no intent to evaluate proposals on the basis of an item-by-item determination. The committee evaluating the proposals was selected to include representatives familiar with various aspects of the FCAT, which were covered in the proposals. It also included a person not employed by Respondent as required by new procurement guidelines and also included a parent representative. The evaluation committee was selected so that each member brought a different expertise or perspective to the process. The evaluation committee was instructed on how the evaluation process was to be accomplished. The evaluators took their responsibility seriously and did a thorough job. For Part II, the rating scale ranged from five (excellent) to one (unsatisfactory). A score of five means the evaluator found that the bidder demonstrated superior qualifications and experience to perform the required tasks. A score of one meant the bidder demonstrated insufficient experience and capability to perform the required tasks or did not establish its qualifications and experience. The RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of Overall Bidder Qualifications and Experience will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix M." The "holistic" approach referenced in the RFP means that Respondent looks at the proposal as a whole. The RFP and the administration of the FCAT is very complex and the evaluators are not required to look at each component of the proposal, but are to judge the whole proposal. For Part III, the rating scale also ranged from five to one. The criteria for what merited a five or a one changed, however, from Part II. A score of five means that the bidder proposed superior solutions to the requirement of the RFP and has proposed products and services that are desirable for use in the FCAT administration program and are likely to create a high quality assessment program that meets sound psychometric standards that are clearly feasible to implement. A score of one under Part III means that the bidder proposed inferior or incomplete solutions to the requirements of the RFP or has proposed products and services that would be technically indefensible, would create a flawed assessment program not meeting psychometric standards, or would not be feasible to implement. Again, the RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix N." The proposals were scored independently based upon the proposal's compliance with applicable RFP criteria; the proposals were not scored based upon how they compared to each other. Indeed, the evaluators were instructed not to discuss their scores so that each evaluator would establish their own internal criteria that was consistent across proposals. Although none of the proposals were deemed non- responsive in this stage, there are indications that failure to meet certain RFP requirements were noticed by the evaluation committed and scored accordingly. Stages II and III of the evaluation process took four days. Representatives of the bidders, including its attorney, attended all of the Stage II and III evaluation sessions. Documentation of Subcontractor Information. The RFP included the following specifications relating to documentation of subcontractors and printers. 4.6.1 Subcontractors The test administration contractor may choose to employ subcontractors for the completion of one or more tasks. If the bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor(s), the qualifications and experience of the subcontractor(s) will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as those of the bidder. A separate chart in the proposal will identify all of the subcontractors proposed to be involved in the project and the services they are expected to provide. All subcontractors must be approved by the Department. It is assumed that the contractor will use outside printers for some materials. Printers will be documented as subcontractors, and the management plan will identify the proportion of materials to be printed by the contractor and by outside vendors. Procedures for quality control and security during printing are to be described. Destruction of secure materials is addressed in Section 3.7.4. The contractor will assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they are performed or produced by the contractor or by subcontractors. The Department will consider the selected contractor to be the sole point of contact for contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. Other specifications in the RFP contained similar or identical language. The RFP also provided the following in Section 5.31 with respect to subcontractors: Any change of subcontractors must be approved in advance by the Department. In the event of poor performance by a subcontractor, the Department reserves the right to direct the contractor to replace that subcontractor. While Item 10 on Page 77 of the RFP required a representation from the vendors that they had identified all subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed directly by each subcontractor, the only investigation that Respondent undertook to confirm the accuracy of these statements was the Stage I evaluation. The Stage II and Stage III evaluators did not check to ensure that all of the subcontractors had been documented as required by the RFP. The RFP specifically required that all printers be identified and documented as subcontractors. Section 6.3 of the RFP requires the management plan to specifically identify the proportion of materials to be printed by outside vendors. Section 4.6.1 of the RFP on Page 53 states that if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the qualifications and experience of the subcontractors will be documented in their proposal at the same level of detail as the bidder. That section also provides that "printers will be documented as subcontractors." The timeliness, accuracy, and security of the printing operations are very important to the FCAT program; and the qualifications and experience of the printers, who would actually print the materials, is an important component of this procurement. As it relates to the "back-end" printing of the student and parent reports, there are privacy concerns that are particularly sensitive. The RFP provisions were included to ensure that, if a vendor was going to use outside printers for some of the activities, Respondent would be able to tell from the response who all of those printers were and what services they were going to perform. The RFP was drafted to ensure that Respondent was dealing with vendors who were qualified and experienced and able to deliver the products requested in the RFP. There were specific requirements in the RFP as to how the bidders were supposed to identify prior contracts, provide contact information, and document the printers who were going to do any of the actual printing. Section 6.2 on Page 74 of the RFP required that all vendors were to document contracted services for previous assessment projects similar to the one described in the RFP. For each of those projects, the documentation was supposed to include a description of the services and products delivered, the contract period, the name, address, and telephone of the contract person for each of the contracting agencies. This provision was applicable to all of the printers who were involved in this contract. The printers were also supposed to document how they were going to monitor security and provide quality control during the printing process itself. The intent of the RFP was to have bidders document who was going to do the printing, whether it was subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, or sub-sub-subcontractors. Section 5.27 on Page 65 of the RFP states that "if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the subcontractor's qualifications and experience will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as that of the bidder. Procedures for quality control and security of the work tasks performed by the subcontractors are to be described." These provisions are not discretionary. They are mandatory and require all vendors to provide a description of the quality control and security measures to be employed by all subcontractors, including the printers who must be documented as subcontractors. CTB's proposal identified The Grow Network as the entity that would be responsible for printing requirements. The Grow Network is an affiliate of CTB. CTB's proposal included documentation regarding The Grow Network's qualifications to perform the printing. In its response to the RFP, CTB provided extensive documentation and met all of the requirements of the RFP with respect to its front-end printers. Indeed each of those printers was identified in paragraph 10 of the transmittal letter that accompanied the CTB proposal. The Grow Network was also responsible for providing the back-end printing for the reports to be sent to the parents and students. The Grow Network was identified as doing 20 percent of the printing. However, the Grow Network does not actually do any printing themselves. At the hearing, the Grow Network claimed that it was the "print publisher" of the back-end reports. It stated that the Grow Network utilizes a "distributed printing approach." This, in fact, meant that the printing was going to be subcontracted out. The services that would be subcontracted out by the Grow Network include digital printing, collating, packing, distribution, and tracking. CTB's proposal states that GDS, a digital imaging company, will be the print facility utilized by the Grow Network to perform these aspects of the FCAT report printing requirements. CTB's proposal describes the corporate capabilities and experience of GDS, including descriptions of the California and New Jersey projects where GDS was utilized by the Grow Network as its print facility. The RFP also required bidders to provide examples of materials to demonstrate the quality of the work done on similar projects. Accordingly, CTB included sample reports printed by the Grow Network in conjunction with GDS, for the California and New Jersey projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing detailed documentation of both the Grow Network and GDS, Petitioner asserts that CTB failed to comply with the RFP because the CTB proposal indicates that much of the printing work will be out-sourced without disclosing who is actually going to be providing these services. However, CTB's proposal identifies only one printing facility, GDS, that will be utilized as the print facility under its distributed printing approach. CTB's proposal specifically states that "Grow currently uses GDS to support their California and New Jersey projects, and they will employ GDS' services for the Florida reporting project." CTB's proposal identifies other printing facilities, Delzer, R.R. Donnelley, and Bowne, that Grow could utilize on the FCAT with Respondent's approval. These other companies were potential "backup" printers, which were identified in case Respondent preferred using another printing facility. Otherwise, the Grow Network intended to utilize GDS as the sole printing facility on the FCAT and has a commitment from GDS to perform the tasks required. The RFP does not require commitment letters from subcontractors. The RFP required only the identification of the proposed printers, which could be changed with Respondent's approval. CTB has also indicated in its response that it will utilize 180 employees of Kelly Services, at three different locations, to supervise approximately 3,000 scorers. However, nowhere in the proposal has CTB documented Kelly Services as a subcontractor, nor provided information regarding their experience and qualifications to perform this work. CTB uses Kelly Services as a recruiting service provider. CTB is responsible for the hiring, training, and directing of the Kelly Services personnel and ultimately for the deliverables received from those employees. Kelly Services is not a subcontractor as contemplated in the RFP, because they are not held accountable for their deliverables. Accordingly, CTB's proposal is not deficient for failing to document Kelly Services as a subcontractor. Even if the failure to so document Kelly Services were a deficiency in CTB's proposal, the lack of detail would only lower CTB's score, not make it non-responsive. The Post-submittal Clarification Process. The RFP provided at Section 7.0 that each bidder would be required to make a presentation to the evaluation committee after the technical proposals were opened and that information presented or issues clarified during the presentation might affect the number of points an evaluation committee member assigned to a given proposal. On the first day of the evaluation process, the bidders were required to make separate oral presentations to the evaluation committee. Following those oral presentations, the evaluation committee was to begin the process of scoring the proposals based on the various RFP criteria. This was to be a "closed session" during which the vendors were not permitted to interact with the evaluation committee members; likewise, the evaluation committee members were not permitted to direct any questions to the vendors. RFP Section 7.0 spells out the rules and processes for conducting the oral presentations of the vendors. This includes the imposition of time limits on the presentations and questions from evaluators, which were to be strictly followed. Section 7.0 states, in pertinent part: The purpose of the presentation will be for the bidder to describe its offering of products and services and make any statements that will enhance understanding of its offering. The proposal evaluation committee will NOT evaluate the presentations or otherwise award points for the quality of the of the presentation. Information presented or issues clarified during the presentation MAY affect the number of points a proposal evaluation committee member assigns to a given proposal. . . . The presentation shall not exceed 30 minutes with an additional 15 minutes reserved for proposal evaluation committee member questions. These meetings will be open to the public; however, only members of the proposal evaluation committee may ask questions of the bidder. The above-quoted language in the RFP does not contemplate written submissions by vendors following the oral presentations. Nothing else in the RFP specifically authorizes vendors to clarify information in their proposals after the presentations have concluded. Thus, the oral presentation part of the evaluation process is the only RFP-authorized mechanism available to evaluators for seeking clarification of the proposals. Because clarifications are permissible during the vendor presentations, the RFP expressly states that such clarifications may affect scoring of the proposals. By contrast, nothing in the RFP authorizes the evaluators to seek or consider in scoring the proposals any vendor clarification made in any other form or at any other point, whether before or after the oral presentations. In fact, considering any information received from the vendors outside of the oral presentations would be inconsistent with RFP Section 5.3, which restricts communications by bidders with Respondent's staff. In short, to the extent a clarification of a proposal was needed, under the RFP, it should have been provided orally during the vendor presentations. Each of the bidders made a presentation to the evaluation committee. During the presentations, members of the evaluation committee asked bidders various questions relating to their respective responses to the RFP. One of the members sought clarification regarding the total number of full time equivalent ("FTE") hours for the persons identified in the proposals. Although the evaluation team was not given any specific standards or base lines to utilize in scoring the staffing and personnel commitments submitted by the parties, a bidders' commitment of personnel resources was an important factor for several of the criteria in the RFP. The bidder representatives for CTB and Petitioner were not able to provide the requested FTE information at the time of the presentation. Harcourt's representatives, who had had the benefit of hearing the presentations made by Petitioner and CTB, were able to answer the FTE question at the presentation. Because the evaluators had lingering questions on staffing, Respondent made a decision to send out questions to two of the three vendors following completion of the oral presentations. No scoring was done on any of the proposals prior to the time Petitioner's and CTB's responses were presented to the evaluators. At least some of the evaluation committee members felt that the staffing information was critical. The questions were not based on the presentations by the vendors, but were based on the evaluation committee members' concerns that had not been resolved by the oral presentations. The questions reflected areas that the evaluators were not able to understand from the initial proposals submitted. After the presentations, Respondent delivered letters dated August 30, 2004, to Petitioner and CTB, but not to Harcourt, asking them to provide the requested FTE information by the following day. CTB and Petitioner both promptly provided the information requested. CTB's August 31, 2004, written response to the FTE question included a chart that identified all personnel and the associated FTEs that would be assigned to the project. This FTE chart was prepared by Diane Driessen, CTB's senior program manager who was one of two CTB employees primarily responsible for preparing CTB's response to the RFP. As a format for its written response, CTB utilized the existing chart for Professional Personnel Responsible for Major Contract Activity (Figure 9), which was in its proposal. CTB added to this chart the additional personnel to reflect the total FTEs for the project as a whole. CTB took the material in the proposal and presented it in a consolidated format. CTB combined the monthly activities by program chart, which was Table 9, with the key personnel chart, which was Figure 9, and handscoring resources presented in the proposal. The additional named personnel in its response were not named in the original figure of key personnel because they were not considered responsible for major contract activities. It was an oversight that the chart still retained the heading, "Time Task Chart for Key Project Personnel" when it actually reflected the 330 total FTEs for the whole project team as requested by Respondent. The cover letter to Respondent explained that CTB was listing all personnel, not just "key personnel." All of the unnamed persons added to the chart are identified by position in the original proposal. As part of its written response to Respondent's written requests for additional information, CTB also included a written recap of the questions and answers from its oral presentation. The evidence demonstrated that the information provided by CTB after receiving Respondent's staff's questions included corrections of errors contained in CTB's initial response to the RFP. This information was presented to the evaluators for them to review and consider in the scoring process. No one from Respondent made an analysis to determine whether the information in the supplement was contained in the original proposal before it was presented to the evaluators. The RFP also required the vendors to provide all required information by the deadline that the proposals were to be received. Respondent was obligated to follow these provisions and not accept any information in a manner inconsistent with them. In addition, bidders were required to commit to complying with all requirements of the RFP if awarded the contract: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal including but not limited to, certification requirements. . . . The supplemental information submitted by CTB should have been included in CTB's initial submittal. The fifth bullet point of Section 4.6.2 of the RFP on Page 54 required bidders to indicate by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities with an estimation of the amount of time and full-time equivalencies each person was going to devote to the tasks under the contract. The proposal was also supposed to include a vitae for all such professional personnel. This bullet point was not limited to only those who had a supervisory role. It was the intention of the bullet point that the individuals should be identified by name, including software development staff. Much of CTB's software development staff was not identified by name in its initial response, but they were identified in the supplement. The RFP required vendors to provide the total time commitment for key personnel in the initial submission and required that the bidders identify by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities. The time commitment for some of the key project personnel that CTB identified in its initial proposal were significantly "revised" in its supplement. These "revisions" purportedly correct "errors" in the initial response and include changes to the time commitment for "key project personnel," including the project manager for manufacturing, senior research scientists and the scoring director for one of the major scoring sites. There are six new names that appear in CTB's supplement, as well as numerous revisions to the time commitment of key personnel. In its written questions to the vendors, Respondent did not request any revisions or corrections of error with respect to any of these key personnel. The evidence is clear that there are "revisions," corrections of errors and significant reformatting that were tailored to address lingering concerns of the evaluators. CTB's supplemental proposal also included a new chart broken down with many different allocations of days that did not appear anywhere in the original proposal. This submittal also included a number of different "to be assigned" categories that were not specifically included on the chart in the initial submittal and a re-categorization of some of the positions. The evaluation committee members would not have had enough time to make an assessment as to whether that information was in the original proposal. Had CTB not provided its supplemental information, the evaluation team would have had a significantly different view point on CTB's staffing. After the oral presentations, Petitioner also received a written question regarding staffing from Respondent. Petitioner's response was a listing of the FTEs taken from the charts already contained in the original proposal. Petitioner was concerned with the procedure that was being implemented, but after seeking advice of counsel, submitted the response nonetheless. Harcourt was not given this opportunity. RFP Section 5.16 does not address proposal clarifications, but it does impose limitations on the consideration of proposal "amendments." Section 5.16 states that, absent a specific request by Respondent, any "amendments, revisions, or alterations to proposals will not be accepted after the deadline for the receipt of proposals." In addition, Section 5.16 does not address when, during the evaluation process, Respondent may request a vendor to amend a proposal. This timing issue is only addressed by statute in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that "no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered." However, the timing of when Respondent could request a proposal amendment under Section 5.16 is not at issue in this case. Respondent acknowledges that it made no such request in this case. Absent a specific request, Section 5.16 precluded Respondent from considering any amendment to a proposal offered by any vendor. CTB's written responses to Respondent's written questions amount to a clarification of their bid proposal, since then were submitted only after Respondent requested the information. The responses do not constitute an amendment or supplement to the proposal. The Evaluation Process Immediately following the bidders' oral presentations and receipt of the bidders' responses to the evaluators' questions, the evaluation committee met as a body and reviewed each of the proposals. Dr. Orr and Dr. Melvin were co-chairpersons of the committee and facilitated the evaluation committee review of the technical proposals. They did not participate in the actual scoring of proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the three proposals consecutively, evaluating them against the criteria in the RFP. Open discussion about the criteria and the locations within the proposals where criteria were addressed was encouraged and took place. Whether one bidder was slightly better than another bidder was not the basis for determining the contract award. The RFP provided a balanced formula that sought to ensure the competency of the awarded by requiring a minimum technical score of 70 while rewarding the competent bidder that submitted the lowest price. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation committee assigned holistic ratings to the technical proposals, judging them based on the quality of the proposals as a whole. Each evaluator independently scored the proposals by assigning a score from one to five for each of the 20 criterion in the RFP. The evaluation committee did not compare the proposals to each other. The evaluation committee completed the evaluation of the first proposal before considering the second proposal and completed the evaluation of the second proposal before completing the evaluation of the third proposal. Alternative Proposals. The RFP permitted bidders to propose alternative approaches for meeting Respondent's objectives, but provided that no cost savings or increases for alternative proposals could be referenced in the technical proposal. Any cost savings or increases for alternative proposals were required to be submitted in a separately sealed package and clearly labeled. None of the bidders included any reference to cost savings or increases in their technical proposals. Petitioner's proposal clearly marked its alternatives. CTB sometimes identified its alternatives with a special marker and sometimes simply described them within the text of the RFP. Harcourt generally did not clearly designate its alternatives. During the Stage II and III evaluation process, a committee member raised a question regarding assigning points for alternative proposals. Because the RFP did not provide a mechanism for evaluating the alternatives, an internal decision was made by Respondent not to consider the alternatives at all in connection with scoring the proposals. The members of the evaluation team were told to disregard the references to alternative proposals submitted by each of the bidders. There was no provision in the RFP that was relied upon in making that determination. The evaluators were given no guidance as to which provisions of the various proposals should not be considered. This led to inconsistencies in what was treated as an alternative and not scored, versus what was treated as part of the base proposal and scored. It is clear that the decision not to consider alternatives resulted in confusion and inconsistency in the evaluation process. For example, one evaluator, Clarence Reed, indicated that if a proposal went beyond the requirements of the RFP and offered something that was not required, but was an enhancement, he viewed that as an alternative and would not have considered it. Similarly, the chairperson of the evaluation committee and one of the facilitators for the evaluation process, Dr. Orr, testified that "enhancements" should not have been considered. By contrast, most of the evaluators viewed offerings by vendors that went beyond the requirements of the RFP and did not include a cost to Respondent as "enhancements" that could be considered in their evaluation of the proposals. Likewise, Dr. Melvin, one of Respondent's facilitators for the evaluation team, believed that an "augmentation" was not the same as an "alternative." Thus, in many instances, when a vendor offered something beyond the requirements of the RFP, at no cost to Respondent, and did not identify it as an "option" or "alternative," it was considered in the scoring by at least some of the evaluators. The evidence is clear that there are portions of the proposals submitted by Harcourt and CTB that was essentially the equivalent of no cost "alternatives" that were considered by the evaluators while Petitioner's clearly identified "alternatives" were not. In sum, whether a particular proposal was an "augmentation," "option," "alternative" or an additional clarification created confusion among the evaluators. As a result, there was no consistency in terms of what the evaluators could consider in the proposals and what they could not consider. While it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of the decision not to consider alternatives, it is clear that Petitioner's bid received a disproportionate negative impact because many of its important enhancements, which were being offered to Respondent at no cost were listed as "alternatives" and never factored into the evaluation process. There were several alternatives proposed by Petitioner that would have been enhancements to the current program and would have been made available at no cost to Respondent. Thus, Petitioner's score was artificially influenced in a negative way. By contrast, the evidence is clear that CTB and Harcourt, in many instances presented different ways to accomplish tasks without specifically utilizing the term "alternative" or "option" and such matters were factored into the evaluation. The claim by Respondent and CTB that the decision not to consider alternatives was applied even-handedly is not supported by the evidence. Because there was not a consistent manner in which the various companies presented their "enhancements," "augmentations," "options" or "alternatives," Respondent's determination to exclude consideration of "alternatives" precluded the evaluators from fairly determining what each of the vendors could actually provide to the program. It also meant that the vendors were not evaluated on an equal footing. Thus, the decision was contrary to the bid specifications. In spite of these concerns, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent's instruction to evaluators not to consider alternatives rendered the proposed agency action clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and/or arbitrary and capricious because Respondent was not obligated to accept any of the alternatives offered by a bidder. The Price Proposals. Respondent's evaluation of the three bidders' proposals established that each of the bidders was capable and qualified to perform the work under the contract. The bidders' price proposals remained sealed until after the evaluation committee completed its scoring of the technical proposals. The price proposals were evaluated based on a formula that awarded 50 points to the bidder with the lowest price. The remaining bidders received points based on a proportion or ratio that compared their price to the low bidder's price. The RFP provided at Section 7.4, Page 82, in pertinent part: A total of 50 points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Cost Proposal. Proposals with higher costs will receive the fraction of 50 points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposal cost to the higher cost proposal. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to one decimal place. For example, if the lowest responsive cost were $50,000.00, the bid would receive 50 points. If the next lowest responsive cost proposal were $75,000.00, it would receive 33.3 points. If the highest responsive cost proposal were $100,000.00, it would receive 25 points. Upon opening the three bidders price proposals, it was determined that Petitioner's bid for the base and renewal period was $224,969,699; Harcourt's bid was $167,055,970; and CTB's bid was $140,107,439. On September 23, 2004, Respondent posted a Notice of Intent to Award the contract for the FCAT administration to CTB. The posting showed the final scores of the three vendors as follows: Proposers Mandatory Bidders Technical Total Cost Total Requirement Qualifications/ Quality Points Proposal Points Met Experience Stage III (Stages Stage IV Stage Stage II II&III) V Pearson Yes Educational Assessment 44.6 44.3 88.9 31.4 120.3 Harcourt Yes 42.7 42.2 84.9 42.4 127.3 CTB/McGraw Yes Hill 43.8 44.9 88.8 50 138.8 CTB's price for performing the contract over a five-year period is approximately $85 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $27 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt. Over a three year contract period, CTB's price for performing is approximately $53 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $14 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of the Department of Education adopt this Recommended Order and enter an final order awarding the contract for RFP No. 2005-01 to the low bidder, CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Donna E. Blanton, Esquire Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A. 313 North Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10967 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jason K. Fudge, Esquire Florida Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining to award the bid for its district office to Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) and whether the petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid under the terms of the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact GENERAL BACKGROUND - STIPULATED FACTS Petitioners received a formal Invitation to Bid on Lease No. 590:1784 from HRS, District V. The purpose of the ITB was to obtain competitive proposals for the leasing of office space by HRS within a specifically defined area. Petitioners timely submitted their bid in response to the ITB. All timely received bids were first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. Petitioners' bid was determined to be responsive to the technical requirements of the ITB. Responsive bids were then presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. In comparing the various responsive bids and formulating a recommendation for award, the members of the bid evaluation committee were required to visit each proposed facility and to apply the evaluation criteria as contained in the ITB package. By memorandum dated July 30, 1986, the bid evaluation committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger although petitioners submitted the lowest rental price. On or about August 5, 1986, petitioners received notice from HRS of its intent to award Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. By letter dated August 6, 1986, petitioners notified HRS of their intent to protest the intended award of Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. The Notice of Intent to Protest was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10- 13.11, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the petitioners timely filed their formal written protest. Petitioners are substantially affected by the decision of HRS to award the lease to Koger. THE BIDDING PROCESS The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form (ITB) seeking approximately 39,968 net rental square feet of office space in Pinellas County, Florida, to be used as the district administrative offices. The ITB set forth the method in which the bids would be evaluated as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsive- ness. This includes submittal on bid submittal form, inclusion of required information and data, bid signed and notarized, etc. Non responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for com- parison and formulation of a recom- mendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed facility and application of the evaluation criteria. The committees recommendation will be presented to the department's official having award authority for final evaluation and determin- ation of successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form. The ITB also provided that "the department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interests of the department and the state." In accordance with the ITB a pre-bid conference was held on April 29, 1986; however, neither petitioners nor any representative of petitioners attended the pre-bid conference. Further, petitioners made no oral or written inquiries concerning the ITB or the evaluation criteria to be utilized. Bids received from the following providers were determined to be responsive and presented to the bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of the recommendation for award: James P. & Margaret R. Gills (1100 Building) Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) LTBCLH Partnership (Justice Building) Procacci Real Estate Management Co., Inc. (ICOT Building) Elizabethan Development, Inc. (Handy City Building). BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE The bid evaluation committee was composed of the following people who, along with their staffs, would occupy the leased property: Robert Withrow, Chairman of the Committee and District Administrative Services Director; Samuel Kinsey, Financial and Accounting Director for District V; Patricia Bell, Program Manager for Aging and Adult Services; Fredrick M. O'Brien, General Services, Manager for District V; and Pegi Hollingsworth, Personnel Officer. Each member of the evaluation committee received a bid package consisting of the bid specifications and the bids submitted. Each member also received a bid evaluation sheet which was used to rate each bidder. They received no other instructions with regard to the evaluation criteria. Although each specific evaluation criterion was weighted, i.e., given a comparative value, the committee members were not specifically instructed as to how points should be assigned for each category. The evaluation committee went to each of the proposed buildings for the purpose of making a comparative evaluation based on the evaluation criteria provided. However, the primary focus was on the Koger Building and the petitioners' 1100 Building because they had submitted the lowest rental rates of the five bidders considered. After the viewing process, the members of the committee, except Mr. Withrow, discussed the factors that should be considered in applying each of the evaluation criterion. Although the committee members had not formulated the evaluation criteria to be used, they were uniquely qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided to the specific needs and requirements of the HRS offices that would occupy the building. Though the committee members were in agreement as to the various factors to be included in each of the criterion listed, they did not discuss the points that would be awarded to each facility. Each member independently assigned points to each facility based on his or her own evaluation of the facility's comparative value in each of the listed categories. Koger received the best evaluation from all five committee members with point totals of 98, 98, 98, 98 and 99 out of a possible 100 points. Petitioners' building was ranked last of the five buildings evaluated by four of the members, with point totals of 75, 77, 71 and 75, and fourth by Mr. Withrow with a total of 81 points. Based on the comparative evaluation of the buildings, the committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger. By letter dated July 30, 1986, the District V office received authorization from the HRS Director of General Services to award the bid to Koger as being in the best interest of the department and state. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA The ITB included the evaluation criteria list used by the committee to ascertain the relative value of each building. At the top of the page it is stated: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated... The evaluation criteria are divided into three general areas: (1) Associated Fiscal Costs, (2) Location, and (3) Facility. Each general area includes subcategories, with each subcategory being given a total maximum value. Each of the criteria disputed by petitioners is discussed below. 1(a) Rental rates for basic term of lease. (Weighting: 45) All of the bids received by HRS were within the rental limits established by the Department of General Services and also much lower than expected. Even the highest bid was lower than anticipated, and Koger's and petitioners' bids were considered especially desirable. The bids received, listed at present value for the ton year basic lease period, are as follows: BIDDER TOTAL COST AMOUNT MORE THAN LOW BID 1100 BUILDING $1,881,690.1 KOGER 1,993,131.4 $111,441.3 JUSTICE 2,473,559.8 591,869.7 ICOT 2,655,306.1 773,616.0 HANDY CITY 3,223,202.0 1,341,511.9 Rental rates for the basic term of the lease were given a weighted value of 45. All of the committee members gave petitioners 45 points, as the low bidder, and all gave Koger 44 points as the next low bidder. However, four of the members simply agreed that the low bid would receive the maximum amount of points with each subsequent low bidder receiving one less point than the one before it, which resulted in the high bidder receiving 41 points even though its bid was 1.7 times greater than the low bid. Only Mr. Withrow made an attempt to prorate the points based on the differences in the amount bid, thus resulting in the high bidder receiving only 20 points. However, even Mr. Withrow awarded Koger 44 points based on the minimal difference between the Koger bid and the petitioners' bid. Both Mr. Withrow and Mr. Kinsey explained the award of 44 points to Koger by comparing the difference in the amounts bid to the HRS District V budget or the budgets of the entities using the facilities. However, the purpose of the evaluation was to compare each facility to the other facilities. Thus, the award of points for rental rates should have been based on a comparison of the rates offered. Although it was reasonable to assign the maximum number of points to petitioners, as the low bidders, the amount of points assigned to the remaining bidders should have been based on a comparison of the amount of each bid to the low bid. This would have made a significant difference in the points awarded to Justice, ICOT, and Handy City; however, even using a strict mathematical computation would not significantly affect the points awarded Koger due to the minimal difference in Koger's bid and petitioners' bid. Koger would receive no less than 42 points, only 2 points less than awarded, regardless of the method of mathematical computation used. 1/ 2(a) Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of mad boundaries (Weighting: 5) All the members of the committee agreed that Koger is in the most preferred area because its location is more accessible to the employees and the persons who visit the office than any of the other buildings. Koger is in northeast St. Petersburg, minutes from the interstate. The 1100 Building is located in a more congested area in downtown Clearwater on the extreme northern boundary of the designated area. In making a comparison Of the building locations, all of which were located within the map boundary, the committee jusifiably determined that the building that was the most strategically located, in terms of accessibility, would be considered to be in the most preferred area. Thus, Koger was awarded five points by all committee members. The 1100 Building received 2, 0, 1, 3 and 1 points. Although all committee members awarded Koger the highest points, only one committee member resided closer to the Koger Building than the other buildings. Mr. Withrow, who lives closer to the 1100 Building than Koger, gave the 1100 Building only 1 point because it was more inaccessible to the district clients and employees. Further, the District Administrator, who approved the lease to Koger, resides closer to the 1100 Building. 2(b) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space (Weighting: 5) Both Koger and the 1100 Building received the maximum of five points in this category except from Mr. Withrow who gave the 1100 Building four points. The committee members felt that the bus transportation as about the same for each building. Although the 1100 Building had more buses passing the facility due to its location in downtown Clearwater, the committee considered the destination of the buses and concluded that a person would wait the same length of time for a bus to take him to his destination from either the Koger Building or the 1100 Building. Mr. Withrow differed on the points awarded because he considered the Koger location to be better due to its proximity to the airport. The district office has a large number of people that visit from Tallahassee and other districts in the state. 2(c) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 3) Koger received the maximum of 3 points from every committee member in this category; the 1100 Building received 0 points from every member. Although this category is listed within the general area of "Location", the committee members followed the category requirement and considered all environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building. In the 1100 Building, committee members noted problems with the air conditioning system and the elevators. The building was not maintained well, and the bathrooms were small and poorly ventilated. The HRS parking at the 1100 Building was not conveniently located. To get to the parking lot from the building an employee would have to cross a parking lot adjacent to the building, cross an intersection and then walk up to a block to get to his or her car. Many of the office employees work late and would be walking to their cars after dark, and there was concern expressed for employee safety considering the parking arrangement offered by petitioners. Koger had none of the problems observed at the 1100 Building. Further, Koger was better suited for the handicapped because there was no need to use a ramp as there was at the 1100 Building. 3(a) Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighing: 10) 3(b) Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 10) 3(c) Provisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations...within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) Koger's bid is for a two-story building containing approximately 39,000 square feet. The 1100 Building is a 15-story building. It would provide approximately 39,000 square feet on the second, fourth, fifth, part of the eighth, part of the ninth, and twelfth floors. The space allocation in the 1100 Building, spread over 6 floors, would provide a major problem in efficiently locating the staff. Certain offices could not be placed on certain floors because of space restrictions, and related offices could not be placed in close proximity to each other. Offices that needed to be on the same floor could not be located on the same floor. Because the space offered by petitioners is spread over 12 floors, accessibility to related offices would be much more difficult. Further, the limited space per floor makes it more difficult for HRS to properly utilize the space provided. None of the testimony provided by the committee witnesses related the "conformance of the space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid" (e.s.) The ITB lists the offices and rooms required, giving sizes for each. Other than the total square footage, which petitioners met, there were no other specific requirements contained in the ITB. None of the committee members compared the conformance of the space offered to the specific room and office requirements. Indeed, the testimony of the committee members indicate that accessibility of the space was considered under criteria 3(a) rather than the conformance of the space to the ITB. Since the space offered by petitioners apparently complied with the requirements of the ITB, petitioners should have received 10 points for that category. The points awarded under 3(b) and 3(c), however, were proper. The space offered by the 1100 Building is not susceptible to an efficient layout or good utilization of the space offered. Further, the committee legitimately differentiated between the single buildings offered by each bidder, under 3(c), by considering where the space was located within the building. Obviously, factor 3(c) reflects a concern that the space offered not be too separated. It clearly provides that proposals for space in two separate buildings will get fewer points than single building proposals, and there is no indication that all single building proposals should receive the same maximum points. This factor clearly relates to the proximity of the spaces offered to one another, with contiguous space getting the most points. 3(d) Offers providing street-level space (Weighting: 2) Approximately half of the space offered by Koger is street-level space. Koger received two points. The 1100 Building provides no street-level space; it received no points in this category. Petitioners do not contend that they should have gotten any points, but assert Koger should only have gotten one point because not all its space was street-level space. THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION The evaluation committee members were very conscientious in comparing the relative values of the buildings offered based on the criteria provided and their observations. Their evaluations were not made arbitrarily, but based upon the factors set forth in the evaluation criteria. Although errors were made in calculating the values awarded for categories 1(a) and 3(a), these errors were not due to arbitrary action by the committee members. Further, should the appropriate points under 3(a) be added to petitioners evaluations and three points be subtracted from Koger's evaluations (two points for 1(a) and one point for 3(d)), petitioners evaluations would be 79, 80, 76, 80 and 84, and Koger's would be 95, 95, 95, 95 and 96. The strategic plan for HRS, 1986-1991, Goal 12, is to enhance employee morale and job satisfaction in several ways, one of which is to replace or upgrade 90 percent of substandard physical work environments by December 31, 1990. The testimony and evaluations show, and the committee members found, that the Koger Center would provide a better work environment than the petitioners' 1100 Building. Based on the criteria set forth in the ITB, the Koger bid is the "lowest and best" bid.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a contract on Florida Department of Law Enforcement Bid No. B-904 should be awarded to Petitioner, E. L. Cole Photography, Inc., as the only responsive bidder.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), issued an Invitation to Bid (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"), designated Bid No. B-904, on May 5,1999. The ITB requested bids on photographic film and paper for use by is crime laboratories. No challenges to the specifications of the ITB were filed. Seventy-nine items of photographic film and paper were listed in the ITB. Bidders were requested to provide a unit price for each item. Bidders were also requested to provide a total price for the Department's amount of film and paper it estimated its laboratories would use. There was not a minimum or maximum amount the Department could purchase under the contact. The total quantities listed in the ITB were estimates only. The successful bidder was required to provide the items listed in the ITB for the costs listed in the winning bid for any amount of the items purchased by the Department. One of the 79 items for which bids were requested in the ITB was duplicated. The item was Catalog Number 171-6042, Kodak C.P.O. [contrast process ortho film] 4/5 (100sht/pkg) (hereinafter referred to as the "Duplicated Item"). The Duplicated Item was listed as item 3 on numbered page 10 and as item 16 on numbered page 12 of the ITM. On page 10, item 3 was listed as Catalog #171-6042 and a Description of Kodak C.P.O. 4X5 (100sht/pkg). The Estimated Quantity was 470 pkg. On page 12, item 16 was listed as Catalog #171-6042 and a Description of Contrast Process Ortho Film 100/4X5. The Estimated Quantity was 75 bx. The duplication was the result of a response to a 1996 ITB, Bid No. B-843 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 ITB). In the 1996 ITB the Department had listed items similar to those listed in the instant ITB. The Duplicated Item was correctly described in one location in the 1996 ITB, but was also incorrectly described in the 1996 ITB. A bidder corrected the description in its response. This correction caused the Duplicated Item to be listed in two locations. When the ITB was prepared, the Department used the same list of items it had used in the 1996 ITB, as corrected. The Department failed to discover the Duplicated Item. The ITB included General Conditions used in most, if not all, invitations to bid. The ITB also included specific conditions. Among the specific conditions the ITB included the following: BID EVALUATION There are two (2) biddable categories for photographic supplies in this Invitation to Bid that are separated into Attachment "A" - Film, Black & White and Color and Attachment "B" - Paper, Black & White and Color. Vendors may bid on either one or both of the attachments, but vendors are to price the attachments separately. Vendors must price all the items listed on the attachment(s) unless there is a duplication of an item or, an item has been discontinued by the manufacturer. Bidder must indicate that information by entering "DISCONTINUED" or "DUPLICATION" by that item on the appropriate attachment(s). All items marked "Discontinued" will be verified. Bids which do not meet the requirements specified in this Invitation to Bid will be considered non- responsive. Responsive bids meeting the mandatory requirements will be evaluated. [Emphasis in original]. Another specific condition included in the ITB is titled "Mandatory Requirement." The Mandatory Requirement condition provides the following: The us of "shall", "must" or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The Mandatory Requirement condition also provides that "[m]aterial deviations can not be waived." A "material deviation" is defined as follows: A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the Invitation to Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. . . . Several bids were received in response to the ITB. The bids were opened on June 15, 1999. Eddie L. Cole, majority stockholder of Petitioner, E. L. Cole Photography, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Cole Photography"), attended the opening. Seven bids were determined to be responsive, including Cole Photography and Mardel Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Mardel"). Cole Photography and Mardel are minority business enterprises. Pursuant to the ITB, minority business enterprises were entitled to a ten percent price preference. Cole Photography's and Mardel's bids were, therefore, reduced by ten percent before determining the lowest bid on the ITB. Initially the Department made adjustments to all of the responsive bids based upon "discrepancies" between the items listed in the ITB by the Department and the products actually available. The bid tabulation on the ITB was posted by the Department between July 6 and July 9, 1999. Mardel was determined to be the lowest bidder after the ten percent minority business enterprise preference was applied. Cole Photography protested this determination. Following Cole Photography's protest, the Department recalculated the responses to the ITB. Items previously excluded by the Department in its tabulation were included in the recalculation. The inclusion of those items in the recalculation are not at issue in this proceeding. In addition to including the previously excluded items, however, the Department also excluded the double inclusion of the Duplicated Item. Mardel had bid a unit price of $106.03 per package for the estimated quantity of 470 pkg for item 3 on page 10 of the ITB. The total price bid by Mardel was $49,834.10. Cole Photography bid a unit price of $102.15 for item 3 on page 10. The total price bid by Cole Photography was $48,010.50. Mardel bid a unit price of $106.03 per box for the estimated quantity of 75 boxes for item 16 on page 12 of the ITB. The total price bid by Mardel was $7,952.25. Mardel failed to indicate that item 16 on page 12 of the ITB was a duplication as required by the specific conditions of the ITB. Cole marked item 16 on page 12 as "Duplication." In its recalculation of the bid submittals, the Department excluded the $7,952.25 bid for item 16 on page 12 of the ITB submitted by Mardel. No adjustment of Cole Photography's bid was necessary. Mardel's total bid before the reduction for the Duplicated Item was $349,448.75. Cole Photography's total bid was $343,063.40. After the reduction for the Duplicated Item, Mardel's bid was $341,496.50. After the reduction for the ten percent minority business enterprise preference, Mardel's bid was $310,362.21 and Cole Photography's bid was $311,929.11. The Department indicated its intent to award the contract on the ITB to Mardel. Cole Photography was third lowest bidder. Mardel's bid on the Duplicated Item has no impact on the ultimate amount of costs the Department may incur as a result of awarding a contract on the ITB, since Mardel bid the same unit price for Item 3 on page 10 and Item 16 on page 12. Therefore, the Department may purchase any amount of the item for the unit price bid by Mardel. If Cole Photography had been the lowest bidder, the Department would have been able to purchase any amount of the Duplicated Item for the unit price Cole Photography bid. Including Mardel's two bids on the Duplicated Item results in an arbitrarily inflated bid. The failure of all of the responsive bidders except Cole Photography to indicate that the Duplicated Item constituted a duplication on the ITB as required in the specific conditions was a "deviation" from the ITB's requirements. Even with this deviation, the responsive bids are still "in substantial accord with the Invitation to Bid requirements," and they do not provide "an advantage to one bidder over the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State." Therefore, the failure to indicate that the failure to note the Duplicated Item does not constitute a "material deviation" as defined in the ITB. Both parties have filed Motions for Costs and Charges in this case pursuant to Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Cole Photography has incurred costs, excluding attorney's fees, in the amount of $264.15. The Department has incurred costs, excluding attorney's fees, in the amount of $51.40.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Law Enforcement finding that E. L. Cole Photography, Inc., failed to prove that the decision of the Department finding that Mardel Enterprises, Inc., submitted the lowest responsive bid to the ITB was "clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious" and dismissing the bid protest of E. L. Photography, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Kwall, Showers, and Coleman, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 John P. Booth, Assistant General Counsel Karen Simmons, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1498 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 James T. Moore, Commissoner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In March of 1993, the Department issued an Advertisement for Bids (hereinafter referred to as the "Advertisement") through which it solicited the submission of bids on a construction project (Department Project No. NV-30A, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Project") involving the expansion of the water treatment facility at the Martin Correctional Institution. The Advertisement, along with the other bid documents issued in conjunction with the Advertisement, including, but not limited to, the Instructions to Bidders (hereinafter referred to as the "Instructions") and the Proposal Form, were compiled in a two-volume Specifications Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual") that was made available for public inspection. Section B of the Manual's first volume contained the Instructions. Section B-2 2.A.(11) thereof provided that "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications must be submitted and the qualifications listed therein must be satisfactory to the Owner and the Engineer. " "Section 01420 as contained in the Technical Specifications" was a "Bidder's Qualification Form, Reverse Osmosis Treatment System Component" (hereinafter referred to as the "R.O. Form"), on which the bidder was to provide "R.O. [Reverse Osmosis] System Supplier" information. The R.O. Form repeated the directive that the bidder was to "[r]eturn [the] [c]ompleted [R.O.] Form [w]ith [its] proposal." Section B-14 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "preparation and submission of bids" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Each Bidder shall copy the proposal form on his own letterhead, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the Base Bid and for alternates on which he bids. . . . Proposals containing . . . . items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. Section B-16 of the Instructions addressed the subject of "disqualification of bidders" and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: More than one bid from an individual, firm, partnership, corporation or association under the same or different names will not be considered. Reasonable grounds for believing that a Bidder is interested in more than one proposal for the same work will cause the rejection of all proposals in which such Bidders are believed to be interested. The subject of "contract award" was addressed in Section B-21 of the Instructions, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The recommendation for contract award will be for the bidder qualified in accordance with Section B-2 and submitting the lowest bid provided his bid is responsible and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The qualified bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that bidder who has submitted the lowest price for the base bid, or the base bid plus additive alternates or less deductive alternates, taken in the numerical order listed in the bid documents in an amount to be determined by the Owner. The Order of the alternates may be accepted by the Owner in any sequence so long as such acceptance does not alter the designation of the low bidder. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. Section C of Volume I of the Manual contained the Proposal Form that all bidders were required to use to indicate their bid prices. The following statement appeared at the bottom of the second page of the Proposal Form: There is enclosed: A certified check, cashier's check, treasurer's check, bank draft or Bid Bond in the amount of not less than five (5) percent of the Base Bid payable to the Department of Corrections, as a guarantee. An executed Trench Excavation Safety Certification, Section F-13. An executed Experience Questionnaire and Contractor's Financial Statement and Public Entity Criminal Conviction Form, Section L. An executed Bidder's Qualifications Form (Reverse Osmosis), Technical Specification Section 01420. While one completed R.O. Form had to accompany each bid, there was no provision in any of the bid documents issued by the Department requiring a bidder to submit only one such completed form and no more. Petitioner, McMahan and R.J. Sullivan Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Sullivan") were among the contractors that timely submitted bids in response to the Advertisement. McMahan's and Sullivan's bids were each accompanied by more than one completed R.O. Form. Petitioner, on the other hand, provided the Department with only one completed R.O. Form along with its bid. Of the bids submitted, McMahan's was the lowest, Sullivan's was the second lowest and Petitioner's was the third lowest. McMahan's base bid price was $857,000.00. Petitioner's was $905,000.00. McMahan's total price, including the nine additive alternates accepted by the Department, was $948,000.00. Petitioner's was $1,032,600.00, $84,600.00 more than McMahan's. By letter dated July 1, 1993, the Department advised McMahan of its intent "to award the contract [for Department Project No. NV-30A] to [McMahan] as the lowest responsive bidder." On July 9, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the preliminary determination to award the contract to McMahan alleging that McMahan was not a responsive bidder inasmuch as McMahan "submitted Reverse Osmosis ("R.O.") Qualifications Forms for more tha[n] one vendor." According to Petitioner, "[t]his [was] not in conformance with the Bid Documents and gave [McMahan] an unfair advantage."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order finding Petitioner's bid protest to be without merit and awarding McMahan, as the lowest responsive and qualified bidder, the contract for Department Project No. NV-30A. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of September, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of September, 1993.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) 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 departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner Brooks Brothers, Inc., should be awarded the contract to renovate the Snapper Creek Service Plaza.
Findings Of Fact This is a bid protest arising out of an invitation to bid (hereinafter “ITB”) for state contract number 97870-3363, a construction project for renovation of the Snapper Creek Service Plaza on Florida’s Turnpike (the “contract” or “project”). The ITB included requirements relating to participation on the project by minority business enterprises (hereinafter “MBEs”). The ITB established a goal of 21% MBE participation. The 21% only could be met by utilizing MBE firms certified by the state Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office. According to the ITB, if the apparent low bid did not reflect that 21% of the work would be performed by certified MBE firms, the apparent low bidder would be required to submit documentation within 2 days establishing that a good faith effort had been made to meet the goal. If the low bidder could not demonstrate that it had made a good faith effort to meet the goal, the bid would be considered non-responsive and the Department would evaluate the next lowest bid for responsiveness. The process would be repeated until a responsive bid was found. Section B-27 of Exhibit 20 to the ITB specifically required the MBE participation information to be submitted with the contractor's bid and further provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Good Faith Efforts In evaluating a contractor's good faith efforts, the Owner will consider the statutory requirements and documentation submitted to demonstrate implementation undertaken by the contractor. Contractors may utilize methods in addition to those set forth below to attempt to increase participation by MBE's [sic]. Documentation of other methods will be considered. . . .Whether the contractor attended any solicitation or prebid meetings that were scheduled by the agency to inform minority business enterprises of contracting and subcontracting opportunities. * * * . . .Whether the contractor advertised in general circulation, trade association, and/or minority-focus media concerning the subcontracting opportunities. * * * . . .Whether the contractor provided written notice to a reasonable number of specific minority business enterprises that their interest in the contract was being solicited in sufficient time to allow the minority business enterprises to participate effectively. * * * . . .Whether the contractor followed up initial solicitation of interest by contacting minority business enterprises or minority persons to determine with certainty whether the minority business enterprises or minority persons were interested. * * * . . .Whether the contractor selected portions of the work to be performed by minority business enterprises in order to increase the likelihood of meeting the minority business enterprises goals, including, where appropriate, breaking down contracts into economically feasible units to facilitate minority business enterprise participation. * * * . . .Whether the contractor provided interested minority business enterprises or minority persons with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract or the availability of jobs. * * * . . .Whether the contractor negotiated in good faith with interested minority business enterprises or minority persons, not rejecting minority business enterprises or minority persons as unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. * * * . . .Whether the contractor effectively used the services of available minority community organizations; minority contractors' groups; local, state, and federal minority business assistance offices; and other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of minority business enterprises or minority persons. * * * Evaluation The Owner will examine apparent low bid proposal to calculate whether the contractor has met the project MBE goal by determining whether: The MBE's [sic] listed on the Utilization Summary are certified by the Bureau of Minority Business Assistance Office. The MBE's [sic] are certified to perform the trade or service specified. The percentage of the contract amount to be paid to qualifying MBE's [sic] meets or exceeds the project goal. The Owner will notify the apparent low bidder whether the project goal has been met. If the goal has not been met, the bidder must dispatch all documentation of its good faith not later than two working days after notification effort [sic] for overnight delivery to the Owner. The documentation will be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee to determine whether a good faith effort has been made. If the apparent low bidder is determined not to have made a good faith effort, the Owner will repeat steps 1 and 2 with the next lowest bid. This process will be repeated until a responsive bid within budget is found. The bid documents included forms on which bidders were to identify any MBE firms intended to be used on the project. The title of the form is “MBE Utilization Summary.” Sixteen contractors submitted bids for the project. After bid opening, the Department reviewed the bids to determine responsiveness including compliance with the MBE requirements. Carivon Construction Company submitted the apparent low bid. On its MBE Utilization Summary, Carivon indicated it would use its own forces and one other MBE to meet the 21% goal. The Department determined that Carivon’s bid did not meet the 21% MBE goal because Carivon was not a certified MBE at the time of the bid. In accordance with the ITB, the Department informed Carivon that it had not met the goal and provided Carivon an opportunity to establish its good faith effort to do so. The Department determined that Carivon’s good faith effort was insufficient and rejected Carivon’s bid as non-responsive. The Department then reviewed the second low bid submitted by Spectrum Group Construction, Inc. Spectrum’s MBE Utilization Summary indicated that Spectrum would meet the goal by subcontracting some of the work to MBE firms and performing some of the work with its own forces. Spectrum was a certified MBE at the time its bid was submitted. The Department determined that Spectrum’s bid did not reflect that the goal was met because the other firms identified on Spectrum’s MBE Utilization Form were not certified. When the participation of those firms was excluded, Spectrum’s bid did not reflect that 21% of the work would be performed by MBE firms even though Spectrum was an MBE and had identified itself on the MBE Utilization Summary as one of the MBEs to work on the project. The Department therefore requested that Spectrum submit its good faith efforts documentation. Spectrum responded with information explaining that it would perform more than 21% of the work with its own forces, thereby performing more of the work itself than it had indicated on its MBE Utilization Summary. The Department determined that Spectrum had failed to demonstrate its good faith efforts and, in actuality, was amending its bid. It, therefore, rejected Spectrum’s bid as non- responsive. The Department then reviewed the third low bid submitted by Pino. Pino had submitted an MBE Utilization Summary indicating that 21% of the work would be subcontracted to MBE firms. Pino also was a certified MBE at the time of the bid. However, unlike Carivon and Spectrum, Pino’s MBE Utilization Summary did not include itself and did not indicate that it intended to meet the goal by using its own forces. Pino’s certification is not apparent from the face of the bid. The Department determined that the bid did not on its face meet the MBE goal because one of the minority firms Pino identified on its MBE Utilization Summary was not certified. Without that firm, Pino’s bid reflected only 11.8% MBE participation. The Department therefore sent Pino a letter advising that Pino's MBE participation totaled only 11.8% and requesting that Pino submit documentation of its good faith efforts to meet the 21% goal. The request for good faith efforts documentation specifically stated that it was made in accordance with Section B-27, C of Exhibit 20. Pino’s response to the Department's request did not attempt to document its good faith efforts to meet the goal in accordance with Section B-27, C of Exhibit 20 of the ITB. Rather, like Spectrum, Pino submitted information explaining that it was a certified MBE and would perform more than 25% of the work with its own forces. Unlike its treatment of Spectrum, the Department accepted Pino’s explanation and posted a notice of intent to award the contract to Pino. In doing so, the Department did not consider the fact that Pino's bid did not reflect that it was a certified MBE or that it intended to count its participation toward the MBE requirement. Rather, Pino's bid certified on its signed MBE Utilization Summary that it was relying on certain named subcontractors to meet the MBE requirement. Brooks submitted the fourth lowest bid. Brooks’ bid also included an MBE Utilization Summary indicating that at least 21% of the work would be performed by MBE firms. One of the MBE firms identified in Brooks’ bid was not certified. During the deposition of Brooks M. Muse, II, taken the afternoon before the final hearing in this cause and admitted in evidence at the final hearing as one of the Department's exhibits, the Department reviewed Brooks’ good faith efforts documentation. Documentation was produced as to the elements contained in the bid specifications for performing good faith efforts. The Department's representative who attended the deposition announced on the record in the deposition that she was satisfied with Brooks' documentation, and the Department's attorney who was taking the deposition announced on the record in the deposition that Brook's documentation was more thorough than she had ever seen. Brooks' representative attended the pre-bid conference. Brooks' advertised for MBEs in the Miami Herald. Brooks contacted the Hispanic Builders Association, the Black Builders Association, and Women in Construction. Brooks faxed to minority businesses and persons a solicitation letter and a follow-up letter. Brooks met with interested MBEs, gave them copies of the bid specifications, and offered them assistance. Brooks' representative contacted the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office for information as to additional certified MBEs. Brooks documented these many contacts. Brooks made a good faith effort to meet the MBE goal in accordance with the specifications in the ITB. The ITB also included the following provisions regarding subcontractor participation on the project. EXHIBIT 5. LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS FORM - Architect-Engineer shall insert only major types of subcontractors applicable to this job and removing all unused blanks. * * * LISTING OF SUBCONTRACTORS In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent subcontractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit with the proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work for each Division of the Specifications utilizing the 'List of Subcontractors' form enclosed as Exhibit 5. [Emphasis added.] * * * SUBCONTRACTOR DATA Within 2 working days after bid opening, the apparent low bidder shall submit to the Owner's Project Director the following for each subcontractor. Corporate Charter Number. (If applicable). License Number. Name of record license holder. Complete name, address and phone number for listed subcontractors. * * * 2. The Contractor shall provide a certified list of all subcontractors, laborers and material suppliers to the owner within thirty (30) calendar days of his receiving his notice to proceed with the work. [Emphasis added.] The List of Subcontractors form referenced in section B-14 contained five numbered spaces for identifying the type of work to be performed and the name of the subcontractor. The directions on the form state: “The undersigned, hereinafter called 'bidder’, lists below the name of each subcontractor who will perform the phases of the work indicated. [Emphasis added.] Nevertheless, the List of Subcontractors form does not indicate any "phases of work." Further, the List of Subcontractors form does not provide that all subcontractors the bidder intends to use must be listed. Moreover, section B-15 of the ITB established that the apparent low bidder would be required to submit a complete list of all subcontractors within 2 days of notification by the Department. Certain portions of the work to be performed are considered “specialty work” which requires a specialty license. Unless the bidder possessed the specialty license, it would have to subcontract that work. Brooks' president and sole stockholder has been bidding for public contracts for over 30 years. He understands that in submitting competitive bids, bidders may not alter or amend the bid form or the bid will be considered non-responsive. Further, the ITB for this project specified in section B-13 that any proposal containing any alteration might be rejected. He determined, therefore, that he could not amend the List of Subcontractors form by adding an attachment. Based upon his experience, the language of the form, and the existence in the ITB of specifications providing for the subsequent submittal of subcontractor information to the Department, Brooks listed five subcontractors on the List of Subcontractors form although Brooks intends to utilize additional subcontractors, specifically certain specialty subcontractors. Brooks identified several subcontractors on the List of Subcontractors form that would perform various portions of the division of the work identified in the ITB as “mechanical.” Brooks also identified a subcontractor that would perform fencing and a subcontractor that would perform concrete and masonry work. Fencing is included in one of the divisions of the work. Concrete and masonry is identified as a division of work under two separate sections. The List of Subcontractors form did not specify the categories of work for which subcontractors were to be identified. The ITB did indicate that only major types of subcontractors would be required to be identified. Brooks’ understanding of the requirements for identifying subcontractors was consistent with the totality of the provisions contained in the ITB. Like Brooks, Pino did not list all the subcontractors it would utilize on the project. Specifically, Pino did not identify certain specialty subcontractors which it would require in order to perform the specialty work for which Pino does not have a specialty license. Pino only listed three of its subcontractors, leaving two lines blank. Pino did not submit a complete list of all subcontractors within 2 days of being notified that it was the apparent low bidder. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, Pino had still not identified all subcontractors. Brooks has not yet submitted to the Department a complete written list of all subcontractors. However, Brooks has not yet been notified that it is the apparent low bidder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT the Department enter a final order rejecting Pino’s bid as non-responsive and awarding the contract to Brooks if the Department is able to negotiate with Brooks a price for the project which is within the Department's budget. If the Department is unable to negotiate a price within budget, then the Department should enter a final order rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of June, 1997. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Piccard, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary S. Miller, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John A. Barley, Esquire 400 North Meridian Post Office Box 10166 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation c/o Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Background The procurement of private legal services by the Department for child support enforcement is exempt from the competitive bidding requirements set forth in Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. In July 1992, the Department published notice that it was soliciting proposals from interested attorneys to provide intrastate and interstate child support legal services in HRS District VI, including Hillsborough, Hardee, Highlands, and Polk Counties. These services were to be provided from October 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. Separate proposals were solicited for each of the following: the Hillsborough County Interstate Contract, the Hillsborough Intrastate Contract, the Polk County Contract, and the contract for Hardee and Highland Counties. The solicitation package does not incorporate any of the Florida Statutes or the agency's own rules regarding solicitation and award procedures in competitive bidding situations. Instead, the solicitation purports to be a self contained package of reasonably definite specifications with its own evaluation criteria and award procedures. The Petitioners in all four of the consolidated cases timely filed written protests which challenge the contents and requirements of the package. Evaluation Criteria In addition to the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation package, the Department adopted and distributed to its employees additional criteria to be used in evaluating the proposals submitted. The additional criteria are set forth in the following documents which were entered into evidence as Belveal Exhibit No. 7: Work Sheet for Evaluating Criteria and Determining Relative Value to be Applied to Technical Information, Evaluation Criteria, Scoring Matrix for Structured Interview of Offerers, Work sheet for Scoring Oral Interview, and Questions for Use at Interview. The additional criteria set forth in these documents were intended for use to award points in the evaluation of offers, and to make the award of the contracts. They were not revealed to potential offerers. Such a procedure affords opportunities for favoritism, whether or not any favoritism is actually practiced by the Department. Once the representation is made in a solicitation package that it contains the evaluation criteria, the offerers should not be subjected to an additional evaluation process. Anne Donovan, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, admitted during hearing that the additional criteria which was not included in the solicitation package are intentionally biased to give existing legal services contractors an advantage in obtaining renewal of their contracts. This is contrary to the representation made in the solicitation package which states, "Through this solicitation for offers to provide legal services, the department seeks to obtain the highest possible standard of legal representation... while ensuring free and open competition among prospective offerers." Specifications The proposed contract to be executed at the conclusion of the bid solicitation and contract award process was to provide for compensation to the contractor based on (a) the number of cases referred to the contractor during the contract term, and (b) the number of final orders obtained by the contractor in these cases referred for action. The solicitation package contains a document identified as Attachment VI, which sets fort numbers purporting to be the Department's estimates of the number and type of cases which would be referred to the successful bidder during the course of each of the contracts, the number of payable orders to be expected, and the maximum fees which would be paid for each type of order obtained pursuant to the contract. Separate estimates have been given for the following contracts: Hillsborough County Intrastate, Hillsborough County Interstate, Polk County, and Hardee and Highlands Counties. The actual numbers set forth in each of the four separate contract proposals were estimates made by the field office staff of the Department and compiled by the headquarters office. Rosemary O'Neil, the contract manager in District VI, estimated the number of functions for each of the four contracts in District VI. In identifying the direct cost amount for each individual contract, she used automated and manual statistics or the tracking of functional activities for the past year. During the preparation of her projections, Ms. O'Neil tracked only nine activities, as originally required by the Department. Later, she was required to break these down into twenty-two functions, which may have adversely affected the estimates. Ms. O'Neil and other Department personnel testified that the estimates for District VI might be too low based upon past estimates and current needs. Ms. O'Neil completed the estimates in good faith and in accordance with the Department's stated requirements. Attachment VI also contains a fee schedule based upon a functional cost survey devised and carried out by the Department between April 15, 1991 and March 31, 1992. The survey randomly selected 3,800 cases throughout the state for tracking to determine the average cost the Department paid over the stated time period for each legal activity represented in the survey. During the survey, only 2,100 of these cases were actually tracked. In October 1992, the functional cost survey was changed to include 22 instead of 10 categories of legal service activity. The implementation of the survey was faulty in that different districts tracked attorney time and paralegal time in different ways. In addition, the administrative procedures utilized by judges and hearing officers in different districts directly affected statistics in ways which were not contemplated in the survey. Without uniform procedures, the legal services performed and attorney fees charged in different counties cannot be effectively reviewed on a comparable basis to create a true average cost per function. Many of the fees allocated to different functions in the specifications were illogical. For example: Fees paid for stipulated matters were, in many cases, higher than the fees paid for contested matters of the same type. Fees paid for simple matters, such as contempt hearings, were substantially the same as fees paid for more complex litigation involving the establishment of paternity and support. Certain orders obtained by the attorney, such as bankruptcy matters, required the expenditure of time by the contractor, but did not pay any fee. The functional cost survey used to establish the terms in the solicitations for estimated number of cases, types of cases and the maximum fees to be paid is defective as it relates to District VI. Proposals cannot be comparatively reviewed because the data upon which the proposals are created is inaccurate. After the contract award, it is reasonably anticipated that the Department would be required to make modifications to the contract which would afford opportunities for favoritism.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: The previously undisclosed evaluation criteria should be included in the solicitation package if the Department intends to use them in the evaluation process. The current specifications on the projected number of cases to be referred in each contract in District VI should be revised to more reasonably and accurately reflect potential referrals within the District. The designated attorney fee for each function should be revised so that the charges are reasonably related to the work expected by the specifications in the proposal. The contents of the functional cost survey should be reevaluated based upon the evidence presented during the protest proceedings. The current specifications should be rejected as they are so flawed as to be arbitrary, in violation of state standards regarding the competitive bidding process. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1992. VERONICAL E. DONNELLY 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 22nd day of December, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner Carlton's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 5 Accepted. See HO No. 7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. See HO No. 19. Accepted. See HO No. 17. Accepted. See HO No. 18. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 - No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. See HO No. 15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. - 81. Rejected. Without jurisdiction to determine. 82. - 87. Rejected. Beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer under the Grove-Watkins review standards. 88. - 100. Rejected. Beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer. Petitioner Redman's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 7. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 8 - No. 9. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 and No. 22. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 17. Accepted. See HO No. 18. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 19. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20. The word "misleading" should be replaced by the "faulty". Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 and No. 22. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 22. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Rejected, except for the determination that the specifications are arbitrary. All other allegations were not proved at hearing. Accepted. See HO No. 11. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 13. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. Accepted. - 105. Rejected. Beyond the hearing officer's jurisdiction. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to findings, except the determination that the specifications were arbitrary and unreliable. Rejected. Beyond subject matter jurisdiction. Rejected. Competency not determined. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. - 128. Rejected. Beyond subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner Belveal's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 2. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement & HO No. 4. Accepted. See HO No. 11. Accepted. See HO No. 3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 5. Accepted. See HO No. 5 - No. 6. Accepted. See HO No. 7. Accepted. See HO No. 10. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES L CARLTON ESQ 2120 LAKELAND HILLS BLVD LAKELAND FL 33805 CECELIA M REDMAN ESQ 2124 W KENNEDY BLVD - STE B TAMPA FL 33606 DONALD W BELVEAL ESQ 100 W KENNEDY BLVD - STE 600 TAMPA FL 33602 JACK EMORY FARLEY ESQ HRS DISTRICT VI LEGAL OFFICE 4000 W DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD TAMPA FL 33614 JOHN DAVIS ESQ 1170 NE CAPITAL CIRCLE TALLAHASSEE FL 32308 JOHN SLYE ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
