The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 24th day of September 2002.
Findings Of Fact Facts based on stipulation These proceedings concern Petitioner's Bid Protest in connection with that certain project known as Chiller Installation, Glades Campus, Project NO. 9237, PBCC No. 6812. Petitioner has taken all steps necessary to perfect its bid protest in a timely manner and has standing to bring this bid protest. Petitioner and Respondent met and were unsuccessful in an attempt to resolve the bid protest as required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. M. K. Mechanical, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a State of Florida Certified Mechanical Contractor and as such was a "Qualified Bidder." The original specifications for the subject project contained few electrical specifications and were silent as to how an electrical contractor was to be licensed. The bid was due on Tuesday, January 12, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. On Friday, January 8, 1993, at 3:42 p.m., via facsimile transmission, M. K. Mechanical, Inc., received supplementary electrical specifications, thirty (30) pages in length. Contained in these supplementary specifications, for the first time, was a requirement that the electrical subcontractor had to be "locally" licensed. M. K. Mechanical, Inc.'s, primary place of business is in Edgewater, Volusia County, Florida. M. K. Mechanical, Inc.'s, submitted bid was proper in all respects other than an electrical subcontractor's name was not given, instead "to be determined" was inserted. M. K. Mechanical, Inc., submitted the lowest bid. Electrical subcontractor is a "major" subcontractor on this project. The sole basis for the decision by Respondent that Petitioner's bid was "non-responsive" was the failure to list an electrical subcontractor. Additional facts regarding bid specifications The bid specifications include the requirement that bidders list all "major subcontractors" and that the category of "major subcontractors" includes electrical subcontractors. Section 5.2.1 of the Contract Documents within the Bid Specifications provides as follows: Unless otherwise required by the Contract Documents or the Bidding Documents the Contractor at the bid opening shall furnish to the Owner and Architect Form 00420, a written list of the major Subcontractors; Site Utilities, Structural Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel & Steel Joists, Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical and Roofing, who he proposes to use on this work.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach Community College enter a Final Order in this case denying the protest of the Petitioner, M. K. Mechanical, Inc., and awarding the contract in Project No. 9237, PBCC No. 6812 to the Intervenor, Hill York Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sid C. Peterson, Jr., Esquire DeLoach & Peterson, P.A. Post Office Box 428 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 33170 James M. Adams, Esquire Gibson & Adams, P.A. Post Office Box 1629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Herbert L. Dell, President Hill York Corporation Post Office Box 350155 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33335 The District Board of Trustees Palm Beach Community College 4200 Congress Avenue Administration Building Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Attention: Mr. Dick Jones
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 10, 1991, respondent, School Board of Collier County (Board), issued a written invitation to various contractors inviting them to submit proposals for certain construction work to be performed on Naples Park Elementary School in Collier County, Florida. The invitation in question is more specifically identified as Bid No. 120-5/91 Site Development/Naples Park Elementary School. The bidders were advised that their bids must be submitted no later than 2:00 p.m. on June 4, 1991. Bids were timely filed by five contracting firms, including petitioner, A2M2R Construction, Inc. (AMR), and Haas Construction, Inc. (Haas). On June 4, 1991, various school personnel, including Dallas Disney, Board architect, Vicki McKinney, Board assistant director of purchasing, and Pat Humphrey, a Board secretary, and the Board's engineering consultant, Glen Bridges, met for the purpose of opening the sealed bids. They agreed that the five bids would be opened in alphabetical order. This meant that AMR's bid was opened first while Haas' bid was opened fourth. Bridges was assigned the task of opening the bids and reading the dollar amount of each bid. In the case of AMR, it proposed a base bid in the amount of $174,815. When Bridges opened Haas' bid, he said words to the effect that he could not clearly make out the amount of the base bid. This was because the original number had been changed by Haas prior to the submission of its bid, and it could not be clearly read. Accordingly, Bridges handed the proposal to McKinney, who read the number as $146,500. She then handed the bid document to Disney who also concluded the bid was in that amount. At that point, the president of Haas, who was present at the bid opening, was asked if the amount was indeed $146,500. When he confirmed that it was, he was asked to place his initials next to the base bid number. He did so even though paragraph (6)(a) of the Bid Instructions provides that "(a)ny erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained or noted over the signature of bidders". According to AMR, this provision required that Haas initial the amount before it sealed and filed its bid. This interpretation of the Bid Instructions was confirmed by Board personnel. Thus, AMR contends that by Haas initialing its bid amount after the bids were opened, Haas violated the Bid Instructions and should have its bid proposal rejected. As it turned out, the bid amount submitted by Haas was the lowest dollar bid on the project, and the Board has proposed to award the contract to Haas. According to the Board's assistant superintendent for business affairs, Robert Wilson, who has supervised hundreds of bid lettings over the last several years, the circumstances in this case were "unusual" in that Haas initialed the bid amount after the bid documents were opened. However, Wilson considered this to be a minor irregularity which, by the terms of the Bid Instructions, could be waived by the Board. Further, he did not find such action to give Haas an undue advantage in the bidding process or place AMR and other bidders at a disadvantage. This was not contradicted. On the bid form used by the bidders, there is a line left blank before the space where the numerical amount of the bid is inserted. AMR contends that the purpose of this space was to be used by a bidder to spell out in words the amount of its bid, and because Haas did not spell out in words the dollar amount of its bid, the proposal should be rejected. However, there is no requirement in the Bid Instructions that the dollar amount be spelled out in words nor was there a school policy imposing such a requirement. Therefore, as to this contention, no irregularity in the bidding process occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent awarding the contract in question to Haas Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent: 1-2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 2. Adopted in finding of fact 4. 5-7. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Adopted in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James R. Powell, Jr. P. O. Box 150340 Cape Coral, FL 33915 Thomas W. Franchino, Esquire 700 Eleventh Street, South Suite 203 Naples, FL 33940-6777 Dr. Thomas L. Richey, Superintendent Collier County School Board 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, FL 33942
Findings Of Fact The Department of Corrections (Corrections) initially published an Invitation to Bid (ITB) 90-Region-001 for the provision of a recyclable baling machine which had an opening date and time of 1:00 p.m., August 22, 1989. Upon opening and evaluation of the bids filed in response to ITB 90- Region-001, Corrections' purchasing and technical staff determined that the specifications for this initial ITB had been drafted too narrowly for them to validly and reasonably compare the bids submitted. This was Corrections' first attempt to meet certain recycling mandates and the agency personnel were initially unfamiliar with all of the machinery available in the marketplace. Lack of technical literature from some bidders was also a problem. In comparing the five bid responses received, it became apparent to Barbara Stephens, Corrections' Purchasing Director, that the specifications she had initially drafted worked against agency interests in that they were so narrow that different models could not be compared. In Ms. Stephens' words, one could not even compare "apples and apples," let alone "apples and oranges." The line item on Page 6 defied comparison and other line items presented significant comparison problems. After a review by Corrections' General Services Specialist Bob Sandall, it was determined that it was to the agency's advantage, as well as advantageous to the competitive bidding process, to rebid on more general specifications instead of specifications solely geared to one single model of one type of baler already owned by the agency, a McDonald single phase baler. For the foregoing reasons, Corrections elected to reject all bids received in response to ITB 90-Region-001 and rebid the item so as to broaden the eligibility base through new specifications, thereby ensuring that more than a single manufacturer could compete while making line item comparisons by the agency possible. Line item comparisons were considered advantageous to all potential bidders and to the agency and essential to a fair competitive bidding process. Considering purely bottom-line cost, Petitioner Solid Waste was the low bidder on initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 if its mathematical error were ignored and its bid were recorded as $23,960.00 instead of as $35,970.00. There were apparently some other problems with Solid Waste's bid response. These were not clearly addressed by any witness' testimony, but it is apparent that the requested manufacturer's specification sheet was included with Solid Waste's response to ITB 90-Region-001. Corrections did not reach any of the potential bid defects of Solid Waste because the agency elected to discard all the bids almost immediately. Rule 13A-1.002(9) F.A.C. provides that an agency shall reserve the right to reject any and all bids and shall so indicate in its invitation to bid. Corrections followed this requirement in General Condition 10 of ITB No. 90- Region-001, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to reject any and all bids . . Bob Sandall and Barbara Stephens redrafted the bid specifications for the recyclable baling machine more broadly, primarily to encourage greater competition of bidders. Corrections properly published these new specifications in ITB No. 90-Region-001 on or about September 18, 1989. Bids were to be opened on October 3, 1989. On October 3, 1989, the bids submitted in response to ITB No. 90- Region-001 were opened and checked for completeness. Upon opening the bid packet submitted by Petitioner Solid Waste, Corrections personnel discovered that the manufacturer's specification sheet which had been required in both initial ITB No. 90-Region-001 and in rebid ITB No. 90- Region-001R was missing. Based on the missing specification sheet, Petitioner's bid on ITB No. 90-Region- 001R was rejected as unresponsive. General Condition 7 in ITB 90-Region-001R provided in pertinent part: Bidder shall submit with his bid, cuts, sketches, and descriptive literature and/or complete specifications. Reference to literature submitted with a pervious bid will not satisfy this provision. The State of Florida reserves the right to determine acceptance of item(s) as an approved equivalent. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subiect to reiection. (Emphasis supplied) Special Condition VI of ITB 90-Region-001R, "Submission of Mandatory Forms/Literature," further provided that: 5. Complete Technical Data on items other than as specified shall be provided with bid by the vendor, for evaluation purposes, otherwise bid will not be considered. Nowhere in ITB 90-Region-001R is there any suggestion that responses thereto are supplemental to those filed for ITB 90-Region-001 or that "carryovers" or "reactivations" of earlier ITB 90-Region-001 responses would be considered. Corrections rejected other bidders' responses for other acts of non- responsiveness, and it was not necessary to waive any condition in order to award the bid to any of the bidders who were in full compliance with ITB 90- Region-001R. Petitioner timely filed a formal written protest to Corrections' bid tabulation of ITB 90-Region-001R on October 23, 1989. In this protest, Petitioner also included its only and untimely challenge to the agency's rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region-001.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest and ratifying its rejection of all bids for ITB 90-Region- O01R and its tabulation of bids for ITB 90-Region-001R. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5854BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1. is accepted except for the ultimate conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. 2-3, 5-7 are rejected as mere legal argument or proposed conclusions of law. See Conclusions of Law. 4 is rejected as characterization of testimony. Respondent' s PFOF: 1-7 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: W. K. Lally, P.A. 6160 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Perri M. King Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Courtesy copy to: Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Thomas W. Riggs, President Department of Corrections Municipal Sales and Leasing 1311 Winewood Boulevard Inc. Post Office Box 90306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lakeland, Florida, 33804 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether, in issuing the Revised Recommendation/Tabulation for contracts for Items 1 and 3 for Invitation to Bid No. 15- 048E, Multifunctional Devices, Cost-Per-Copy, Respondent acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 2014, SBBC issued ITB No. 15-048E (the ITB) entitled "Multifunctional Devices, Cost-Per-Copy" for the provision and maintenance of copying devices during the contract term. The listed Submittal Requirements were: Manufacturer's Authorization Special Condition 8; Descriptive Literature Special Condition 6; and Material Safety Data Sheets Special Condition 16. A Bidder's Preference Statement was not identified as a Submittal Requirement. Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB was entitled "TERM" and notified bidders that SBBC sought through the award of this bid to "establish a contract for the period beginning from the date of award and continuing through June 30, 2017." The Bid Summary Sheet found at Section 5 of the ITB requested bidders to provide cost-per-copy based on a stated average monthly number of copies, and to extrapolate cost out for 12 months and for 36 months. Page 1 of the ITB contained a certification to be executed by each bidder's authorized representative which stated in pertinent part as follows: Bidder agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and conditions contained in the ITB, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements of this ITB and failure to comply will result in disqualification of bid submitted. All bidders submitted a signed bidder certification. Section 3, Paragraph 1(a), of the General Conditions of the ITB provided as follows: SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "Bidder Acknowledgment Section" must be completed, signed and returned with the bid. The Bid Summary Sheet pages on which the Bidder actually submits a bid, and any pages, upon which information is required to be inserted, must be completed and submitted with the bid. The School Board of Broward County (SBBC) reserves the right to reject any bid that fails to comply with these submittal requirements. BIDDER'S RESPONSIBILITY: It is the responsibility of the Bidder to be certain that all numbered pages of the bid and all attachments thereto are received and all Addendum released are received prior to submitting a bid without regard to how a copy of this ITB was obtained. All bids are subject to the conditions specified herein on the attached bid documents and on any Addenda issued thereto. Section 3, Paragraph 6, of the General Conditions of the ITB provided as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of SBBC, the Board reserves the right to: 1) withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; 2) to reject any or all bids received when there are sound documented business reasons that serve the best interest of SBBC; 3) to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by Bidder; and 4) to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this ITB unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case, the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." On June 18, 2014, SBBC issued Addendum Number 1 for the ITB which replaced a number of pages within the bidding documents and contained responses to questions posed by prospective bidders. Addendum Number 1 included Question No. 6 in which Xerox inquired whether SBBC "would . . . consider a change to the contract term of the contract to 48 or 60-month term?" SBBC responded through Addendum Number 1 that it had amended the bid "to include additional pricing for 48 or 60-months term[s]," and SBBC continued to request proposals for a 36-month contract term. Addendum Number 1 revised Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the Special Conditions of the ITB to state as follows: TERM: The award of this bid shall establish a contract for the period beginning from the date of award and continuing through an award for a term of 36, 48 or 60 months. Bids will not be considered for a shorter period of time. All prices quoted must be firm throughout the contract period. Items will be ordered on an as needed basis. Addendum Number 1 included an Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet which required bidders to provide cost-per-copy based on a stated average monthly number of copies, and to extrapolate cost out for 12 months, 36 months, 48 months, and 60 months. On June 20, 2014, SBBC issued Addendum Number 2 for the ITB. The first page of Addendum Number 2 advised prospective bidders, "This Addendum amends the above referenced bid in the following particulars only: 1. DELETE: Appendix A–Cost Summary Sheet INSERT: Revised Appendix A–Cost Summary Sheet." The first page of Addendum Number 2 further cautioned bidders that "[i]t is important to include the REVISED page when submitting your response." Addendum Number 2 went on to provide a Revised- Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet which stated "A Cost Summary Sheet must be completed for each options [sic] 36 months, 48 months and 60 months" and included a cost summary sheet for each of those three options. The ITB and addenda numbers 1 and 2 were released by SBBC via Onvia DemandStar, with email notices thereof to prospective vendors who subscribed to its bid notification service. Toshiba downloaded the ITB, Addendum Number 1, and at least the first page of Addendum Number 2 from DemandStar prior to the submission of its bid to SBBC. Again, the first page of Addendum Number 2 cautioned bidders that Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet had been deleted and replaced and that it was "important to include the REVISED page when submitting your response." No bid specifications protest was filed by any person or entity concerning the ITB or addenda numbers 1 or 2. On July 3, 2014, SBBC opened bids timely submitted in response to the ITB by: Toshiba; ImageNet; Innovative; Lexmark International, Inc.; and Ricoh. Konica had also presented a bid to SBBC in the bid opening room prior to the opening of bids but after the announced time for submittal of bids. The Konica bid was delivered to SBBC but was not opened at the time of the bid opening. Toshiba, the incumbent, was the only bidder that violated the pricing requirements of the ITB. The bid submitted by Toshiba utilized the version of Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet that was released under Addendum Number 1 and only offered cost- per-copy pricing for the 60-month term option. Toshiba's bid did not submit the Revised-Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet issued under Addendum Number 2, nor did it contain any bids offering cost per copy pricing to SBBC for the 36 or 48-month term options. Although Toshiba's bid was not rejected as non-responsive for failing to bid on the 36 and 48-month term options and for failing to utilize and complete the Revised-Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet issued under Addendum Number 2, SBBC's staff later concluded in hindsight that it should have been rejected for such non-compliance. Toshiba's bid included a "Pricing" note immediately prior to its Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet that stated: [Toshiba] is proposing a 60 month CPC as a response to the [ITB]. Based on the fact the [ITB] has no minimum, cancellation for convenience, ability to upgrade and downgrade with no penalty, it is in the best interest of our organization to bid a term of 60 months. This term allows us to provide the most aggressive price to the [SBBC] and maintain the excellent service and support level in place. SBBC's staff recommended that an award be made under the ITB for pricing offered for a 36-month contract term for Items 1, 2, and 3 for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017. On July 10, 2014, SBBC posted its initial ITB Recommendation/Tabulation which did not consider the Konica bid. The initial posted Recommendation/Tabulation notified bidders of SBBC's intended award of contracts for Items 1 and 2 to ImageNet as the primary awardee and to Innovative as the alternate awardee for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017, and recommended the award of contracts for Item 3 to Ricoh as primary awardee and to ImageNet as alternate awardee for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017. Timely bid protests and bid protest bonds were filed by Konica and by Toshiba concerning SBBC's initial Recommendation/Tabulation of July 10, 2014. SBBC's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with the protestors on August 26, 2014, and determined that Konica's bid had been timely submitted and directed SBBC's Procurement and Warehousing Services Department (the Department) to evaluate Konica's bid for responsiveness. It also directed the Department to revise its recommendation on the ITB to reject Toshiba's bid for Item 2 as the device offered by Toshiba for that item did not meet the ITB's specifications which called for a single device capable of performing 95 copies per minute (cpm) and Toshiba instead offered two devices that performed at 85 cpm. After reviewing Konica's bid for responsiveness, SBBC posted a Revised Recommendation/Tabulation for the ITB on August 29, 2014, which (a) recommended award of Item 1 to ImageNet for a term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, as the primary awardee and to Innovative as the alternate awardee; (b) recommended award of Item 3 to Ricoh for a term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, as the primary awardee and to ImageNet as the alternate awardee; and (c) recommended the rejection of Toshiba's bid for Item 2 for its failure to meet the specifications for that Item. On September 4, 2014, Toshiba timely filed its notice of intent to protest the August 29, 2014, posted Revised Recommendation/Tabulation. On September 15, 2014, Toshiba timely filed its Amended Formal Petition Protesting Proposed Revised Recommendation/Tabulation. SBBC's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with Toshiba on November 5, 2014, pursuant to section 120.57(3), SBBC Purchasing Policy 3320, and the ITB, and rejected Toshiba's bid protest. On November 10, 2014, Toshiba timely requested that SBBC forward its bid protest to DOAH for a formal hearing. Toshiba has presented a number of arguments in these proceedings seeking to avoid the circumstances Toshiba created for itself when it failed to comply with Addendum Number 2 and violated the ITB's pricing requirements and the ITB's requirement as to the term of the contract to be awarded, when Toshiba only submitted a single bid and restricted the contract term for which it would be considered to 60 months. First, Toshiba attempts to divest SBBC of its express authority to select proposals for any contract duration for which it solicited bids other than for a month term. Second, Toshiba argues that SBBC was somehow obligated to specify within the bid specifications those business considerations that would inform SBBC's selection of the duration of the contract term to be awarded under the ITB. Third, Toshiba argues that ImageNet was non-responsive regarding the ITB's specifications concerning manufacturer's certifications. Toshiba also argues that all bidders, including itself, were non- responsive with regard to the ITB's specifications regarding bidding preference laws. None of the arguments presented by Toshiba in opposition to SBBC's intended award of Items 1 and 3 are persuasive. The Selection of the 36-Month Term SBBC's recommended award for a 36-month contract period from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, is consistent with the terms and conditions of the ITB and its addenda. At the very start of this competitive solicitation, SBBC informed bidders through Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB and the Bid Summary Sheet at Section 5 of the ITB that it was seeking a contract through June 30, 2017-–i.e., a 36-month contract. SBBC also made it clear in its response to Question No. 6 of Addendum Number 1 that "[t]he contract will be for a full 36 months." Although SBBC revised the bid specifications through Addendum Number 1 to allow bidders to submit "additional pricing for 48 and 60 months term[s]," "to allow the School District to consider a 48 and/or 60 months term contract," and revised Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB to provide for "an award for a term of 36, 48 or 60 months," it was clear under the ITB that SBBC contemplated that a 36-month contract could serve its needs. Addendum Number 2 further revised the bid specifications by providing the Revised–Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet which informed bidders that "a Cost Summary Sheet must be completed for each options [sic] 36 months, 48 months and 60 months." SBBC intended to review the additional pricing offered for 48 and 60- month contract terms to determine whether those particular options were a better business decision for SBBC. Several factors were considered by SBBC in selecting the contract duration for the award under the ITB. The selection of the shorter 36-month contract term was consistent with the expressed terms of the ITB and addenda and the expressed preference of SBBC's governing board to refrain from entering into long-term contracts and enabled SBBC to be flexible in finding solutions to its copying needs and to take advantage of changes that may arise in technology; avoided problems the school district was currently experiencing with a long-term cost-per- copy contract which ranged from equipment performance issues to the long-term placement of technology in schools; and enabled the school district to conduct research to determine whether future implementation of a managed print solution would provide the school district with additional cost savings or financial benefits in contrast to the cost-per-copy services being procured through the ITB. Clearly, this selection was neither arbitrary nor capricious. SBBC's elected governing board has made it known by its actions taken at public meetings that it disfavors long-term contracts for the procurement of goods and services and has gone so far as to reduce the term of contracts from the dais. SBBC's staff determined that the pricing offered to SBBC for a 60-month contract term was not significant enough to recommend a contract longer than the 36-month term SBBC had been requesting since the release of the ITB. Any cost advantages offered by Toshiba's bids for Items 1, 2, and 3 were reduced by $525,000 per year due to the disqualification of its bid for Item 2, which failed to meet the ITB's specifications. Consideration of Managed Print Services Xerox Corporation informed SBBC that a managed print services (MPS) program could save millions of dollars per year and later submitted a no bid response to SBBC regarding the ITB because SBBC was not implementing a MPS program under the ITB. SBBC had also received proposals from vendors in October 2013 concerning a MPS program and concluded that there existed a potential annual savings of millions of dollars if such a program could be implemented. All of which were additional reasonable, rational reasons for SBBC to remain consistent with its decision to award the contracts for a term of 36 months and not something longer. The ITB contains standard terms and conditions which enable SBBC to terminate an awarded contract regardless of reason and with or without cause upon 30 days written notice to the other party. Toshiba wants SBBC to rescue Toshiba from its failure to submit required bids for 36-month and 48-month periods by forcing SBBC to award a contract obligating the agency for a longer duration under the ITB than desired by the agency and then have SBBC terminate the 60-month contract award for convenience after 36 months. SBBC includes termination for convenience provisions within its contracts for goods and services due to section 1011.14, Florida Statutes, which restricts the ability of district school boards to obligate public funds for a period beyond one year. The inclusion of the standard termination for convenience clauses in its ITBs enables SBBC to enter into contracts exceeding one year which affords the school district opportunities to obtain continuity of service and price advantages that would not be available under shorter contracts. While SBBC has the ability under the ITB to terminate contracts for convenience upon 30 days' notice, it rarely does so. SBBC has never exercised its right to terminate its two prior contracts for the services sought under this ITB. Any such termination requires action by SBBC's governing board during a public meeting. SBBC's staff would not engage in the sham of recommending a contract to its governing board for a contract term longer than the period for which it intends to procure services from a vendor. SBBC's procurement staff believes that using the termination for convenience clause in the manner Toshiba recommends can have an adverse effect upon the school district's ability to encourage bidders to participate in its competitive solicitations or to offer it their best pricing. Questions 1 and 59 of Addendum Number 1 of the ITB provide evidence of concern within the bidding marketplace that SBBC might exercise its termination for convenience clauses with regard to the services being procured under the ITB and support the perception of SBBC's that it should avoid a reputation for exercising such termination authority. Toshiba argues that SBBC somehow materially misled bidders through the ITB by stating in response to Question No. 3 concerning MPS of Addendum Number 1 that: The School District is not planning to implement a Managed Print Services at this time. The School District would like to receive Additional information regarding other districts that have implemented a Managed Print Services. There are no evaluation points associated with this ITB. SBBC's responses to Question No. 3 of Addendum Number 1 were accurate and did not mislead bidders. Toshiba is the only bidder to claim to have been misled. Section 6, Paragraph 10, of the ITB requested bidders provide SBBC with information about how the awardee could transition SBBC to a MPS model from the cost-per-copy model being offered under its bid. While SBBC requested such information from vendors within the bidding marketplace, there is no evidence that any bidder's provision or omission of such information within its bid submission was considered in the selection of the recommended awardees. In fact, ImageNet was recommended for award even though it did not provide this ancillary information about transition to a MPS delivery model. Rather, the recommended awardees for a 36-month contract term for Items 1 and 3 were determined solely on the basis of cost submitted for those items by the bidders, all in accordance with the ITB. A MPS program was a possible initiative being considered by SBBC's former Chief Information Officer prior to his departure from SBBC in February 2014, at which time the school district's current cost-per-copy contract was nearing its expiration. Although SBBC still had an interest in the possibility of a MPS program, it was not going in that direction at the time it needed to release a bid for copying services to replace its current expiring contract. Toshiba contends that SBBC was somehow required to disclose to bidders whether the potential future implementation of a MPS program might impact the contract award period that SBBC might choose under the ITB. A myriad of business considerations may inform an agency in selecting the length of its contracts for goods and services, and there is no law or rule that requires an agency to specify those factors within an ITB. Responsiveness of the Bidders Toshiba has attempted to argue that ImageNet, the recommended awardee for Item 1 and the alternate awardee for Item 3, was somehow non-responsive under the ITB and ineligible for award. In support of this argument, Toshiba has referenced Section 4, Paragraph 8, of the Special Conditions of the ITB which state as follows: MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION: Bidder must submit with their ITB a notarized letter from manufacturer certifying that bidder is authorized to sell, service and warrant the multifunctional devices offered within this ITB. Failure of the bidder to provide this letter with their submitted bid or upon request shall result in disqualification of entire bid. If the bidder is the manufacturer, then bidder should state that their company is the manufacturer of the equipment provided in this bid (the letter does not need to be notarized). A bid is only disqualified under Section 4, Paragraph 8, of the ITB if (1) a notarized manufacturer's letter is omitted from the bid; and (2) the bidder fails to comply with a subsequent request from SBBC to provide the letter. No bidder, including Toshiba and ImageNet, included a notarized letter from a manufacturer with its bid. SBBC did not request any of the bidders to submit a notarized manufacturer's letter at any time after the submission of bids. As a result, none of the bids, including that of ImageNet, was non-responsive for a failure to satisfy Paragraph 8 of Section 4 of the ITB. Toshiba has also argued that all bids should be rejected due to Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB which concerns bidders' preference laws and states as follows: d) BIDDING PREFERENCE LAWS: ALL BIDDERS MUST COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THE LEGAL OPINION OF BIDDER'S PREFERENCE FORM IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED [sic] FOR AWARD. The State of Florida provides a Bidder's preference for Florida vendors for the purchase of personal property. The local preference is five (5) percent. Bidders outside the State of Florida must have an Attorney, licensed to practice law in the out-of-state jurisdiction, as required by Florida Statute 287.084(2), execute the "Opinion of Out-of-State Bidder's Attorney on Bidding Preferences" form and must submit this form with the submitted bid. Such opinion should permit SBBC's reliance on such attorney's opinion for purposes of complying with Florida Statute 287.084. Florida Bidders must also complete its portion of the form. Failure to submit and execute this form, with the bid, shall result in bid being considered "non-responsive" and bid rejected. No bidder, including Toshiba, included an "Opinion of Out-of-State Bidder's Attorney on Bidding Preferences" form with its bid. Each bidder's omission of that form was for good reason. Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB is a boilerplate provision within SBBC's standard bidding documents that is included pursuant to section 297.084(2), Florida Statutes, for any competitive solicitations in which personal property is to be purchased by SBBC. In instances in which it solicits bids to purchase personal property, SBBC includes a "Bidder's Preference Statement" form and includes that form among the checked "Submittal Requirements" listed in Section 2, Page 1, of the ITB. This ITB did not include a "Bidders Preference Statement" form among the bidding documents or list it as one of the required submittals. The state law and the boilerplate provision at Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB are only applicable to competitive solicitations for the purchase of personal property and do not extend to competitive solicitations for the purchase of services. As Section 4, Paragraph 12, of the Special Conditions of the ITB makes it clear that the multi-functional devices to be provided by the awardee under the ITB will "remain the property of the vendor," the standard bidder's preference provision contained within the ITB is plainly inapplicable to this procurement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained herein, dismisses the protest filed by Toshiba Business Solutions (USA), Inc., and upholds the awards of contracts under the procurement for a 36-month term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, to ImageNet Consulting of Miami, Inc., as the primary awardee for Item 1 and to Innovative Software Solution, Inc., as the alternate awardee for Item 1, and to Ricoh USA, Inc., as the primary awardee for Item 3 and to ImageNet Consulting of Miami, Inc., as the alternate awardee for Item 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Eleventh Floor 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) William G. Salim, Jr., Esquire Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim and Simowitz, P.A. 800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 (eServed) Eric J. Rayman, Esquire Genovese, Joblove and Battista, P.A. PNC Center, Suite 1110 200 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Albert E. Dotson, Esquire Wendy Francois, Esquire Bilzin, Sumberg, Baena, Price and Axelrod, LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board Tenth Floor 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 2nd day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1989 the District published its request for bids (number 8980) for an atomic absorption spetrophotometer in local newspapers and to prospective interested parties, as shown in joint Exhibit 1 in evidence. The specifications for the instrument were included in the bid package and were authored by Mark Rials, the District's Laboratory Supervisor. The District received two bids for the instrument in response to the request for bids, one from Varian for approximately $57,000 and one from Perkin-Elmer for approximately $59,900. Mark Rials evaluated the bids. Upon evaluation it was determined that the Varian instrument proposal did not meet bid specifications in three major areas. The specifications required a system capacity of 40 megabytes, hard drive capability. The capacity offered by Varian in its bid was for 20 megabytes. The specifications required a combination of a 5 1/4 inch disk drive for its computer system as well as a 3 1/2 inch disk drive. Varian only bid the 3 1/2 inch diskdrive. It did not offer the 5 1/4 inch disk drive which was required. Additionally, at item IX of the specifications, the District required that a list be submitted with the bid which stated, on an item-by-item basis, how the instrument met or exceeded the specifications. Each item in the specifications had been carefully selected to insure optimum performance for the laboratory so that exceptions to the specifications were required to be noted and attached in the bid response. Varian failed to conform to this item of the specifications. This item allowed a vendor to describe in its bid response how it could differently meet the specifications in a better manner or even exceed the specifications, but Varian failed to provide this itemized list. It was also determined that the Varian bid did not conform with the specifications of item IV page 4 of the invitation to bid document concerning the provision of service manuals, system and application software documentation, methods, manuals, parts catalogs, supplies, accessories, catalog, and training manuals. Conversely, it was determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was responsive in all respects, met the bid specification in these major categories and was the most responsive bidder. After witness Rials conducted the evaluation of the bids, in terms of compliance with the specifications, he and the District determined that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the lowest, responsive bidder which met all specifications. It duly published the intended award and notified all bidders of the bid results. In this evaluation and award process it was demonstrated that the District followed all applicable procedures in its rules and policies concerning evaluation and award. Varian timely filed an objection to the award of the bid; and in accordance with its normal bid protest procedures, the District scheduled a conference between representatives of Varian and District representatives to review Varian's bid. Varian made several statements at that meeting which constituted a substantial deviation from the bid package it had earlier submitted and amounted to an attempted restructuring of its bid in an effort to meet bid specifications. The District declined to countenance this effort and adhered to its initial intent to reject the bid which was submitted by Varian and to not allow the attempted material deviations to be ascribed to Varian's bid, after the point of bid opening and announcement of award. In summary, based upon the bid specifications issued by the District the evaluator's determination concerning the specifications that the evaluator drafted was that the Varian instrument failed to meet bid specifications because of the major deficiencies in the areas found above, regarding systems capacity, computer disk drive availability, and specification response. It has clearly been demonstrated by competent substantial evidence that the District's decision to reject Varian's bid was a reasonable one. It was based solely on a fair comparison of the response of the two bids to the specifications contained in the invitation to bid and notice to all potential vendors. In consideration of the facts established by the evidence in this record, it is found that the bid by Perkin-Elmer substantially met all bid requirements or specifications, even though the Perkin-Elmer bid was the second low bidder in terms of dollar cost. Since the low-cost bidder, Varian, failed to meet major bid specifications, the facts demonstrate that the Perkin-Elmer bid was the most responsive of the two bids at issue and is, therefore, the best bid. Consequently, award should be given to the Perkin-Elmer bid for the instrument in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleading and arguments of the parties it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order denying the petition filed by Varian Instrument Group and awarding bid number 8980 to Perkin-Elmer Corporation, as the lowest, responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9 are accepted. Petitioner Filed No Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Mickey McAllister District Sales Manager Varian Instrument Group 505 Julie Rivers Road, Suite 150 Sugar Land, TX 77478 A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact State Project No. 46090-3511 (the project) is for construction of the West Bay Bridge on State Road 79 in Bay County, Florida. Competitive bids on the project were solicited in February, 1990. The bid letting on the project was held in March, 1990. The Petitioner, Fairchild, the Hardaway Company and ten other contractors bid on the project. The Hardaway Company submitted the lowest bid on the project in the amount of $9,487,258.17. Fairchild submitted the next lowest bid in the amount of $9,835,279.34. Divergent Unit Prices and Imbalances. The part of the Hardaway Company's bid relating to construction of the foundation for the approaches to the bridge (the "structural bid") is obviously below reasonable cost in several respects. The contract specifications require the use of sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid (biaxial type 2), and Class III (seal) concrete. The Hardaway Company's unit prices for these items were, respectively, one dollar per cubic yard for the sand fill, fifty cents per cubic yard for the shell fill, twenty-five cents per square yard for the reinforcement grid, and ten cents per cubic yard for the Class III seal concrete. As a result, the Hardaway Company's bid for these items is obviously significantly below reasonable cost and approximately $95,500 below what Fairchild bid for the same portion of the contract. In contrast to the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III concrete, the Hardaway Company's bid on some of the other parts of the structural bid were relatively high. The reinforcing steel for the substructure (Item 415-1-5) was bid at approximately twice reasonable cost (80 a pound versus, e.g., 42 in Fairchild's bid), resulting in $609,936.80 attributable to that part of the bid versus, e.g., $320,216.82 for Fairchild. The statistical average (the DOT's so-called "average 2") for the other serious bidders under this item also was 42 a pound. The Hardaway Company also bid obviously in excess of reasonable cost for the lump sum item of mobilization for pile installation--$600,000 versus $125,000 in Fairchild's bid and less in the bids of several of the others bidders. (The statistical average for the other serious bidders under this item was $225,000.) But the Hardaway Company bid only $60,000 for the lump sum item for removal of existing structures (versus $160,000 in Fairchild's bid) and only $30,000 for the lump sum item for removal and disposal of fender system (versus $110,000 in Fairchild's bid). The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to mobilization for the roadway work is significantly less than the Fairchild bid under this item ($200,000 versus $375,000) and partially counterbalances the excess in the part of the Hardaway bid for mobilization for the pile installation. The portion of the Hardaway Company's bid attributable to clearing and grubbing also was high, at $20,000 an acre versus a statistical average of $4,200 an acre for the other serious bidders, resulting in $216,000 for the Hardaway Company bid versus, e.g., $32,400 for the Fairchild bid and the $45,360 statistical average. DOT Review Procedures. Section 2-6 of the DOT's Standard Specifications applicable to the project provides: 2-6 Rejection of Irregular Proposals. A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions, alterations of form, additions not called for, conditioinal or unauthorized alternate bids, or irregularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced, either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. The DOT is in the process of formulating a policy on the use of the Technical Review Committee in the bidding process. A proposed procedure has been developed, which has not yet been made final and has not yet been signed by the Secretary of the DOT, under which the Technical Review Committee would review the low bid on each contract, among other things not applicable to this case, for "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" and for "unbalanced bidding." The DOT has not yet defined "any significant irregularities in unit bid prices" or "unbalanced bidding" for purposes of defining the event that triggers review by the Technical Review Committee. The DOT Director of the Office of Construction, Robert Buser, is of the opinion that the unit prices the Hardaway Company bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III seal concrete are "significant irregularities in unit bid prices." On the other hand, the DOT's Preliminary Estimates Engineer, Robert Griner, who, unlike Buser, is a member of both the Technical Review Committee and its Preliminary Technical Subcommittee, and is of the opinion that the Hardaway bid for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the Class III (seal) concrete are "mathematical imbalances," not "significant irregularities in unit bid prices," which he would define as bids that omit a unit price, whose numerical values do not match words used to express the values, or that are not signed. Under Griner's approach, which was followed in this case, the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee looks at "mathematical imbalances" to see if they are "material imbalances." If the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee decides that it is not a "material imbalance," it simply reports this finding at the outset of the meeting of the Technical Review Committee, which accepts the finding and does not itself consider the matter any further. Only if the Preliminary Technical Subcommittee reports a "material imbalance" does the Technical Review Committee further consider the question. Front-end Bidding. Under the DOT contract for the project, like other items in the specifications, mobilization and land clearing and grubbing are paid in installments as the work proceeds. But, unlike the other items, all of the portion of the contract attributable to mobilization and land clearing and grubbing is paid by the time the entire project is half completed. Similarly, a contractor is paid for reinforcement steel (substructure) when it is delivered to the site. As a result, by shifting dollars in a bid to these "front-end," lump sum items, a contractor can manipulate the bid process and contract to reasonably insure himself of early payment of these inflated items regardless what may happen to the project later. In analyzing these front-end, lump sum items, Griner treated them (along with the unreasonably low bids on the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grids and C III seal concrete) as "mathematical imbalances." Following the guidance of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) memorandum, dated May 16, 1988, on the subject of "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids," Griner analyzed the Hardaway bid to be sure it would not be susceptible to cost overruns (it was not) and to be sure the quantities were correctly estimated (they were). He also analyzed the additional cost to the DOT of paying the Hardaway Company early (by the half way point of the project) for the inflated front-end items to determine whether the "mathematical" imbalance was "material," i.e., whether "the mathematically imbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Government." Based on a twelve percent interest rate, Griner calculated that the inflated front-end items would cost the DOT approximately an additional $98,000, 1/ still much less than the difference between the low Hardaway bid and any other bid. Based on this calculation, Griner concluded that the "mathematical imbalance" in the Hardaway bid was not a "material imbalance" and did not require the award of the bid to Fairchild or one of the other bidders. Griner overlooked and did not apply another portion of the method of analysis in the FHWA memorandum on "Bid Analysis and Unbalanced Bids" that states: There are numerous reasons why a bidder may want to unbalance his/her bid on a contract. One reason is to get more money at the beginning of the project. The bidder does this by overpricing the work done early in the project. This is called "front loading" the contract. The leading case in the "front loading" area is Matter of: Riverport Industries, 64 Comp. Gen. 441 (1985). Here the Comptroller General held that if the bid is front loaded, regardless if it is the lowest bid, it "should be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the bid would result in the same evils as an advance payment. An advance payment is prohibited by law." The "front loading" may also be materially unbalanced due to the cost of money that must be paid out early versus over the normal construction fo the project. Under the Hardaway Company bid, the pile mobilization, the land clearing and grubbing, and the reinforcement steel (substructure) parts of the bid are "front-ended." 2/ Under the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, the Hardaway Company would be paid approximately $428,000 in "advance payments" under these two items if it is awarded the contract. Approximately $375,000 in pile mobilization, $183,600 in land clearing and grubbing, and $289,700 in the reinforcement steel were shifted to these front- end items from the unbalanced sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items. These dollars The shifted dollars are estimated by taking the difference between the statistical average for these items and the Hardaway bid on them. Since roiughly half of the shifted dollars would be paid earlier than they would be paid if they were bid under the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid and Class III (seal) concrete items, the amount of "advance payment," under the FHWA analysis would be approximately $428,000. Griner did not explain why he only followed part, but not all, of the method of analysis suggested by the FHWA memorandum, other than to say he overlooked it. But he also testified that it is common practice for contractors to submit mathematically unbalanced bids, and the DOT always analyzes them the way he did in this case. Indeed, in the March, 1990, bid letting, Griner found "mathematical imbalances" in 21 of the 29 low bids but no "material imbalances." The Fairchild bid also contains "mathematical imbalances." It also "front-ends" several items. The total dollar value of the "front-ending" in the Fairchild bid (including roadway mobilization) closely approximates that found in the Hardaway bid and, under the FHWA analysis, would result in approximately the same amount of advance payment. Under Section 101-2.2 of the DOT's Standard Specifications for this project, contractors are limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total contract for mobilization. The Hardaway Company's total mobilization bid is within the maximum under the specifications. Notwithstanding the imbalances in the Hardaway bid, and the so-called "advance payments" that would result from the "front-ending" in the Hardaway bid, the Hardaway bid remains the lowest and best bid on the project, and it is the best interest of the DOT and the public to award the contract to the Hardaway Company. Even if the Hardaway Company had bid the sand fill, shell fill, reinforcement grid, and Class III (seal) concrete items exactly as Fairchild did, Hardaway still would be low bidder. "Value Engineering" and Alleged Alternative or Contingent Bidding. Inferences reasonably could be drawn from the evidence that the Hardaway Company may intend to propose to the DOT that the approach to the bridge be re-engineered so as to eliminate the need for the sand fill, the shell fill, the reinforcement grid and the C III (seal) concrete. If the DOT accepts such a proposal, the contract between the DOT and the Hardaway Company would have to be modified. If the re-engineered project were to allow the Hardaway Company to do the job for less than its bid price, half (or, if the proposal is innovative or unique, up to 80%) of the savings would be paid to the Hardaway Company under what the DOT calls "value engineering." Under DOT procedures, "value engineering" proposals are not made or evaluated until after the original contract is signed with the successful bidder. It is not an alternative bid or a contingent bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, enter a final order dismissing the bid protest filed by W. R. Fairchild Construction Company, Ltd., and awarding State Project No. 46090-3511 to the Hardaway Company. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 12th day of February, 1997.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation’s decision to reject all bids for Financial Project No. 209278-1-52-01 (J. Turner Butler Blvd.) a major interchange in Duval County, Florida, was exercised illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly or fraudulently.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 2004, the Department of Transportation advertised its Bid Solicitation Notice (BSN), for the JTB Project. H. W. Lochner, Inc. (Lochner) designed the JTB Project. Petitioner, Superior Construction, and Archer Western Contractors, LTD, submitted bids on May 26, 2004. Petitioner had the apparent low bid, and Superior had the second apparent low bid. On or about May 27, 2004, Robert Burleson, President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association (“FTBA”), contacted the State Construction Engineer, Ananth Prasad, P.E., and alerted him to potential issues regarding MOT phasing. (T. p. 876, lines 18-24; p. 880, lines 14, 15). Richard Ayers, of Superior Construction, called the Jacksonville Urban Office of the Department of Transportation, District 2, alerting the District to the concerns regarding the maintenance of traffic issues. Ayers had reviewed the bid and plans generally to assess its bid in light of the Petitioner's bid, and had discovered in the process MOT issues that he believed would add substantially to the costs and time required to construct the project. As a result of these calls, Robert Hansgen, P.E., District 2 Resident Engineer, was directed by someone within the Department to review the MOT plans. On June 1, 2004, Mr. Hansgen forwarded to Henry Haggerty and Al Moyle a memorandum outlining seven areas of MOT concern relating to the "constructability" and safety of the JTB project. On June 1, 2004, Hansgen's memorandum was forwarded to Mohammed Majboor, P.E., Design Consultant Engineer for the Department, who forwarded the memo to Lochner. Lochner reviewed its plans in light of the Hansgen memorandum and forwarded its response on June 3, 2004, to Hansgen, who reviewed the responses and added his comments. He e-mailed Henry Haggarty seven concerns he had with the MOT plans. On June 2, 2004, Allen Moyle, Jacksonville Construction Engineer, received Hansgen's and Lochner's responses regarding the MOT plans and determined that the project plans needed revisions because of safety issues. Moyle concluded that all the bids needed to be rejected in light of the MOT revisions. He transmitted a request to Cathy Thomas at the Department's headquarters to arrange a meeting with Lochner to commence revision of the plans at the earliest possible date. On June 8, 2004, Hansgen briefed the District 2 Secretary, Schroeder, and other District 2 staff members on the issues regarding maintenance of traffic issues based on his memo, a marked-up copy of the MOT sheets, and pictures. Rejection of all bids was discussed at this meeting. Mr. Hansgen testified at the formal hearing concerning his findings and his actions with the aid of the original memorandum and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2. Mr. Hansgen's concerns were about safety issues and included the reduction of traffic lane widths in areas to 11 feet where barrier walls would be erected on both the inside and outside medians where traffic would be traveling at 55 miles per hour. Another concern was the length of these lanes that would be restricted by concrete barriers. These barriers prevented easy access of emergency vehicles in these areas, which presented a significant hazard at this interchange, which accesses a major hospital complex. Mr. Hansgen’s also identified an inconsistency regarding where the contractor could work in an area close to the barrier wall; a portion of the roadway where a cross slope or tilting of the traveling lane created dangerous vehicle control issues; and plans to widen a portion of the roadway while vehicles traveled on the same portion of roadway which would require further narrowing of lanes. Because the State of Florida has one of the highest fatality records in the nation in work zones, the Department is very concerned about this issue. After the meeting on June 2, 2004, the Jacksonville Urban Office for District 2 recommended rejection to DOT in Tallahassee of all bids based on the need to “clarify uncertainties within the phasing of the maintenance of traffic (MOT) plans.” The recommendation of District 2 was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee, which is comprised of six voting members. On June 9, 2004, the Technical Review Committee recommended rejection of all bids on the JTB Project to the Contract Awards Committee based upon MOT safety issues. The Contracts Award Committee, composed of three voting members, met on June 15, 2004, to consider the recommendations regarding the JTB Project of the Technical Review Committee and District 2. The Contracts Award Committee concurred with the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee and District 2 and rejected all bids based upon MOT safety issues. The Department posted its notice of intent to reject all bids on June 17, 2004. The Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the Department’s rejection of all bids with a Formal Written Protest, filed on July 1, 2004, including an appropriate protest bond. The Department’s engineers met with engineers from H.W. Lochner, Inc., to discuss the issues of concern raised in the Hansgen memorandum. The Department commissioned Lochner to revise the plans to enhance the safety features for MOT, and certain other enhancements. Lochner and the Department entered into Supplement Agreement #13 that included both the requested enhancements and the changes to accommodate the concerns referenced in the Hansgen Memorandum. Richard Kelly testified regarding “animus,” and “dislike” displayed by employees of the Department. He pointed to past decisions and actions of Department employees as proof of “dislike” and “animus." These included a Letter of Concern to the Petitioner, on April 16, 2004, from the Department outlining five areas the Department had identified as important in making a determination on the pre-qualification of the Petitioner for bidding on Department contracts for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Also mentioned were disputed issues between the Department and the Petitioner arising during construction of the I-95/I295 Interchange Project, including Jacksonville ordinances on noise ordinance, and trees and deficiency letters from the Department to AMEC Civil. In addition, the disqualification of Morse Diesel, LLC, as the Petitioner was formerly named, from bidding on construction contracts with the State of Florida, and in 2002, the revocation of the pre-qualification of the Petitioner to bid on DOT projects were described. Ananth Prasad, P.E., who was identified by the Petitioner's witnesses as a primary source to opposition to the Petitioner, testified that he did not hold the position of State Construction Engineer in 2000, and was not involved in the decision to deny pre-qualification of Morse Diesel. Mr. Prasad also was not involved with the initial decision to revoke the pre-qualification of AMEC in 2002. Mr. Prasad does not personally hold a position on the Technical Review Committee. Mr. Prasad did not vote on the decision to recommend rejection of all bids on the JTB project. The decision to reject all bids for the JTB Project was made by the Contracts Award Committee based on recommendations from the Technical Review Committee, and District 2. The Department’s Contracts Award Committee exercised its statutory authority to reject all bids based on concerns regarding the MOT phasing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Formal Written Protest concerning the bid rejection for the project in this litigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 28th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Alan Cummings, Esquire S. Elysha Luken, Esquire Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP 1004 DeSoto Park Drive Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589 Mike Piscitelli, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 305 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Calvin C. Johnson, Esquire C. Denise Johnson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
