The Issue Whether Respondent's intended rejection of all bids submitted in response to Respondent's solicitation of bids for two separate painting projects (the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School and the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School) is "arbitrary," as alleged by Petitioner, and if so, what alternative action should Respondent take with respect to these two projects.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a district school board responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Palm Beach County, Florida (including, among others, Greenacres Elementary School, South Olive Elementary School, and Belvedere Elementary School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. In or around August 2009, Respondent, through its Construction Purchasing Department (Purchasing Department), issued a single Invitation to Bid (ITB) soliciting separate bids for three different painting projects: the painting of the exterior of Greenacres Elementary School; the painting of the exterior of South Olive Elementary School; and the painting of the exterior of Belvedere Elementary School. The bid package contained the following: an Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form (PBSD 1186, Rev 2/2001); Special Conditions; Specifications; and Addenda, including a Bid Summary Sheet, a Drug-Free Workplace Certification (PBSD 0580, New 3/91), a Statement of No Bid, Inspection forms, and a Beneficial Interest and Disclosure of Ownership Affidavit. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form contained the following provision entitled, "Awards": AWARDS: In the best interest of the District, the Purchasing Department reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any irregularity or minor technicalities in bids received; to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by bidder; to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this invitation unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." All awards made as result of this bid shall conform to applicable Florida Statutes. The Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form also included "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" (General Conditions), among which were the following: SEALED BIDS: One copy of this executed Invitation to Bid page and Bid Summary page(s) must be returned with the bid in order to be considered for award. All bids are subject to all the conditions specified herein; all General Conditions, Special Conditions on the attached bid documents; and any addenda issued thereto. Any failure on the part of the bidder to comply with the specifications, terms and conditions of this Invitation to Bid shall be reason for termination of contract. EXECUTION OF BID: Bid must contain a manual signature of an authorized representative in the space provided above. Failure to properly sign proposal shall invalidate same, and it shall not be considered for award. All bids must be completed in ink or typewritten. Corrections must be initialed by the person signing the bid. Any corrections not initialed will not be tabulated. The original bid conditions and specifications cannot be changed or altered in any way. Altered bids may not be considered. Clarification of bids submitted shall be in letter form, signed by the bidders and attached to the bid. * * * 20. SIGNED BID CONSIDERED AN OFFER: This signed bid shall be considered an offer on the part of the bidder, which offer shall be deemed accepted upon approval by the Board. In case of a default on the part of the bidder after such acceptance, the District may take such action as it deems appropriate including legal action for damages or specific performance. * * * 25. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. Among the "Special Conditions" were the following: SCOPE: The purpose and intent of this invitation to bid is to secure firm pricing for Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools. The rate shall include all materials and labor for preparation, sealing and painting. AWARD: Time of completion is of the essence. Contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder(s) for each item as listed on the Bid Summary Sheet. The District reserves the right to use the next lowest bidder(s) in the event the original awardee of the bid cannot fulfill their contract. The next lowest bidder's price must remain the same as originally bid and must remain firm for the duration of the contract. The anticipated award will be approved by the superintendent designee. B. MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION: ALL BIDDERS MUST ATTEND PRE-BID WORKSITE WALK-THROUGH. THE WORK DETAILS ARE OUTLINED IN THIS BID AND ANY QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED AT EACH WORKSITE INSPECTION. BIDS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FROM ANY BIDDERS THAT HAVE NOT ATTENDED THE SITE INSPECTION FOR THAT PARTICULAR WORKSITE. THIS MANDATORY SITE INSPECTION EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL PAINT MANUFACTURERS AND/OR PAINT DISTRIBUTORS. * * * BIDDERS RESPONSIBILITY: Before submitting their bid, each bidder is required to carefully examine the invitation to bid specifications and to completely familiarize themselves with all of the terms and conditions that are contained within this bid. Ignorance on the part of the bidder will in no way relieve them of any of the obligations and responsibilities that are part of this bid. SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "INVITATION TO BID" bidder's acknowledgment sheet must be completed, signed, and returned. In addition, the Bid Summary Sheet page(s) on which the bidder actually submits a bid, needs to be executed and submitted with this bid. Bids received that fail to comply with these requirements shall not be considered for award.[2] CONTRACT: The submission of your bid constitutes an offer by the bidder. . . . * * * Q. USE OF OTHER CONTRACTS: The District reserves the right . . . to directly negotiate/purchase per School Board policy and/or State Board Rule 6A-1.012(6) in lieu of any offer received or award made as a result of this bid, if it is in its best interest to do so. The District also reserves the right to separately bid any single order or to purchase any item on this bid if it is in its best interest to do so. * * * HH. POSTING OF BID AND SPECIFICATIONS: Invitation to bid with specifications will be posted for review by interested parties in the Construction Purchasing Department on the date of bid electronic mailing and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. II. POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATION/ TABULATIONS: Bid recommendations and tabulations will be posted in the Construction Purchasing Department, within 10 days of the opening date, and will remain posted for a period of 72 hours. If the bid tabulation with recommended awards is not posted by said date and time, [a] "Notice of Delay of Posting" will be posted to inform all proposers of the new posting date and time. Any person adversely affected by the decision or intended decision must file a notice of protest, in writing, within 72 hours after the posting. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. OO. BID PROTEST: If a bidder wishes to protest a bid, they must do so in strict accordance with the procedures outlined in F.S. 120.57(3), and Section FF., Lobbying Paragraph 3, of this proposal and School Board Policy 6.14. Any person who files an action protesting bid specifications, a decision or intended decision pertaining to this bid pursuant to F.S. 120.57(3)(b), shall post with the Purchasing Department, at the time of filing the formal written protest, a bond secured by an acceptable surety company in Florida payable to the School District of Palm Beach County in an amount equal to 1 percent (1%) of the total estimated contract value, but not less than $500 nor more than $5,000. Bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs that may adjudged against the protester in the administrative hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond, a cashier's check, certified bank check, bank certified company check or money order will be acceptable form of security. If, after completion of the administrative hearing process and any appellate court proceedings, the District prevails, it shall recover all costs and charges included in the final order of judgment, including charges by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protester, the protest security shall be returned. If the protest prevails, he or she shall recover from the District all costs and charges, which shall be included in the final order of judgment. Failure to file a specification protest within the time prescribed in § 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and applicable Board rules, regulations and policies. * * * PP. INFORMATION: Any questions by the prospective bidders concerning this invitation to bid should be addressed to Helen R. Stokes, Purchasing Agent, Construction Purchasing . . . , who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Stokes nor any employee of the District is authorized to interpret any portion of the bid or give information as the requirements of the bid in addition to that contained in the written bid document. Interpretations of the bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, will be communicated to bidders by written addendum. Site visits to the three schools to be painted were made by prospective bidders on August 13, 2009, following which a First and Final Addendum, dated August 25, 2009, was issued by the School Board. This First and Final Addendum included the following Revised Bid Summary Sheet: REVISED BID SUMMARY SHEET THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PALM BEACH COUNTY Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Ph: 561-882-1952 Fax: 561-434-8655 EXTERIOR PAINTING OF GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SEALED BIDS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 27, 2009 NO LATER THAN 2:00 P.M. TO: Helen Stokes, Construction Purchasing Construction Purchasing Department 3661 Interstate Park Road North Building 200 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Bids will only be accepted from those contractors in attendance at the Mandatory Site Visit and who are registered with the School District of Palm Beach County as a Small Business Enterprise. The rate shall include paint, preparation, sealing and painting per the attached specifications and detailed scope of work. EXTERIOR PAINTING AT GREENACRES, SOUTH OLIVE, AND BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ITEM 1: GREENACRES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 2: SOUTH OLIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) ITEM 3: BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOTAL $ (PRICE IN WORDS) RE-TEXTURING TEXCOAT $ (Per Sq. Ft.) ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUMS CONTRACTOR: Name Date Address Current License # City, State, Email Address Zip Phone Fax There were no instructions on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet itself directing that an authorized representative sign the document, nor was there any signature line for such purpose. Bids were submitted by Austro Construction, Inc. (Austro); Dynamic Painting, Inc. (Dynamic); Fleischer's, Inc. (Fleischer's); JIJ Construction Corporation (JIJ); and Petitioner. Austro bid $83,900.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $87,500.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $105,500.00 and $3.50 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Dynamic bid $55,955.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $74,800.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $82,900.00 and $3.00 per square foot for re- texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Fleischer's bid only on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School).3 Its bid was $73,000.00 and $1.25 for re-texturing. JIJ bid $80,000.00 on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $95,000.00 on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $95,000.00 and $1.15 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Petitioner bid $89,349.00 (or $33,394.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 1 (Greenacres Elementary School); $93,885.00 (or $19,085.00 more than did Dynamic, the lowest bidder) on Item 2 (South Olive Elementary School); and $94,306.00 and $3.95 per square foot for re-texturing on Item 3 (Belvedere Elementary School). Of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets that were submitted in response to the ITB (one each by Austro, Dynamic, Fleischer's, JIJ, and Petitioner), only two, those submitted by Fleischer's and Petitioner, contained the signature of an authorized representative of the bidder. The other three had no signatures on them. All of the "blanks" on each of the five Revised Bid Summary Sheets submitted, including the three sheets without signatures, were filled in and completed, however.4 Furthermore, each Revised Bid Summary Sheet was accompanied by an appropriately signed Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form. Bids were opened on August 27, 2009. As announced on the Bid Tabulation Form that was posted on August 28, 2009, the Purchasing Department recommended that Items 1 and 2 be awarded to Dynamic and Item 3 be awarded to Fleischer's. Petitioner, on or about September 8, 2009, protested the award of Items 1 and 2 to Dynamic on the ground that Dynamic's bids on these items were non-responsive because its Revised Bid Summary Sheet had not been signed by an authorized representative of the company. The award of Item 3 to Fleischer's was not protested by Petitioner or any other bidder. By letter dated September 15, 2009, Sharon Swan, Respondent's Director of Purchasing (and head of the Purchasing Department), advised Petitioner of the following: We have completed the review of your protest of Bid for "Exterior Painting of Greenacres, South Olive, and Belvedere Elementary Schools," specifically your protest of the recommendation for award for Greenacres and South Olive Elementary Schools, Items 1 & 2 of this bid. A revised recommendation will be posted later today reflecting a change in our recommendation for Items 1 & 2. The revised recommendation will be to reject all bids on these two items[5] and re-bid with revised bid documents which will clarify the ambiguity relating to the requirement to execute the Bid Summary Sheet when no signature line was indicated. Therefore, I am returning your bank check and closing the file on this protest. You are invited and welcome to compete on the re-bid of these projects. As promised, a second, revised bid tabulation form was posted that same day (September 15, 2009) containing the following "revised recommendation": Item[s] 1 & 2: Reject bid Item[] 1 (one) and Item 2 (two) due to an ambiguity in the bid language, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, paragraph E, Sealed Bid Requirements. Item 3: Fleischer's, Inc. The belatedly perceived "ambiguity" referred to in the Purchasing Department's revised bid tabulation form concerned the intended meaning of the term "executed" in Special Condition E. of the ITB. It had been the Purchasing Department's intent, in using this term in Special Condition E., to require that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet be signed by an authorized representative of the bidder; however, the Purchasing Department had not included a signature line on the Revised Bid Summary Sheet (such as the one appearing on the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form), nor had it specified anywhere in the ITB that the Revised Bid Summary Sheet had to be "signed" (in contrast to the instructions, given in the first sentence of Special Condition E., regarding the Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgement form). Upon its consideration of Petitioner's protest, the Purchasing Department had come to the realization that it had not clearly communicated to prospective bidders its intent concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to bear an authorized representative's signature. Believing that its failure to have done so effected the outcome of the competitive bidding process in the case of both Item 1 and Item 2 (in that, with respect to each of these items, the lowest bidder, as well as all other bidders bidding on these two items with the exception of Petitioner, submitted an unsigned Revised Bid Summary Sheet, making these bidders, in the School Board's view, ineligible for an award), the Purchasing Department decided "to reject all bids [with respect to these two items] and rebid so [the Purchasing Department] could correct this ambiguity" concerning the need for a bidder's "executed" Revised Bid Summary Sheet to be signed.6 It is this intended action which is the subject of Petitioner's instant protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board take the action described in numbered paragraph 51 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2010.
Findings Of Fact During March 1988, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid by which it sought to lease 17,973 net usable square feet of office space to be located within a specified geographic area in Tampa, Florida, under a nine year lease with two additional three year option periods. This Invitation to Bid is referred to as Lease Number 590:1927. Three bids were received in response to the Invitation to Bid, and they were opened on May 13, 1988. Bids were received from the Petitioner, 8900 Centre, Ltd., and the Allen Morris Management Company. All bidders were determined to be responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Despite the fact that petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated June 10, 1988, of its intent to award Lease Number 590:1927 to 8900 Centre, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. Petitioner has timely filed its protest seeking review of that decision. It is undisputed that Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. For the first year of the lease, Petitioner bid $7.85 per square foot, while 8900 Centre bid $7.95 per square foot. Thereafter, Petitioner proposed a yearly increase of 50 cents per square foot, reaching $11.85 per square foot in the ninth year of the lease, while 8900 Centre proposed annual increases of approximately 75 cents, reaching $14.00 per square foot in the ninth year. This equates to an actual dollar difference over the nine year term of approximately 185,000. However, using a present value methodology and a present value discount rate of 8.81 percent referred to on page 17 of the bid submittal form, the present value difference in these two bids is approximately $1,000 per month, which would result in a present value difference between Petitioner and 8900 Centre of approximately $108,000 over the nine year period. Neither the Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, nor the actual bids were offered into evidence. One page of the bid submittal form, designated as page 17 of 18, was offered and received in evidence. This portion of the bid submittal form states that the "successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best." It also sets forth evaluation criteria, and assigns weights to each criteria. The evaluation criteria include associated fiscal costs (35 points), location (40 points) and facility factors (25 points) . A synopsis of bids was also offered and received in evidence showing the points awarded to each bidder by the Respondent's bid evaluation committed. Out of a possible 100 points, 8900 Centre received 95.17 points, while Petitioner received 82.25 points and the Allen Morris Management Company received 70.67 points. Petitioner asserts that the members of the evaluation committee were not qualified or knowledgeable in basic construction, design and engineering principles, and therefore could not competently evaluate the bids submitted. However, Petitioner did not offer competent substantial evidence to support this contention. Only the chairperson of the committee, Susan Jennings, was called to testify, and she appeared thoroughly knowledgeable in the bid process, the needs of the agency, the bid requirements and the representations made to the committee members by each bidder, including Petitioner, when the committee made its site visit to each location. Since the actual Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, and evidence about the other committee members were not introduced, it is not possible to know what the specific duties of the committee were, how they were to carry out their duties their qualifications and training, and whether they failed to competently carry out these duties, as alleged by Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's lower bid, Respondent awarded this lease to 8900 Centre, Ltd., based upon the evaluation committee's determination assigning 8900 Centre the highest number of evaluation points. Out of a possible 35 points for fiscal costs, Petitioner received 34 and 8900 Centre received 31.5. Thus, Petitioner's status as low bidder is reflected in the points awarded by the committee. Since neither the bid invitation or specifications were introduced, no finding can be made as to whether the difference between these two bidders comports with any instructions or directions provided by the agency to potential bidders, or whether this difference of 2.5 points on this criteria reasonably reflects and accounts for the dollar difference in these two bids. Petitioner received 34.75 points out of a possible 40 points on the general evaluation criteria "location," while 8900 Centre received the full 40 points. Within this criteria, there were three subcategories, and on the first two subcategories (central area and public transportation) there was an insignificant difference of less than one-half point between Petitioner and 8900 Centre. The major difference between these two bidders which accounts for their significant difference on the location criteria, was in the subcategory of environmental factors, in which Petitioner received 15.17 points and 8900 Centre received the full 20 points. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence to discredit or refute the committee's evaluation in the subcategory of environmental factors. To the contrary, the only testimony from a committee member was that of Susan Jennings, and according to her, Petitioner failed to explain the availability of individual air conditioning and heating controls, or the possibility of separate program entrances, which could be made available under its bid. Although Petitioner sought to explain at hearing that these desires of the agency could be accommodated in its bid, there is no evidence that such an explanation was provided in its bid or during the bid process when the evaluation committee visited the Petitioner's site. The committee was aware, however, that 8900 Centre would provide individual heating and air conditioning controls, as well as separate outside entrances for the three programs which would occupy the leased space. Additionally, the committee was concerned, according to Jennings, that parking areas at Petitioner's facility were more remote and removed from the building entrance than at 8900 Centre, and were somewhat obscured by trees and shrubbery, thereby presenting a potential safety concern for employees working after dark. Finally, every employee would either have a window or window access at 8900 Centre, while it was not explained that Petitioner's site would offer a similar feature. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the evaluation committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for environmental factors to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. The evidence reflects a reasonable basis for this difference. The other significant difference between these two bidders was in the subcategory for layout and utilization under the evaluation criteria "facility." Petitioner received 13.67 points while 8900 Centre received a full 20 points. Jennings explained that the separate outside entrances leading directly into the three programs that would occupy this space was preferred to a single reception area for all three programs. Petitioner offered the single reception area in its bid and site visit presentation, while 8900 Centre made it clear that each program would have its own entrance. Since these programs do not have a receptionist position, and none wanted to give up a secretarial position to serve as receptionist for all three programs, the committee did not consider the single reception area entrance to be desirable. Additionally, Petitioner's facility was a two-story building, while 8900 Centre is a single story facility. Jennings explained that the committee considered a ground level facility to be preferable to a two story building, particularly since the Medicaid program was to occupy the major portion of this space. The Medicaid program would have to be split up at Petitioner's facility, either in two separate buildings or on two levels of the same building, while at 8900 Centre, Medicaid could be accommodated in one, single story building, with the other two programs in a second, single story building. Finally, parking at 8900 Centre was directly next to, and outside the entrance of the building, while Petitioner offered to make assigned spaces available in a general parking area which serves its entire 100,000 square foot complex. The parking offered by Petitioner is more remote than that offered by 8900 Centre, and would be less secure at night due to a greater distance from the building entrances and the parking lot. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for layout and utilization to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. There is a reasonable basis for this difference, according to the evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest to Lease Number 590:1927. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of December 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 88-3765 BID) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted, in part, in Finding of Fact 1, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but Rejected in 7. 6-7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3-4. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5 and 6, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record of this case. Adopted In Findings of Fact 5, 7-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the point difference in this subcategory is insignificant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael V. Giordano, Esquire 7821 North Dale Mabry Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Jack Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Fifth Floor, Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The School Board of Palm Beach County advertised for sealed bids for a project consisting of structural modifications and reroofing at Atlantic Community High School, project no. 000881600. All bidders were required to be prequalified by the School Board prior to the bid opening and had to exhibit evidence that similar work of equivalent magnitude had been accomplished prior to this bid. Language in the bid advertisement notified potential bidders that the School Board reserved the right to waive minor informalities in the bids, or to reject all bids. On April 5, 1989, the bids for the Atlantic Community High School (Atlantic) project were opened and a tabulation performed. All bidders had been prequalified by the School Board and had properly submitted the required bid bond. The results of the bid tabulation established GRI as the lowest bidder, Anderson second, and Milne & Nicholls third. Only three bids were timely received. The amount indicated on the GRI bid was stated only in numbers, not written in words. The written numbers, however, were clearly noted and GRI has, at all times, stated it intends to be bound by the figures listed. No error in the amount has been suggested. On April 5, 1989, Dr. Louwers, as contract administrator for the School Board, notified GRI that its bid for the Atlantic project had been deemed nonresponsive. The basis for this determination was GRI's failure to submit the bid book intact, failure to submit bid Form 00420 at the time of the bid opening, the lack of a warranty letter at the time of the bib opening, and the failure to state the price of the bids in words. GRI sought review of the determination that it had been nonresponsive and an informal hearing was conducted on April 11, 1989. As a result of that hearing, GRI'S bid was deemed responsive and all bidders were notified. Thereafter, Anderson timely challenged the intended bid award to GRI. At the time of the bid opening, GRI did not submit its bid book intact. Instead, GRI submitted the proposal form with the amounts indicated for each section together with the bid bond. The bid proposal form required the bidders to indicate an amount in several categories. These categories included a base bid and six alternates numbered 1 through 6. The amounts listed by all bidders were tallied and are specified on joint exhibit no. 10. GRI's bid was the lowest of the three bids received. Once the bids were opened, and it was determined who the three low bidders were, GRI immediately submitted its list of major subcontractors on Form 00420. Within 24 hours of the bid opening, GRI submitted its list of subcontractors and suppliers, Form 00430. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions found in the Instructions to Bidders, section 00100 of the bid package: BIDDING PROCEDURES: 3.01 All bids must be prepared using the forms contained in these specifications and submitted in accordance with the Instructions to Bidders. * * * 3.05 Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: Each bidder shall use Proposal Form contained in these specifications, indicate his bid prices thereon in proper spaces, for the entire work and for the alternates. Proposal Forms shall remain attached to the specifications.... Each proposal shall specify a unit price written in ink in both words and figures, * * * (d) The specification book is to be left INTACT, the cover signed by the Contractor, the proposal bid guarantee (Certified Check or Bid Bond) to be signed and filled out in the specification book which will be enclosed in a sealed envelope which shall be marked: * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the bid opening each bidder submitting a bid shall have in his possession a written list of the major subcontractors; namely, structural metal work and metal covering, structural manufacturer, lightweight insulating concrete, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical, whom he proposes to use on this work. The three (3) apparent low bidders will be required to submit Form 00420 (list of major subcontractors) to the Owner at the time of the opening of the bids.... Within 24 hours of the bid opening, the apparent low bidder shall submit Form 00430 (list of subcontractors and suppliers), completed in full to the Owner. Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive bid. * * * 6. REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received. In addition, the bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a bid if the bidder failed to furnish any required bid security, or to submit the data required by the bidding documents, or if the bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the bid of a bidder who is not in a position to perform the contract; and to re- advertise for other or further bid proposals. In addition to the foregoing, the apparent three lowest bidders were required to submit certifications to verify information regarding the roofing system included in their proposals. These certifications included: a certification verifying that the pre-engineered metal roofing system had been tested and approved by Underwriter's Laboratory as Class 90; a dealer certification verifying the supplier is a manufacturer's authorized and franchised dealer of the roofing system to be furnished including the date on which authorization was granted; an installer certification specifying that the installer had been regularly engaged in the installation of pre-engirieered metal buildings of same or equal construction to the system proposed including a list of successful installations performed within 200 miles of West Palm Beach, Florida; and a manufacturer's certification verifying that the manufacturer will provide warranties in accordance with the bid specifications. These certifications were to be provided with Form 00430, within 24 hours of being determined an apparent low bidder. GRI did not provide the certifications identified in paragraph 8 within 24 hours of April 5, 1989; however, all certifications were submitted prior to the final hearing in this cause. GRI was not deemed responsive by School Board personnel until after the informal hearing conducted on April 11, 1989. The letter to GRI notifying it of the results of the informal hearing was dated April 19, 1989. The issue of the certifications, therefore, did not arise until Anderson sought to challenge the decision reached by the informal hearing (that GRI was responsive). Anderson submitted all data required by the bid package at the time of the bid opening or within 24 hours of being determined an apparent low bidder. Anderson submitted the bid package intact and complete. According to bark Lottes, the project architect for the Atlantic bid, the manufacturer's certification required to be submitted within 24 hours of the the bid package was to assure the School Board that it would obtain the warranty designated in the bid specifications. Typically, a warranty is not issued until the work is completed. The purpose of the manufacturer's certication is to verify that the warranty, when issued, will be of the type and terms designated by the bid package. No structural deck replacement will be required for the Atlantic job. A general contractor would be required to perform structural deck replacement. GRI listed a general contractor, Mancini Building, among its list of subcontractors and suppliers. The roofing system proposed by GRI is to be manufactured by Varco- Pruden. The installer to perform the structural metal work for the roofing system proposed by GRI is Bretsnyder Netals, Incorporated (Bretsnyder). Bretsnyder has prior experience with metal roofs of the type designated by this bid project. Varco-Pruden has acknowledged Bretsnyder to be an authorized installer of the Varco-Pruden roofing system proposed by GRI. Varco-Pruden has provided a certification that it will warranty the roofing system pursuant to the bid specifications. GPI is registered as a roofing contractor with Gregg Wallick as its licensed roofing contractor. Anderson is a registered general contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order awarding the bid for the Atlantic project, project no. 000881600, to GRI, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division ofAdministrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-2175BID Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Anderson: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant or immaterial. Whether or not a general contractor is required to perform portions of the work for the Atlantic project is irrelevant to the resolution of the issue in this case. First, because a general cortractor was listed among GRI's subcontractors (the list of which was timely filed) and second, because the weight of the testimony established the project to be roofing in nature with no structural work required. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument or unsupported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the School Board: Paragraphs 1 through 15 are accepted. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by GRI: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted to the extent that it states the GPI bid to be lowest; however, as to the exact amount of the difference, it is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument. To the extent that the paragraph is addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 4 and 5, it is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as conclusion of law or argument except as provided in paragraphs of the preliminary statement, together with paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack S. Cox Merola, McCarthy & Cox, P.A. 4114 Northlake Boulevard Suite 301 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Robert A. Rosillo Associate Counsel School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690 Nathan E Nason Gary N. Gerson Nason, Gildan, Yeager & Gerson, P.A. Post Office Box 3704 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Thomas J. Mills Superintendent of Schools School Board of Palm Beach County 3323 Belvedere Road P.O. Box 24690 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4690
Findings Of Fact On March 16, 1989, Respondent sent invitations to bid to actuaries who had been listed by the State of Florida, Department of General Services and with whom Respondent had some familiarity. These invitations pertained to two projects. The first project was one in which Respondent sought the services of qualified actuaries for the rendering of expert services in the area of rating requirements and procedures and the review of rate filings for health maintenance organizations and long term care insurance, Bid 119. The second invitation to bid was associated with the attempt to gain services from qualified actuaries pertaining to the review of health insurance filings, Bid 120. Respondent also gave public notice of the invitations to bid in the two projects that have been described. This notice was given in the Florida Administrative Weekly in its publication of March 17, 1989. On March 17, 1989, Petitioner obtained a copy of the bid materials in Bid 119. On March 20, 1989, he obtained a copy of the bid materials associated with Bid 120. In both Bid 119 and Bid 120 there are set out general conditions which are the same for both invitations. Within the general conditions is found paragraph 5 which states: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of the opportunity to ask questions concerning the conditions and specifications set forth in the two bid instruments Petitioner, by correspondence received by Respondent on March 20, 1989, submitted a separate list of questions for the two projects, Bid 119 and Bid 120. On March 21, 1989, Respondent offered its answers to the Petitioner. Copies of these questions and answers may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 5, pertaining to Bid 120 and Petitioner's composite Exhibit No. 6, pertaining to Bid 119, admitted into evidence. No one took advantage of the opportunity set out in paragraph 5 to the general conditions in each invitation to bid, to dispute the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitations to bid within the prescribed time frame which is set out in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. That time requirement is to make known objections within 72 hours of becoming apprised of the terms and conditions in the invitation to bid. It was only at the point in time at which Petitioner had been found unresponsive in the two bid circumstances and offered his formal written protest on April 11, 1989, that he attempted to advance claims associated with the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid. He made further attempts to criticize those terms within the invitation to bid through presentation at hearing and in the course of the proposed recommended orders. All these efforts were untimely. The significance of Petitioner's failure to timely challenge the terms within the invitations to bid, that is the conditions and specifications, means that the facts in dispute are considered on the basis of whether the Petitioner and others who offered their responses to the invitations to bid have complied with those conditions and specifications as written, not as Petitioner would have them be. Bid 119 was responded to by the Petitioner and Touche Ross & Company. Petitioner's response was timely. By committee review of the responses to the invitation to bid performed by the Respondent and approved by the Assistant Director of Administration, Department of Insurance and Treasurer, one Bruce Brown, a decision was reached to reject all bids. Petitioner and Touche Ross were made aware of this rejection. Petitioner made a timely challenge to the rejection of his bid in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, leading to the present hearing. Touche Ross did not challenge that decision and did not seek to participate in this hearing, although it was noticed of the pendency of these proceedings. Petitioner and Wakely timely responded to the invitation in Bid 120. The review committee with the concurrence of Mr. Brown found Wakely to be responsive and Petitioner to be unresponsive to the terms of the invitation. Petitioner made a timely request to be heard on this decision by the agency leading to the present hearing. Wakely was noticed of the pendency of this hearing as well as the agency's choice to change from a position of accepting the Wakely bid to one of rejecting all bids and has not participated in the process. The reason why the Respondent has chosen to reject the Wakely bid is based upon its belief that to do so would expedite the process of gaining the actuarial services which it seeks under Bid 120 and based upon some concern that if it sought to contract with Wakely, whom it believes to be the only responsive bidder in Bid 120, it would be met with disapproval by the State of Florida, Department of General Services. This resistance by the sister agency is premised upon the opinion that to contract with Wakely would constitute the use of a sole source contract in a setting in which there are numerous choices of actuaries who might be able to perform the work, and General Services who controls sole source purchases would not allow this. Within Bid 119 are various special conditions. Among those is the stated purpose found in paragraph 1.0 and it says: The Division of Insurance Rating (hereinafter "Division") within the State of Florida's Department of Insurance (hereinafter "Department") is seeking one qualified actuary for the rendering of expert services in the area of rating requirements and procedures and review of the rate filings for Health Maintenance Organizations (hereinafter "HMO") and Long Term Care Insurance (hereinafter "LTC"). It is anticipated that the contract will be effective from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, although the precise dates will be dependent upon the date the contract is signed and the schedules of department personnel. By this Invitation to Bid (hereinafter "ITB"), the Division is requesting interested actuaries (hereinafter "respondent") to review the general and specific criteria outlined in this ITB and to present a bid. Other instructions in Bid 119 at paragraph 3.0 state: Emphasis on each bid must be completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the evaluation of proposals, it is essential that bidders follow the instructions contained herein. * * * Bidder shall complete the attached Bid Sheet in its entirety. By affixing manual signature on this bid sheet the bidder states that he/she read all bid specifications and conditions and agree to all terms, conditions, provisions, and specifications. Respondent's Credentials and Capabilities Proposals must include substantial evidence of the ability of the respondent to undertake the work required within the parameters and time frames referenced in this ITB. The respondent must be a member of both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries. Furthermore, the respondent must convincingly demonstrate his or her expertise in both the HMO and LTC areas. Such demonstration must include at least the following: HMO Significant consulting assignment or other work responsibility involving HMO ratemaking in 1988 or 1989. Particulars must be provided, including the specific work product requested, hours spent on the job, the results of the job, and the respondent's precise role. Convincing evidence of familiarity with the Health Maintenance Organization Amendments of 1988 to the Federal Health Maintenance Organization Act. Such evidence might include a completed or ongoing consulting assignment in which knowledge of the new legislation was critical, an article published on the new legislation, or a speech to a professional organization. Public demonstrations of the respondent's expertise in the HMO area, such as speeches, published articles, positions held in HMO professional organizations, or prior full-time employment by an HMO. Assistance in the preparation of HMO rate filings for review by the Department. Assistance in the preparation of rates for federally qualified HMOs. LTC Significant consulting assignments or other work responsibility involving LTC ratemaking in 1988 or 1989. Particulars must be provided, including the specific work product requested, hours spent on the job, the results of the job, and the respondent's precise role. Public demonstrations of the respondent's expertise, such as speeches, published articles, or positions held in professional organizations relative to LTC (i.e., committee assignments) OTHER The respondent should also include a description of prior work assignments involving consulting or other services to state insurance departments. This prior work need not be restricted to HMO or LTC. Note: Evidence of the respondent's expertise must be verifiable. Referenced consulting assignments must include the name, address, and telephone number of an employee of the client who can verify the nature of the assignment. Copies of published articles must be provided, along with the name and date of the periodical in which it was published. Also, copies of speeches must be provided, along with the name of the organization to which the speech was given, a contract person, and the date of the speech. * * * (f) Respondent's Bid In preparing a bid, the respondent should make sure that he or she has submitted at least the following information: A demonstration that all requirements in the "Respondent's Credentials and Capabilities" section are met; An explicit statement as to the proposed hourly rate; A clear statement that the respondent is able to perform the required tasks in the prescribed time frames, as described in "Specific Work Product Required". Such information must be provided together with the bid sheet provided in Section 11. A suggested format is shown in Section 10. In both bid invitations, at paragraph 4.0 of the special conditions, bidders are reminded that bids which do not meet the mandatory technical requirements set out in 3.0 and its sub-parts will not be considered for selection and that the bids that are deemed responsive will be evaluated on the basis of cost and the award made to the lowest responsive bidder at an hourly rate of charges. Both invitations at Paragraph 4.1 indicate that the state has reserved its opportunities to reject all bids if that is felt to be in its best interest. Paragraph 5.2 of the invitation is a further reminder to bidders that any bidder desiring to file a protest arising out of the invitation to bid shall do so in a setting in which Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes controls. Another specification found in both invitations at paragraph 10.0 entitled, "Respondent's (referring to the bid respondents) Credentials and Capabilities." Under that category it is stated that it is recommended that the format found on that page in the bid specifications be used in supplying the information needed to respond to paragraph 3.0 of the bid specifications for both invitations. Under that paragraph 10.0 there is a place for the respondent's name, the name of his employer, membership year in the AAA, membership designation in the 50A: FSA and ASA and year the 50A designation was awarded. In Bid 119, beyond paragraph 10.0 are found paragraphs 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3, these paragraphs recapitulate those items and the various sub-parts to paragraph 3.0 and provide space for answers to be given to those inquires concerning the Petitioner's credentials and capabilities. There is a paragraph 11.0 in both invitations entitled "Bid Sheet." It has lines related to the hourly rate, vendor name, name of actuary to render services, mailing address, city, state and zip code, authorized signature both manual and typed, telephone number, and the date of submission. This particular paragraph reminds the bidder that by affixing the signature, this is a verification that all bid specifications and conditions have been read and that the terms and conditions, provisions and specifications are agreed to and that certification is made that the services will be provided at the hourly rates stated. Otherwise the basic format for Bid 120 in terms of special conditions is the same as described for the pertinent paragraphs in Bid 119 that have been set out before with the exception of Paragraphs 1.0, and 3.0 (c). They state the following: 1.0 PURPOSE: The Division of Insurance Rating (hereinafter "Division") within the State of Florida's Department of Insurance (hereinafter "Department") is seeking one qualified actuary for the rendering of expert services pertaining to review of Health Insurance rate filings. It is anticipated that the contract will be effective from April 1, 1989 to September 30, 1989, although the precise dates will be dependent upon the date the contract is signed and the schedules of department personnel. * * * 3.0 (c) RESPONDENTS CREDENTIALS AND CAPABILITIES. Proposals must include substantial evidence of the ability of the respondent to undertake the work required within the parameters and time frames referenced in this ITB. The respondent must be a member of both the American Academy of Actuaries and the Society of Actuaries. Furthermore, the respondent must convincingly demonstrate his or her expertise in rating the filing with the Department the following products: Individual Major Medical Medicare Supplement Long Term care Other types of coverage depending upon the needs of the Department and skills of the respondent. Such demonstration must include at least the following: A high degree of familiarity with Chapter 4-58 of the Regulations of the Florida Department of Insurance. Such familiarity should be demonstrated by the respondent providing evidence that he or she submitted at least twenty- five Health Insurance rate filings to the Department which were approved between January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989. The consultant should demonstrate familiarity with Individual Major Medical, Medicare Supplement, and Long Term Care policies. Such familiarity should be demonstrated by the consultant providing evidence that he or she submitted at least three filings to the Department in each of those areas which were approved between January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989. NOTE: Only those filings actually certified by the actuary, as provided in 4-58, may be counted in meeting the above requirements. Bid 120 has paragraph 10.1 that refers back to sub-parts within paragraph 3.0(c) and provides space for answering the request for information concerning credentials and capabilities. In both bids Respondent is critical of the Petitioner for not using the format suggested in the various portions of paragraph 10, in essence filling out the specification sheet in the space provided for the answers which the petitioner would give. Having reviewed these materials associated with each bid invitation, the format idea is not a mandatory requirement, it is a suggested requirement. What is incumbent upon the Petitioner is to comply in substance with the requirements set out in the invitations to bid. In that respect the Petitioner is deficient in a material manner. A copy of the requirements Bid 119 may be found in Respondent's exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's response to the invitation to bid in Bid 119 is found within Respondent's No. 4 admitted into evidence. In his statement of credentials and capabilities, Petitioner has not utilized the spaces provided in paragraphs 10.1 through 10.3. Instead he has enclosed a letter that includes a statement of work history and professional experience. Under the category of health maintenance organization, the special conditions of paragraph 3.0(c), there is no statement of a consulting assignment or other work responsibility that would involve HMO rate making in the years 1988 or 1989. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence of familiarity with the health maintenance organization amendments of 1988 to the Federal Health Maintenance Organization Act. There is no reference to public demonstrations of the Petitioner's expertise in the HMO area to include speeches, published articles, positions held in an HMO professional organization or prior full-time employment by an HMO. While there is an indication of experience in rate review from the regulatory point of view in Florida and Massachusetts, there is no indication as required by the specifications and conditions of the preparation of rate filings to be reviewed by a regulator. Finally, under the category of HMO there is no indication of assistance in the preparation of rates for federally qualified HMOs. In the long term care component of the credentials and capabilities portion of Bid 119, Petitioner has offered no explanation of his background. Under the category "other" Respondent has included a description of prior work assignments involving consulting or other services to state insurance departments. On the other hand he has failed to evidence in more specific terms as the note to paragraph 3.0(c) requires, names, addresses and telephone numbers. A copy of the requirements of Bid 120 may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. A copy of Respondent's reply to the invitation to bid may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. As with the previous Bid 119, in Bid 120 Petitioner did not utilize the space available in writing his answers in paragraph 10.1 which relates back to the requirements for credentials and capabilities as announced in paragraph 3.0(c). Instead Petitioner attached a letter in which he attempts to state his compliance with the requirements of the bid. He sets out comments about his work history and professional experience which do not pertain to rating and filing with the Respondent the products of individual major medical, Medicare Supplement, long term care and other types of coverage depending upon needs of the Respondent and skills of the Petitioner. Within Bid 120 in the requirement for familiarity with Chapter 4-58 Florida Administrative Code Petitioner has indicated some involvement with that regulation. However, he has not shown where he had submitted at least twenty- five health insurance rate filings to the Respondent which were approved between the January 1, 1988 and February 28, 1989. In Bid 120 on the topic of demonstration of familiarity with individual major medical, Medicare Supplement and long-term care policies, Petitioner did not demonstrate that he had submitted at least three filings with the Department in each of those areas which were approved between January 1, 1988, and February 28, 1989. By contrast the Wakely response to the invitation to bid, a copy of which is found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence, has adequately responded to the requirements of the Bid 120 in the areas where the Petitioner has been deficient, as well as other areas. As alluded to before Petitioner has failed to make timely challenge to the conditions and specifications associated with the two invitations to bid. Moreover, while allegations in the formal written protest of April 11, 1989 and further remarks of April 20, 1989 addressed to the Insurance Commissioner, together with the proposed recommended order suggest problems with the conditions and specifications associated with the two invitations to bid, proof at hearing submitted by Petitioner did not confirm these allegations. Except in those areas preferred to in the factual discussion above Petitioner's bid responses are adequate to meet the terms of the invitations to bid.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby note the following findings of fact: Notice and Invitation to Bid on State Project Number 72001-3448 (the project) was extended to various contractors by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, on August 1, 1985. Sealed bids on the project were opened August 28, 1985. The scope of the project involved cleaning and painting the structural steel of the Buckman Bridge over the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida. (State Bridge Numbers 720249 and 720343). The bids were opened and Petitioner was the apparent low bidder on the project with a bid amount of $193,000. The Department of Transportation, on October 2, 1985, rejected all bids "due to error in quantities in plans." According to the contract plans and specifications utilized by the Department of Transportation for the project, the beams, girders, bracing and trusses were composed of 2,540 tons of structural steel. The plans were in error and the tonnage of structural steel was less than 2,540 tons. Petitioner, upon visiting the job site as required, immediately recognized that there was less steel in the bridge than shown in the plans. In submitting and formulating his bid, the Petitioner considered the amount of work and materials which would actually be required to complete the project. 6 Prior to the bids being posted on the project, the Department of Transportation discovered that the amount of structural steel noted in the plans was grossly overestimated. On October 2, 1985, the Department of Transportation notified bidders in writing that all bids submitted on the project were rejected and that the plans would be revised and the project relet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the petition of Industrial Enterprise Sandblast and Painting, Inc., protesting the rejection of all bids on State Project No. 72001- 3448, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December 1985. APPENDIX Respondent's Findings of Fact FINDING RULING Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 1. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 2. Accepted, but not included because subordinate. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 4. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE THOMAS E. DRAWDY, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 A. J. SPALLA, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 562 HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 LARRY D. SCOTT, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8064 INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE SANDBLAST & PAINTING, INC. P. O. BOX 1547 1502 FOX RUN DRIVE TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32486-1547
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation's determination that Heavy Civil, Inc., was a nonresponsive bidder was contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the award was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact To be considered responsive, the paper bid proposal guaranty submitted for Contract T4557 must have been received by the CAO at 605 Suwannee Street, MS 55, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, on or before 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2020. This is based on section 337.17, Florida Statutes; the Notice and the ITB specifications; the Department's 2020 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; and the CAO website referenced in the Notice. It was insufficient to send the paper bid bond without a reference to the CAO or "MS 55" and, instead, simply send it to the Department at 605 Suwannee Street in Tallahassee, Florida. The CAO did not receive Heavy Civil's paper bid bond on or before 10:30 a.m. on November 18, 2020. This was caused in part by Heavy Civil's failure to review or follow the instructions in the Notice. Heavy Civil's bid bond was nonresponsive. Russell Engineering was the lowest responsive bidder for Contract T4557. The Department's decision to award Contract T4557 to Russell Engineering was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, or arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order: (a) rejecting Heavy Civil, Inc.'s proposal as nonresponsive; and (b) awarding Contract T4557 to Russell Engineering Inc., as the lowest responsive bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2021. Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire Vezina Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Spears Reynolds, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Tropin, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Joseph W. Lawrence, Esquire Vezina Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1130 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 5th day of October, 1988.
The Issue Whether the Department’s action to reject all bids submitted in response to DOT-RFP-20-5003-DAA, relating to asbestos abatement, demolition, and removal services, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the services for Districtwide Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for Right of Way property under the Department’s supervision by law. The Department published a bid solicitation for DOT-RFP-20-5003- DAA, seeking bids to provide District Five Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for FDOT. The RFP included specifications, qualification requirements, instructions on what would be required of responders, a bid price proposal sheet, and the award criteria. Cross Construction and Cross Environmental submitted bids in response to the RFP. Cross Construction’s and Cross Environmental’s bids were evaluated by the Department. There is no debate, challenge, or disagreement raised in the Petitions with regard to the Technical Scores submitted by the responding firms to the RFP, only disagreement on three pay items. On June 15, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee reviewed and discussed the information presented as to the Technical and Pricing scores of the Responding firms, asked for an additional bid item analysis, and indicated that it would reconvene at a future date for a decision. On June 22, 2020, the Selection Committee reviewed, discussed, and confirmed the recommendation presented by the results of the Technical Review Committee scorings and the Project Manager’s Bid Price analysis and selected Cross Construction and Cross Environmental as Intended Awardees. The Selection committee also found that Johnson’s Excavation and Services Inc., [Johnson] and Simpson Environmental LLC [Simpson] were deemed non-responsive due to irregular, and unbalanced pay items prices. On August 24, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee decided to cancel the Procurement with the intent to readvertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing Structure and decided to reject all proposals. Additional Findings of Fact The “three pay items” referenced in paragraph six of the stipulated facts are the items that ultimately caused the Department to reject all bids in the instant dispute. The three pay items are collectively referred to as mobilization pay items. The RFP directs that bids are to contain two parts. Part I is the technical proposal, and Part II is the price proposal. Section 30.3 of the RFP provides that proposers “shall complete the Bid Price Proposal Form No. 2 and submit [the form] as part of the Price Proposal Package … [and that] [t]he Procurement Office and/or the Project Manager/TRC will review and evaluate the price proposals and prepare a summary of its price evaluation.” Five bidders submitted proposals in response to the RFP. One bidder did not advance beyond the initial review phase because its technical proposal did not meet minimum bid standards. The remaining bidders were CCS, CES, Simpson, and Johnson. Price proposals submitted by each of the remaining bidders were evaluated by the Department. Section 3 of the RFP provides a general outline of the process associated with awarding the contract. The steps are: “Pre-Proposal Conference; Public Opening (Technical Proposals); Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting; and, Selection Committee Meeting Summarizing Evaluations and Determining Anticipated Award.” The agenda for the “Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting,” as established by the RFP, provides as follows: Opening remarks of approx. 2 minutes by Department Procurement Office personnel. Public input period – To allow a reasonable amount of time for public input related to the RFP solicitation. At conclusion of public period, the Technical evaluation scores will be summarized. Announce the firms that did not achieve the minimum technical score. Announce the firms that achieved the minimum technical score and their price(s) as price proposals are opened. Calculate price scores and add to technical scores to arrive at total scores. Announce Proposer with highest Total Score as Intended Award. Announce time and date the decision will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS). Adjourn. Section 30.4 b. of the RFP provides that a proposer can be awarded a maximum of 30 points for its price proposal. This section also provides that “[p]rice evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider.” On June 15, 2020, the selection review committee met publicly for the purpose of opening price proposals and announcing an intended award. Price proposals were opened, and the eligible bidders received the following price scores: CCS - 11.09; CES - 13.22; Johnson - 19.76; and Simpson - 30. In terms of total score, which combined both the technical and price scores, Simpson received a score of 113.00, which was the highest score, followed by CES (107.55), CCS (103.76), and Johnson (101.76). After opening and considering the price proposals of the respective bidders, the selection committee did not announce an intended award at the meeting on June 15, 2020, but instead requested that the project manager “do further analysis on the pay items for any potential imbalance.” The project manager, through a staff member, performed the additional analysis and determined that Johnson and Simpson submitted “irregular, unbalanced pay items” which resulted in their respective bids being deemed non- responsive and thus not eligible for award. The “irregular, unbalanced pay items” are the three mobilization pay items at issue in the instant matter, and are identified on the bid price proposal sheet as items AB200, AB201, and AB202. Simpson bid $400 for item AB200, $100 for item AB201, and $50 for item AB202. Johnson bid $250 for item AB200, $250 for item AB201, and $100 for item AB202. CCS bid $1 for item AB200, $1 for item AB201, and $1 for item AB202. CES bid $1 for item AB200, 75 cents for item AB201, and 50 cents for item AB202. The Department, in evaluating the bidders’ mobilization pay items, considered costs associated with abatement two structures, a 1,500 and 2,250 square feet structure respectively. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $2,250. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CES’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CES’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $1,687.50. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $375,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $562,500. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $600,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $225,000. On June 22, 2020, the selection committee reconvened and announced CCS and CES as intended awardees of the contract. The Department also announced at this meeting that Johnson and Simpson were “deemed non- responsive due to irregular, unbalanced pay item prices.” On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed a Notice of Protest wherein the company informed the Department of its intent to formally protest the intended award of contracts to CCS and CES. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed with the Department its “formal written petition of protest.” Although Simpson’s formal protest is dated July 6, 2020, CCS and CES contend that Simpson’s protest was actually filed on July 7, 2020, thereby making the protest untimely by a day. The Department did not refer Simpson’s formal protest to DOAH for final hearing, but instead considered the issues presented by Simpson in its protest and then attempted to negotiate a resolution with Simpson, CCS, and CES. Those efforts were unsuccessful. The question of the timeliness of the formal bid protest filed by Simpson is not before the undersigned. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts as to Simpson’s protest, as demonstrated by the record herein, are as follows. On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed notice of its intent to protest the RFP. On June 29, 2020, CCS received notice that a bid protest was filed with respect to the RFP. On July 1, 2020, CES filed a public records request “for public records related to the bid protest made to the” RFP. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed its formal written protest with respect to the RFP, and although the evidence is not clear as to the date, it is undisputed that the Department received affidavits from Simpson explaining the factual circumstances surrounding the filing of the company’s formal written protest. On July 15, 2020, the Department notified CCS and CES that “in response to the Formal Written Protest filed by Simpson Environmental Services, the Department will hold a settlement conference” on Friday, July 17, 2020. On July 21, 2020, Simpson, CES, and CCS notified the Department that they “reached an agreed upon settlement proposal.” On August 11, 2020, the Department, after considering the settlement proposal for several weeks, notified Simpson, CES, and CCS that the Department would discuss the RFP at a public meeting to be held on August 24, 2020. As previously noted, it was during the meeting on August 24, 2020, when the Department announced that all proposals received in response to RFP were rejected. CES, on or about July 1, 2020, submitted to the Department a public records request wherein the company sought a copy of documents related to Simpson’s protest. In response to the request, the Department provided CES a copy of the formal written protest filed by Simpson. It is undisputed that the initial copy provided to CES by the Department did not show either the date or time of receipt of the document filed by Simpson. At some point after the settlement conference, the Department provided to CES a date and time stamped copy of Simpson’s formal written protest. There was no evidence presented explaining the circumstances or the process which resulted in the Department providing different copies of Simpson’s formal written protest to CES, and the remaining evidence does not provide a sufficient foundation to reasonably infer that the Department acted with nefarious motives when providing different versions of the documents to CES. Simpson’s formal protest contains the following statement with respect to the price proposal that the company submitted in response to the RFP: Petitioner’s individual bid price items were based in fact, were reasonable and were in conformity with standard industry rates for similar asbestos abatement and demolition and removal projects. Petitioner’s bid price items were also patently similar to bid price items that Petitioner has previously submitted in response to past FDOT proposal requests that ultimately resulted in the corresponding contracts having been awarded to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner has a longstanding relationship with the FDOT as Petitioner has previously contracted with FDOT as a vendor performing asbestos abatement services on numerous projects over the course of the past eight years. Petitioner’s price items for bid proposals have remained consistent for each of its past projects with FDOT. Petitioner’s price items for the instant bid proposal did not differ or vary in any material aspect from those proposed by Petitioner for previous projects that FDOT has deemed reasonable. Michelle Sloan works for the Department as a district procurement manager, and was assigned to manage the instant RFP. Ms. Sloan testified that because Simpson protested the Department’s intended decision to award the contracts to CCS and CES, and specifically referenced in its protest “that their bid for mobilization was in conformance with industry standards, as well as previous bids submitted to the agency that were deemed responsive,” she conducted additional review of the Simpson and Johnson bids. Ms. Sloan testified that after reviewing the RFP, the price sheets related thereto, Simpson’s protest, and the additional analysis of the pay items conducted following the June 15, 2020, selection committee meeting, she concluded that material ambiguities existed in the RFP’s mobilization pay items and recommended to the district secretary that the Department “reject all [bids] and re-advertise with a revised pricing sheet and instructions.” On August 24, 2020, the selection committee, following public notice, accepted Ms. Sloan’s recommendation, rejected all proposals, and canceled the procurement with the “intent to re-advertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing structure.” A review of the credible evidence demonstrates a rational basis for the conclusions reached by Ms. Sloan and members of the selection committee. Exhibit C of the RFP is titled “Price Proposal/Detailed and Contractual Price Sheet.” The first page of this document provides a general description of the asbestos removal and abatement pay items. The general pay items are as follows: AB100 Fees [as] determined from the Department of Environmental Protection based upon regulated material. AB200 One-time fee necessary to mobilize for full isolation, per parcel, when abatement with isolation is required. AB300 Fees to be charged by square feet for preparation [of] structure before abatement can commence. AB400 Fees to be charged by square feet, to abate asbestos from various surfacing material such as ceiling, walls, beams, plaster, sheetrock and fireproofing using conventional containment methods. AB500 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks ducts, fittings, pipes, flutes and flanges. AB600 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks, ducts, pipe, fittings and jackets which involve the use of a Glove bag. AB700 Fees to be charged by square foot, to abate asbestos from various roofing materials such as cement roof shingles, flashing, rolled roof, felts, wood shingles and mobile home coating. AB800 Fees to be charged by square foot or piece to abate asbestos from various materials such as floor tile, mastic adhesive, sheet vinyl, carpet, wood sub- floor, concrete sub-floor, vibrator dampers, wallboard, metal ductwork and sinks with insulation and heat shields (light fixture). AB900 Fees to be charge[d] by landfill for asbestos disposal. The bid price proposal sheet, which is form number 2 of the RFP, provides a listing of specific pay items related to the general “AB ---” items listed in Exhibit C to the RFP. Below is an example of some of the specific pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet: [See table on next page] Item Number Description (A) Estimat ed Quantit y Unit (B) Unit Pric e Total Bid Amount (A x B) ASBESTOS REMOVAL ABATEMENT AB200 Mobilization for structures less than 2,000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB201 Mobilization for structures [from] 2001 – 5000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB202 Mobilization for structures over 5001 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB300 Mask and Seal 1 SQ. FT. AB401 Remove ACM plaster/lathe including all surface materials 1 SQ. FT. AB501 Remove insulation from fittings 1 LF. AB603 Remove insulation from boilers, stacks or ducts piping 1 LF. AB703 Remove roofing cement 1 SQ. FT. AB810 Remove carpet and mastic adhesive 1 SQ. FT. AB820 Remove sinks with insulation 1 SQ. FT. AB901 Non-Friable 1 SQ. FT. General pay item category AB200, as described on Exhibit C, does not reference a “unit of measurement,” but instead notes that items within this category are to be determined on a “one-time – per parcel” basis. When the AB200 general pay item category is compared to the specific pay items for this category enumerated on the bid price proposal sheet (i.e., AB200, AB201, and AB202), it is evident that the unit of measurement “square feet” is listed as the basis for calculating the bid amount for this item when no such unit of measurement is stated for this item on Exhibit C. Comparatively, general pay item categories AB300 through AB800 each expressly references a specific unit of measurement (i.e., square foot, linear foot, or by the “piece”), and these units of measurement carry over to and are consistently reflected on the bid price proposal sheet for the specific pay items enumerated therein. By inserting a unit of measurement (i.e., square feet) in the mobilization pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet, when the general description on Exhibit C instructs that they are “one-time, per parcel” pay items, the Department created a material ambiguity in the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in Case Nos. 20-4214 and 20-4216 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-20-5003-DAA was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing the two petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brian A. Leung, Esquire Holcomb & Leung, P.A. 3203 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Diane E. H. Watson, Esquire Cross Environmental Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1299 Crystal Springs, Florida 33524-1299 (eServed) Kevin J. Tibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., and Corporate Interiors, Inc., (Petitioners) is the lowest responsible bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Respondent) for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building, or in the alternative, whether all bids should be rejected as urged by The Harter Group (Intervenor).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received three bids, including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor, and one no bid. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and neither Petitioners nor Intervenor were determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. However, the Petitioners' bid was lower than that of the bidder to whom the Respondent proposes to award this contract. Petitioners' bid was $932,502.39, Intervenor's bid was highest at $1,101,509.90, and the bid of lowest responsible bidder, Haworth, Inc., was $1,072,286.50. The first reason given by Respondent for its determination that Petitioners' bid was not responsive to the bid specifications is that it did not include an amount for sales tax. Intervenor also did not include sales tax in its bid, but Haworth, Inc., which was determined by Respondent to be the lowest responsible bidder, did include sales tax. However, there was no dispute at hearing that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System, and that Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The second reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it omitted a required page from the approved form which was to be used to list those items in the bid proposal that were not in strict compliance with the Respondent's specifications. Petitioners admit that the required page numbered 00310-7 was not included in their bid, but maintain that it was not necessary to include this exact page since all items in their bid do meet specifications, and since a statement to this effect was included elsewhere in the bid. The lowest responsible bidder, as determined by the Respondent, did include this required page with a statement thereon that "all items comply". Intervenor also included this page listing 11 items in its bid which differed from the specifications. The purpose of this required page is to allow the Respondent to have a uniform, clearly identifiable place in each bid proposal where it can look to determine if the items in that bid meet specifications, without having to check every page of each bid. The third reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it included numerous pages of unit costs which were not called for in the specifications, without any explanation as to their meaning or the purpose for which they were included in the bid. Section 4.1.1 of the bid specifications, found at page 00100-11, makes it clear that no bid form other than that which is set forth in the specifications will be accepted, and specifically states that bidders are not even to retype the form on their letterhead, but are to simply fill-in a copy made from the form in the specifications. The Petitioners admit that their bid includes additional, unexplained information that was not called for in the specifications. A final reason given by Respondent at hearing for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it was accompanied by a bid bond, required by Section 4.2.4 of the specifications, in the name of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., while the public entity crime affidavit, required by Section 2.1.5, was subscribed to by Corporate Interiors, Inc. Petitioners' bid did not include a resolution or other evidence of authority that Corporate Interiors, Inc., had authority to submit a public entity crime affidavit on behalf of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., or that the affidavit submitted was valid as to Kimball. Thus, while Petitioners maintain that their bid was jointly filed on behalf of the manufacturer, Kimball, and the vendor, Corporate Interiors, their bid includes a bond from the manufacturer only, and a crime affidavit from the vendor only. Section 1.8 of the specifications, found at page 00100-2, specifies that the bidder is the person or entity that submits a bid. Petitioners urge that theirs is a joint bid, but they have failed to submit a joint bond or affidavit. Section 5.2.1 of the specifications allows the Respondent to reject any bid which fails to include a required security, or other required data. The bid which was determined by the Respondent to be the lowest responsible bid contains no technical flaws, errors or omissions, and the proposal meets all specifications for this project. The Respondent properly posted notice of its intent to award this contract to Haworth, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. Under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, the Respondent has the right to waive "any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and to accept the Bid or Bids which, in (its) judgment, is in (its) own best interest." Respondent chose not to waive any of the irregularities in the Petitioners' bid. This decision was made, in part, because of Respondent's previous experience with Petitioners in their installation of similar systems for Respondent at the Walter Pownall Service Centers in which there had been problems involving service during installation, coordination of the installation work, and verification that invoices received from Corporate Interiors did not exceed the bid base price, and that all items being paid had actually been received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' and Intervenor's protests of its intent to award a contract for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building to Haworth, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2863BID Petitioner and Intervenor filed letters, but no proposed findings of fact upon which rulings could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. 3. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 4. Adopted in Finding 6. 5. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 6. Adopted in Finding 6. 7. Adopted in Findings 6, 8. 8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. 10-12. Adopted in Finding 6. 13. Adopted in Finding 4. 14. Adopted in Finding 3. 15. Adopted in Finding 5. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 7. 18. Adopted in Finding 1. 19. Adopted in Finding 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Sue Olinger 1284 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading 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 24th day of February, 1992.
