Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In or about the fall of 1993, the Department issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP") for Lease No. 700:0674. Through the RFP, the Department solicited the submission of proposals to lease to the Department 5,748 square feet + 3 percent of office space in St. Lucie County for use as a probation and parole office commencing "5/1/94 or within 105 days after notification of award of bid whichever occurs last." According to the RFP, the term of the lease would be "[f]ive (5) years with an option to renew for an additional five (5) years." The probation and parole office in question is currently located in space leased to the Department by Petitioners.2 It has been at this location, which is in close proximity to the City of Fort Pierce police station, for approximately the last six years. Section A. of the RFP contained the "General Specifications and Requirements." The subject of "parking" was addressed in paragraph 7. of Section A., which provided as follows: Parking: Approximately 30 off-street spaces for the exclusive use of the employees and clients at no additional charge to the lessee. Parking space must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, and bumper pads installed. A minimum of two spaces must meet the requirements of the Standards for Special Facilities for physically disabled, Attachment D. BIDDER RESPONSE: a) exclusive spaces available on-site at no cost to the lessee; b) exclusive spaces available off-site at no cost to lessee. Spaces located from proposed facility. (distance) As An Option c) non-exclusive spaces available at no cost to lessee. Space located from proposed facility. (distance) Bidder's Initials Paragraph 12. of Section A. provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he proposed space must be an existing building" and that the "[p]roposed use of this building must meet required zoning." Section B. of the RFP contained the "Space Requirement Criteria." Paragraphs 2. and 3. of Section B., which provided as follows, set forth the "Electrical requirements" and the "Telephone requirements," respectively: Electrical requirements Minimum of two duplex electrical outlets and one fourplex in each room or office including adequate additional fourplex outlets in each open clerical/file area. Facility complies with the National Electrical Code. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Telephone requirements Minimum of one telephone outlet in each room or office including additional outlets in each open clerical/file area. All wiring, existing or to be installed, complies with the National Electrical Code, Section 8000-3, Paragraph d. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The subject of "security" was addressed in paragraph 10. of Section B., which provided as follows: Security requirements: Security shall include but not be limited to the following: Locks on all outside doors and outside windows. Night lights on all outside doors. Night lights in parking area nearest building. Parking lot must be fully illuminated and create no dark shadows. Dead bolt locks on storage space doors. Convex detection mirrors in the lobby. Solid core doors swinging out into the lobby to separate lobby from secure areas. Electric pass-through buzzer locks (with keys) to be installed on solid core doors. Pass-through ports (similar to the Le Febure Model #BK-4431 walk up design window unit) to be used between the lobby and reception area. A two-way intercom system between reception area and the receptionist BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Paragraph 14. of Section B. listed certain "Miscellaneous requirements," including the following: PROTECTIVE ALARM SYSTEM The lessor shall, at his own expense, install or cause to be installed, maintain and arrange for 24 hours monitoring with a Certified Security Company during the term of this lease agreement the following equipment in regard to the alarm protective system: Burglar Alarm and Fire Alarm Door bugs and Window Tape Dual-Tech Motion Sensors for Computer and Typing areas Panic button with Silent Alarm Two 1/2" Bullet proof glass (lexan) in Reception and Cashier's windows . . . Staff of both sexes will be required to work in this facility during both daylight and evening hours. An environment in which staff can expect to be safe is essential. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" were enumerated in Section of the RFP, which provided as follows: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Rental, using Total Present Value methodology for basic term of lease (See #D, General Provisions Items 1 and 2) applying the preset value discount rate of 5.22 percent (Weighting: 40) Option period- rental rate proposed is within projected budgetary restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Conformance of and susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization and to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighting: 15) 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. Building should be located in a professional business neighborhood.3 (Weighting: 7) Offers providing space all on the same floor. (Weighting: 5) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within one block of the offered space. (Weighting: 3) Availability of adequate dining facilities within two blocks of the offered space. (Weighting: 2) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5) Proximity of offered space to other Department activities as well as other public services. (Weighting: 3) Proximity of adequate parking area to the building. Must be well-lighted. (Weighting: 10) Total award factors= 100 The RFP's "General Provisions" were set forth in Section D. of the RFP. Among these "General Provisions" were the following: 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. . . . The Department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the Department and the State. The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the state, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. . . . 10. Late bids, modification of bids, or withdrawal of bids: (a) Any bid received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered and will be returned unopened. . . . Sealed bids will be received until 11:00 a.m. on November 23, 1993 . . . at which time all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. Notification of award will be made within 30 calendar days, and shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Protests not filed within the prescribed time limit will not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the request for proposal within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten days after the notice of protest is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the Request for Proposal. Any questions concerning the specifications should be directed in writing to David Smith. . . Petitioners, Gulf and Hoyt C. Murphy submitted bid proposals in response to the RFP using the form provided by the Department. At no time prior to the submission of their bids did any of them protest to the Department concerning any of the provisions of the RFP. Gulf offered the Department 5,820 net square feet of office space in a shopping plaza it owns in the City of Fort Pierce (hereinafter referred to as "Gulf's plaza"). Petitioners offered the Department the same space they currently lease to the Department. Gulf's plaza consists of several buildings which, together, take up approximately 32,000 gross square feet of space. These buildings are not fully occupied. Vacancies exist. The plaza presently has approximately 117 on-site parking spaces.4 Adjacent to the plaza, on an out-parcel, is a Wendy's restaurant which also offers off-street parking. On the completed forms that they submitted, Petitioners and Gulf agreed to meet all of the specifications and requirements set forth in the RFP, including those relating to zoning,5 off-street parking,6 security, and electrical and telephone wiring, and, in addition, proposed the following per square foot rates for the basic lease and option periods: -BASIC LEASE Petitioners Gulf First Year $13.90 $14.35 Second Year 14.65 14.35 Third Year 14.90 14.35 Fourth Year 15.20 14.70 Fifth Year 15.50 14.70 Option PERIOD First Year $15.75 $15.05 Second Year 16.00 15.05 Third Year 16.25 15.05 Fourth Year 16.50 15.40 Fifth Year 16.75 15.40 The Department, through its bid evaluation committee, evaluated each of the bid proposals in accordance with "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. As part of the evaluation process, members of the bid evaluation committee visited each of the properties offered for lease. It appeared to the committee members, upon their visit, to the Gulf property, that Gulf would be able to provide the Department with "30 exclusive [parking] spaces available on-site," as it had promised it would in the RFP. On December 16, 1993, the chairman of the bid evaluation committee sent the following interoffice memorandum to Maria Cortes, the Department's Region IV General Services Manager, concerning the results of the evaluation process: The Lease Evaluation Committee has completed its review of the bid proposals and has conducted an on-site inspection of each subject building being offered for the above referenced lease [Lease #700:0674]. The average score for each evaluation criteria is listed below by bidder number for each bid. #1 [Petitioners] #2 [Gulf] #3 [Murphy] 1. 39.20 40 34.8 2. 9.40 10 7.70 3. 15 15 15 4. 6.3 7 6.3 5. 5 5 5 6. 1 1 1 7. 1.3 2 1.3 8. 5 5 5 9. 3 3 3 10. 9.6 10 9.6 TOTAL 94.8 98 88.7 It is the recommendation of the Lease Evaluation Committee that it would be in the best interest of the Department of Correction and the State of Florida to award this bid to bid number two (2), C.G. Gulf Property Associates, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership. This bidder received the highest evaluation score and was the lowest bid. In evaluating the three bids that were submitted, the committee members did not take into consideration the costs that the Department would incur if the Department moved the probation and parole office from its present location to either Gulf's property or Murphy's property, inasmuch as such moving costs were not among the "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. In any event, these costs would be minimal because the Department would utilize free inmate labor to accomplish the move. By letter dated December 22, 1993, the Department advised Petitioners of its intention to award Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf. Thereafter, Petitioners filed the protest that is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order awarding Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf over the protest of Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of March, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of March, 1994.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended action by the Palm Beach County School Board to award the bid on Project No. 93-238V to LaPlant-Adair, as the lowest responsive bidder, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On March 15, 1993, Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued an Invention to Bid (ITB), soliciting bids for the relocation of portable classroom structures for Project No. 93-238V. All sealed bids were required to be received by 2:00 p.m. on April 7, 1993. The ITB contained a provision that Respondent had the right to reject any and all bids. The "General Conditions, Instructions and Information for Bidders" section of the ITB notified bidders of Respondent's "minority/women business enterprise participation goal" and its "special conditions" which provided as follows: 24. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE D-6.202: Pursuant to School Board Policy 6.146, Minority/Women Business Enterprise Program, a minimum goal of 15 percent has been established for certified minority/women business enterprise participation. The School Board strongly encourages active minority/women business enterprise participation on all contracts, proposals, bids professional services and other goods. The School Board of Palm Beach County is an Equal Opportunity Employer. * * * 26. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Conditions shall have precedence. The "Special Conditions" section of ITB provides, pertinent to this case: AWARD: Items in groups as marked, will be awarded by group. Therefore, it is necessary for a bidder to bid on every item in the particular group in which the bidder submits a bid in order to have a bid considered. It is also required that the bidder carefully consider each item, and make sure that each one meets the specifications as indicated. In the event that one item does not meet such specifications the entire group bid will be disqualified. It is anticipated that this bid will be awarded at the May 5, 1993, board meeting. TERM OF CONTRACT: The term of this contract shall be during the period June 20, 1993, through June 19, 1994, with the option to renew annually for a period of one (1) additional year. Annual renewal acceptance will be based on the successful bidder agreeing to terms, conditions and maintaining firm prices for the forthcoming year no later than April 15 in each contract year and acceptance of same by the School Board. All prices shall remain firm for the duration of this contract. SCOPE OF WORK: The successful bidder (hereinafter referred to as the contractor) shall furnish, at their expense, all supervision, equipment, machines, tools, materials, labor, transportation, and other facilities and services necessary to accomplish relocation of portable structures as specified herein . . . The contractor shall be responsible for correction/replacement, according to local codes and School Board's satisfaction, of all water lines, sanitary lines, electrical lines, curbs, sidewalks, streets, parking lots, grassed areas, structures, etc., broken or damaged as the result of contractor's operations . . . Contractor shall be responsible for complete and total relocation of portables to include tie down straps and any and all accessories attached to portable structures . . . Contractor shall provide transport and placement of all precast concrete foundation blocks . . . * * * U. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE D-6.202: Pursuant to School Board Policy 6.146, Minority/Women Business Enterprise Program, a minimum goal of 15 percent has been established for certified minority/women business enterprise participation. The School Board strongly encourages active minority/women business enterprise participation on all contracts, proposals, bids, professional services and other goods. School Board Policy 6.146--Minority/Women Business Enterprise Policy-- provides in pertinent part: (2) DISTRICT GOAL To increase the participation of minority and women's business enterprises in the school district's contracts related to procurement, goods and non-professional services, construction, maintenance and renovation, and professional services. (5) PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES * * * The MBE programs will implement a voluntary 15 percent participation goal of the total amount of funds allocated for school board purchases, professional services and contracts to be awarded to certified M/WBES upon School Board approval. The goals are reviewed annually by the M/WBE council Appropriate language including but not limited to minority participation and goals will be included in all bid documents. * * * All contract and bid documents will include procedural documentation of good faith efforts to include M/WBES to participate as associates, joint-ventures, and subcontractors. * * * Establish a program where staff may provide bonus points for companies employing M/WBES on joint ventures, and as subcontractors to enhance minority participation. (m) Establish a mechanism to delete and/or amend "option to renew" clauses in contracts to vendors once the bid time is completed. Respondent solicited nine bids and received six responses. Of the responses, three returned the ITB with bids and three returned the ITB with a no bid. The three that bid were Gainsborough Construction, Inc., LaPlant-Adair Company and Petitioner. The bids were opened on April 7, 1993. No evidence of irregularities at the bid opening was presented, and neither of the parties contend that there were any irregularities. The bids were reviewed by Respondent's Contracting & Procurement (CP) and its Maintenance and Plant Operations (MPO). CP's buyer/purchasing agent who determines the responsiveness of bids and prepares the tabulation sheet determined that all bids were responsive and that LaPlant-Adair Company was the apparent lowest bidder at a bid of $14,245; whereas, Gainsborough Construction, Inc., submitted a bid of $24,412, and Petitioner a bid of $24,432. However, because of the differences among the bidders in the cost per mile for moving the different structures, Respondent's CP and MPO staff, specifically, CP's buyer/purchasing agent and MPO's major project team leader, determined that an analysis also needed to be developed to provide a fair assessment of the bids to make certain that Respondent was not being over charged, i.e., to make certain that LaPlant-Adair was the lowest and best bid. The ITB provides that eight different types of portable structures were to be moved. Realizing that relocation of the portable classrooms depended upon the student population at each school in the district and the shift of the population, Respondent's staff determined that there was no way to know which portable classrooms would be relocated, the number of each to be relocated and the distance of the relocation. Hence, they formulated an analysis to fairly assess the situation, which consisted of (1) using the percentage of portables in each size in Palm Beach County's school system and the average number of miles portables had been moved over the past year, which was approximately 10 miles, and (2) applying these figures to the ITB's quoted figures by each bidder for "set-up, mobilization, unloading, and tie-down charge." The results showed that LaPlant-Adair's bid was the lowest bid and satisfied Respondent's staff that there was no overcharge. LaPlant-Adair remained the apparent lowest and best bidder. The bid specifications were silent on the use of any mathematical analysis to be used by Respondent. Of the three bids submitted, only Petitioner met and exceeded the minority/women business enterprise (M/WBE) participation goal of 15 percent. Petitioner's minority participation was 16 percent, and it provided supporting documentation with its bid. Because Petitioner included M/WBE participation in its bid, Petitioner's bid quote increased. Petitioner interpreted Respondent's M/WBE participation goal as being mandatory for bids. For several years, Petitioner has been involved in bidding for state and county projects, and both have minority participation requirements. Petitioner's experience was that if the minority participation percentage was not met, the bidder was not awarded a contract even if the bidder was the lowest bidder. Respondent's M/WBE participation is a "goal," not a requirement, and not mandatory. It has not been used in Respondent's prior ITBs. This was the first bid in which it had been included by Respondent. In 1991, Respondent awarded to Petitioner, over LaPlant-Adair, the contract for relocating portable classrooms. The contract had an option to renew. For the 1992-93 contract year, Petitioner renewed its option and continued as the contractor until 1993 at which time Respondent stopped renewing options and placed contracts on a one year term. During the term of Petitioner's contract, Respondent was satisfied with Petitioner's performance. At the time of the protest, Petitioner was using LaPlant-Adair as a subcontractor relocating portable classrooms for Respondent under the 1992-93 contract. As subcontractor, LaPlant-Adair performed 75 percent to 80 percent of the work involved in the relocating. Prior to Petitioner being awarded the 1991 contract and prior to being the subcontractor to Petitioner, LaPlant-Adair had been awarded the contract by Respondent for relocating portable classroom structures. Respondent was satisfied with LaPlant-Adair's performance under the contract. Based upon the bid quotes, the analysis performed, and responsibleness, LaPlant-Adair was recommended to be awarded the contract, as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The second lowest responsive and responsible bidder was Gainsborough Construction, and Petitioner was third. On April 16, 1993, Petitioner filed a protest of the intended action to award the contract to LaPlant-Adair and requested a hearing. Subsequently, on April 26, 1993, Petitioner filed a formal protest in letter form providing the basis for its protest: (1) LaPlant-Adair skewed the numbers in its bid; and neither LaPlant-Adair nor Gainsborough Construction, the second lowest responsive and responsible bidder, met the minority participation goal and, in fact, showed no attempt to do so. On May 13, 1993, an informal hearing was held by Respondent in an attempt to resolve the protest. At the informal hearing, Petitioner included an additional challenge which was that the recommendation process for awarding the contract varied from the bid specifications. Respondent determined that Petitioner's claims were without merit and that LaPlant-Adair would be recommended for award of the contract at Respondent's meeting on June 2, 1993. Both Petitioner and LaPlant-Adair are ready, willing and able to perform the work in accordance with their bid documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting Petitioner's protest and awarding the bid on the portable classrooms relocation Project No. 93-238V to LaPlant-Adair. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of Sepember 1993. ERROLL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Background On February 23, 1988, Respondent, Department of General Services (Department), issued an invitation to bid (ITB) numbered 218-285-400-6, whereby it sought to establish a 24-month term contract for the purchase of large lamps, photo lamps, and studio, theatre, television, and video lamps by all State of Florida agencies. By April l, 1988, the bid opening date, four bids had been filed with the Department. On April 12, 1988, the bid results were posted by the Department. The bid results revealed that Petitioner, Mercedes Lighting and Electrical Supply, Inc. (Mercedes), was the lowest bidder and that Intervenor, Marpan Supply Company, Inc. (Marpan), was the second lowest bidder. The bid results further revealed that the bid of Mercedes had been rejected because it did not include a list of in-state service representative(s) as required by the ITB, and that the Department proposed to award the contract to Marpan. On April 12, 1988, Mercedes timely filed its notice of protest with the Department. Along with its notice of protest, Mercedes submitted a list of its in-state service representatives, and noted on its letter of transmittal that this list was "not included at time of bid." The bid documents Pertinent to this case, the ITB contained the following special condition: Service Availability of in-state representation to assist in proper application and to resolve technical problems is a requirement of this bid and the resulting contract. Bidders must, therefore, include as part of the bid a list of in-state service representative(s) who will be responsible for providing these services during the term of the proposed contract. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in disqualification of bid. . . . The coordination effort will be handled by the specific individual designated on the ordering instruction sheet. The ITB also contained the following general condition: 7. 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. 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. Mercedes did not protest the bid specifications or conditions within 72 hours after receipt of the ITB, nor did it seek any interpretation of the conditions specifications. Notably, the only protest filed by Mercedes was after the bid opening. The bid protest At hearing, Mercedes contended that its bid complied with the ITB because it included a list of Mercedes' in-state service representative(s) or, alternatively, that its failure to include a list of its in-state representative(s) was a minor irregularity that the Department should waive. 1/ Mercedes contends that its bid included a list of in-state service representatives, and therefore was responsive to the ITB, because of its response to page 11 of the bid package entitled "Ordering Instructions", and because there appeared on the back of the manufacturer's catalogs and price list, submitted with its bid, a Florida sales office for the manufacturer at which sales and technical information could be obtained. Mercedes' contention and the proof offered to support it are not credible. The form included at page 11 of the ITB provided, and was responded to by Mercedes, as follows: ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS NOTE: ALL ORDERS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (FEID) : 59-1891811 VENDOR: Mercedes Lighting and Electrical Supply, Inc. STREET ADDRESS OR P.O. BOX: 7354 SW 48th St. CITY, STATE, ZIP: Miami, Florida 33155 TELEPHONE: (305) 665-5550 TOLL FREE NO: DELIVERY: DELIVERY WILL BE MADE WITHIN SEE PAGE 4 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF PURCHASE ORDER. DELIVERIES IN EXCESS OF SEE PAGE 4 DAYS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. TEAMS FOR PROMPT PAYMENT; NET percent 30 DAYS PRODUCT INFORMATION; DIRECT INQUIRY TO: (NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OR INDIVIDUAL IN YOUR ORGANIZATION WHO MAY BE CONTACTED REGARDING CONTRACT WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THIS BID.) NAME AND TITLE: Victor J. LaPorta, Vice President ADDRESS: 7354 SW 48th St. CITY, STATE, ZIP: Miami, FL. 33155 TELEPHONE: (305) 665-5550 TOLL FREE NO.: Mercedes did not indicate in its response to the "Ordering Instructions" form that Mr. LaPorta was its in-state service representative, and its response could not reasonably be so construed. The individual a bidder designated on this form was, pursuant to the special condition of the ITB regarding "Service", the coordinator between a purchaser and the in-state service representative. Mercedes' contention that its bid included a list of its in-state service representatives, because the manufacturer's technical catalogs and price list submitted with its bid contained the location and phone number of the manufacturer's sales office in Florida, in addition to 23 other states, is incredible. The manufacture's technical literature and price list was, pursuant to the special conditions of the ITB, a required part of the bid. While the manufacturer may have listed its sales offices on the back of its literature, there is nothing in Mercedes' bid that remotely suggests it intended that listing to be considered its list of in-state service representatives, nor could its response reasonably be so construed. In rejecting Mercedes' contention that its bid was responsive to the ITB, and rejecting its proof as inherently improbable and unworthy of belief, I note that the Department has issued similar ITB's for a number of years. But for the language in this ITB advising bidders that failure to include a list of in-state service representatives would result in disqualification of the bid, the service provision has remained essentially the same, as has the "Ordering Instructions" form and the requirement that the manufacturer's technical literature and price list be included in the bid. When this same contract was let two years ago, Mercedes was a bidder. Included within its response to that ITB was a list of its in-state service representatives. A minor irregularity? While Mercedes did not protest the terms and conditions of the bid within 72 hours of receipt of the ITB, it offered proof at hearing which tended to demonstrate that the demand for technical assistance under the state contract was not frequent. Based on this premise, Mercedes contended that its failure to include a list of in-state service representatives with its bid was a minor irregularity that should be waived by the Department. Again, Mercedes' contentions are not persuasive. Whether the demand for technical assistance is frequent or infrequent may be germane to a timely challenge to the propriety of the ITB requirement that a list of in-state service representative included in the bid. However, where, as here, the bidder did not protest such condition in a timely manner, it has waived its right to a Chapter 120 proceeding to contest its propriety. Under such circumstances, the protest is limited to whether the failure to include such a list was a minor irregularity, and the frequency of demand for technical assistance is not relevant. 2/ Minor irregularity is defined by Rule 13A-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code, as: ...a variation from the invitation to bid... which does not affect the price of the bid..., or give the bidder... an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders..., or does not adversely impact the interests of the agency. Variations which are not minor can not be waived. The ITB mandated that failure to include a list of in-state service representatives with the bid would result in the bid's disqualification. Under such circumstances, Mercedes cannot be permitted to correct the deficiency after bid opening, and the deficiency cannot be deemed minor, because it would accord Mercedes an advantage not enjoyed by other bidders. Succinctly, Mercedes could revisit its bid on bid opening, refuse to supply the required list, and thereby effectively disqualify itself and withdraw its bid. The other bidders who timely submitted their lists would not have an opportunity to revisit their bids or withdraw their bids, but would be held to the provision of the ITB that prohibited such withdrawal for 90 days after bid opening. A frivolous protest Mercedes' protest was frivolous. It presented no justifiable question for resolution, and was without basis In fact or in law. Mercedes knew when it submitted its bid that a list of in-state service representatives was required. It simply forgot to include that list. When this oversight was disclosed at bid opening, it tried to supplement its bid. This effort, for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, was ineffective. Now, Mercedes would have the hearing officer believe that it intended its response to the "Ordering Instructions" form, as well as the manufacturer's technical literature and price list included in the bid, as its list of in-state service representatives. Such proof is not credible, such was not Mercedes' intent, and its response cannot reasonably be so construed. Mercedes' contention that its failure to include such list should be waived as a minor irregularity is likewise factually and legally without merit. See Saxon Business Products, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 4 FALR 1102-A (1982), wherein this issue was previously resolved adverse to the position advocated by Mercedes. The impact of the protest The current term contract for lamps expires June 9, 1988. Upon expiration of that contract, state agencies will not be accorded the savings generated by a term contract and will be required to competitively bid any lamp purchase over $3,000. Had Mercedes not protested the Marpan award, state agencies would have enjoyed continued savings under a term contract that would have provided them prices 50 percent lower than could be obtained through individual agency bids.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the formal protest filed by Mercedes Lighting and Electrical Supply, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED In Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 3rd day of June, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Health’s proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. DOH 04-191 to Lachat Instruments- Hach Co. is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. DOH 04-191 to solicit bids for the purchase of a Discrete Analyzer System (DAS) and a three-year service/maintenance agreement for the DAS. The DAS is a piece of laboratory equipment that is used primarily to analyze the chemical composition and level of nutrients in wastewater. Bids were submitted in response to the ITB by Systea, Lachat, and OI. The bids were opened and reviewed by the Department’s staff. The Department’s purchasing office reviewed the pricing information in the bids, and its laboratory staff reviewed the technical components of the bids. Lachat was determined, based upon that review, to be the low bidder and, therefore, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Lachat. Systea filed with the Department a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the award of the contract to Lachat. The sole basis of Systea’s protest is that the “grand total” line in Lachat’s bid was left blank and that the omission is not a minor irregularity that can be waived by the Department.2 The protest seeks to have Lachat’s bid “disqualified” based upon that omission. Special Condition 5.1 of the ITB required bidders to “submit all mandatory, technical, and pricing data in the formats specified in the Invitation to Bid.” Special Condition 6.16 stated that “[b]ids that do not meet the requirements specified in this Invitation to Bid will be considered non-responsive.” Similarly, paragraph 14 of the General Instructions to Bidders states that the “[f]ailure to comply with terms and conditions, including those specifying information that must be submitted with a response, shall be grounds for rejecting a response.” The pricing data referenced in Special Condition 5.1 was to be provided by the bidders on the Price Page, which is Attachment II of the ITB. The Price Page has space for the bidders to enter their “unit price” and the “total amount” for the DAS as well as space for the bidders to enter their annual price for the three- year service/maintenance agreement required by the ITB. The Price Page also has space for the bidders to enter their “grand total,” and it is undisputed that the “grand total” was to reflect the sum of the individual prices referenced in the preceding paragraph. Inclusion of the “grand total” on the Price Page is a mandatory requirement of the ITB because Special Condition 5.5 states that the Price Page “must be filled out as indicated” (emphasis supplied),3 and Special Condition 6.15 states that the contract is to be awarded to the bidder offering “the lowest grand total for the items being solicited.” Thus, the omission of the “grand total” on the Price Page of a bid renders the bid non-responsive unless the omission is waived by the Department. Special Condition 6.10 prohibits the Department from waiving “material deviations” in the bids that relate to the mandatory requirements of the ITB. That condition does not similarly prohibit the Department from waiving non-material deviations. Other provisions of the ITB expressly authorize the Department to waive non-material deviations. For example, Special Condition 6.16 reserves the Department’s right to waive “any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received,” and paragraph 15 of the General Instructions to Bidders reserves the Department’s right to waive “any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission.” (All emphases supplied). The Price Page in Lachat’s bid listed prices for the DAS and for each year of the required service/maintenance agreement, but the “grand total” line on the Price Page was left blank. Thus, Lachat’s bid was technically non-responsive. In addition to the Price Page, Lachat’s bid included a document titled “Proforma [sic] Price Quotation.” The Department staff did not consider the “Proforma” document in determining the responsiveness of Lachat’s bid or in tabulating the bid’s “grand total.” The document was ignored by Department staff because it was not something that was specifically required by the ITB. The prices listed on the “Proforma” document correspond to the prices itemized on the Price Page in Lachat’s bid. The document also makes reference to the one-year parts and labor warranty that is included in the price of the DAS (and required by Special Condition 4.6) as well as the components included in the annual price that Lachat bid on the Price Page for the service/maintenance agreement, which is referred to in the “Proforma” as a “field service partnership”. The components of the “field service partnership” listed in the “Proforma” -- i.e., “onsite, priority service, two preventative maintenance visits, and parts and labor” -- are materially the same as the required components of the service/maintenance agreement referenced in Special Condition 4.7. As part of its review of the bids, the Department staff tabulated a “grand total” for Lachat’s bid by adding the unit prices itemized on the Price Page of Lachat’s bid. The result of that tabulation was $46,548, which was lower than the “grand total” in the bids submitted by Systea and OI. The Department staff would have performed this calculation even if Lachat had filled-in an amount on the “grand total” line in order to verify the underlying calculations. Indeed, the Department staff also verified the calculations in Systea’s and OI’s bids, which each included an amount on the “grand total” line. Department staff confirmed the $46,548 figure with a representative of Lachat, as it is authorized to do under paragraph 14 of the General Instructions to Bidders. That paragraph provides that “[b]efore award, the [Department] reserves the right to seek clarifications . . . deemed necessary for proper evaluation of the submissions.” The amount entered on the “grand total” line on the Price Page of Systea’s bid is $49,995. That figure equals the sum of the unit prices itemized on the Price Page of Systea’s bid. The amount entered on the “grand total” line on the Price Page of IO’s bid is $52,427.50. That figure is inexplicably higher than the sum of the unit prices itemized on the Price Page of IO’s bid. The sum of the itemized prices is $49,747.50. The Department staff did not contact OI to seek clarification regarding this discrepancy because OI would not have been the lowest bidder even if the unit prices in its bid were correct. In posting the contract award, the Department listed OI as the third-lowest bidder based upon the “grand total” in its bid, rather than the second-lowest bidder based upon the Department’s tabulation of the itemized costs in the bid. The omission of the “grand total” on the Price Page of Lachat’s bid is a minor irregularity because the bid contained (on the Price Page) all of the figures necessary to calculate the “grand total,” and the tabulation of the “grand total” was a simple mathematical calculation that the Department would have made in any event to verify the accuracy of the "grand total" based upon the unit prices itemized on the Price Page. If Lachat’s bid was rejected based upon the omission of the “grand total” on the Price Page, there would be a negative fiscal impact on the Department of more than $3,000 because the bids of Systea and OI (as tabulated by the Department) were that much higher than Lachat’s bid. The legislative appropriation for the Department’s purchase of the DAS expires on June 30, 2005, and the Department will lose the appropriated funds unless it expends or encumbers the funds by 5:00 p.m. on that date. A purchase order must be issued to encumber the funds, and the purchase order must identify the entity that the funds will be paid to.
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. 06-DC-7727 to Communications Engineering Service Company is contrary to the Department of Correction’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. 06-DC-7727 on October 27, 2006. The purpose of the ITB was to solicit bids for maintenance and repair of radio equipment owned by the Department in each of its four regions. The original deadline for submitting bids in response to the ITB was November 30, 2006, but the deadline was extended to December 15, 2006, through an addendum to the ITB. First Communications, CES, and Motorola, Inc., submitted bids for Region I. Another company, Econo Communications, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Communications, also responded to the ITB, but it did not bid on Region I. It was stipulated that First Communications’ bid was responsive to the ITB. The Department determined that the bid submitted by Motorola was not responsive to the ITB. That determination was not challenged. The Department determined that the bid submitted by CES was responsive, despite the issues discussed below. CES was determined by the Department to be the lowest responsible bidder. The bid submitted by CES was $2,571 per month.1 First Communications was the next lowest bidder. Its bid was $3,408.85 per month,2 which is 32.6 percent higher than CES’s bid. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB states that “it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5 with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements).” Section 5.1 of the ITB lists the “mandatory responsiveness requirements” for bids, and states that: The following terms, conditions or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to the ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory.Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. (Emphasis in original). Nearly identical language is contained in Sections 1.7 and 4.3.6.1 of the ITB, and in the ITB Review Manual used by Department staff in reviewing the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Indeed, the ITB Review Manual refers to the mandatory responsiveness requirements as “fatal criteria.” The mandatory responsiveness requirement in the ITB that is most pertinent to this case is in Section 5.1.2,3 which states: It is mandatory that the bidder supply one original signed Bid and three (3) copies of the signed bid. . . . . (Emphasis in original). The bid package submitted by CES did not include the original signed bid. It only included the three copies of the signed bid. This omission was noted by Christina Espinosa, the procurement manager for the ITB who opened the bids on the afternoon of December 15, 2006. However, after Ms. Espinosa consulted with her supervisor and the Department’s legal staff, it was determined that the omission was not material and that CES should be given an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit the original signed bid. As a result, Ms. Espinosa contacted CES and gave it 24 business hours to “cure” the deficiency. CES delivered the original signed bid to the Department on the morning of December 18, 2006, which is three days after the bid submittal deadline in the ITB, but within the 24-business hour deadline given by Ms. Espinosa.4 CES did not have a representative at the bid opening, and there is no evidence that CES knew it was the lowest bidder, either when Ms. Espinosa gave CES an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit an original bid on December 15, 2006, or when it submitted the original bid on December 18, 2006. It is undisputed that the original signed bid submitted by CES on December 18, 2006, is identical in all respects to the three copies of the bid that were timely submitted by CES on December 15, 2006. Ms. Espinosa reviewed the bid submitted by CES despite its failure to include the original signed bid. According to ITB provisions referenced above, that omission should have resulted in the bid being rejected and not further reviewed. The CES bid included at least one other deviation from the specifications in the ITB. The bid stated in the “service delivery synopsis” that the turnaround time for the repair of fixed equipment would be 15 working days. A 15-day time period was referenced in the original ITB, but it was changed to eight days in an addendum. Ms. Espinosa contacted CES about this discrepancy, and on January 3, 2007, CES advised Ms. Espinosa by e-mail that it “acknowledges the change in repair times from 15 days to 8 days.” CES was not the only bidder that Ms. Espinosa contacted after the bids were opened to obtain clarification or information omitted from the bid. For example, she contacted First Communications to obtain copies of its articles of incorporation and business licenses that were not included in its bid; to get clarification regarding First Communications’ use of subcontractors; and to confirm that First Communications acknowledged the eight-day turnaround time for repair of fixed equipment since its bid did not contain a service delivery synopsis. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB authorizes the Department to “seek clarifications or request any information deemed necessary for proper review of submissions from any bidder deemed eligible for Contract award.” However, Section 4.3.1 also states that “no modifications by the bidder of submitted bids will be allowed.” The ITB authorizes the Department to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids, and on this issue, the ITB states: Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this solicitation. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by the bidder. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation there from is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of terms or services bid, or the prices submitted to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities: A variation from the solicitation terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. A minor irregularity will not result in a rejection of a bid. (All emphasis in original). The Department relies on these sections of the ITB as its authority to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids with respect to any provision of the ITB, including the mandatory responsiveness requirements. On January 4, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract for Region I to CES. In the same posting, the Department rejected all bids for the other three regions. The rejection of all bids for the other regions is not at issue in this case. First Communications timely filed a notice of protest and, then, a formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract to CES. The Department provided notice of this proceeding to CES, as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. CES did not file a petition to intervene or otherwise seek to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing First Communications’ protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 5th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether Intervenor's bid materially deviated from the project specifications and, if so, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the construction contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), Respondent Department of Management Services ("DMS") solicited bids on a project known as the ICARE Baypoint School Classroom Addition (the "Project").3 Bids were due on September 22, 2005. As a condition of submitting a bid, interested contractors needed first to be "prequalified" by DMS. DMS prequalified Petitioner Merkury Corporation ("Merkury") and Intervenor E.L.C.I. Construction Group, Inc., ("ELCI"), among several others. Each bidder was required to submit a "Base Bid" (i.e. the total price for all work, including labor and materials, specified in the ITB), together with a price for each of six numbered "Alternates."4 The contract would be awarded to the responsive bidder offering the lowest bid, the latter being defined as, generally speaking, the bid proposing the lowest aggregate price on the Base Bid plus the cost(s) of any Alternate(s) chosen by DMS.5 Of interest in this case is Alternate No. 1, which, in the ITB as originally issued, appeared as follows: Alternate No. 1 — Allowance for Owner [=DMS] contribution for buried feeder conduit to the electrical transformer (Owner will provide number). Alternate No. 1 referred to the work——described in the Electrical Site Plan (which was part of the ITB)——that would be necessary to bring electricity to the Project (hereafter, the "electric service connection"). In brief, establishing the electric service connection entailed installing the wiring between the electrical panel in the new building and the nearest transformer, which latter belonged to the local electric company, Florida Power & Light ("FP&L"). DMS knew that the Project would need power. Thus, Alternate No. 1 was not optional, as the nomenclature might suggest. But the cost of establishing the electric service connection would be largely dependent on factors exclusively within FP&L's control. And as of the time the ITB was issued, DMS had been unable to obtain from FP&L sufficient information to allow bidders accurately to estimate the cost of this particular item. The purpose of Alternate No. 1, therefore, was to make the electric service connection a non-competitive item. This would be accomplished by DMS's providing prospective bidders with a cost estimate based on information to be obtained from FP&L. DMS expected that each competing contractor would bid the same amount on Alternate No. 1, namely, the amount that DMS had provided. As initially defined, however, Alternate No. 1 was somewhat confusing, and at the pre-bid meeting in early September 2005, an issue was raised about DMS's intent regarding this item. As a result, Addendum No. 1 to the ITB, which was issued on September 8, 2005, to address questions raised at the pre-bid meeting, included the following: ADDENDUM NO. 1 — ITEM NO. 5: An allowance shall be carried for the cost of new service connection from new transformer to nearest FP & L point of service. Owner will provide budget number to be carried for this allowance. This addendum amended the description of Alternate No. 1, making clearer (it was believed) DMS's intent that the electric service connection not be a point of competition between the bidders, as each would carry, as an allowance, the Owner-provided budget number for this item. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, DMS never provided the interested contractors the budget number reflecting the estimated cost of establishing the electric service connection.6 Consequently, none of the bidders proposed a dollar figure for Alternate No. 1. Instead, each responded to Alternate No. 1 by stating, in effect, that the requested allowance could not be provided according to the specifications (which unambiguously instructed that DMS would provide the number to be carried for this allowance). To be sure, the bidders' respective responses to Alternate No. 1 were not identical. Merkury, for example, wrote "N/A," which is commonly understood to mean "not applicable." ELCI's bid proposal, on the other hand, stated, "By Owner." Merkury argues that the phrase "By Owner" means that DMS, rather than ELCI, should be responsible for establishing——at DMS's expense——the electric service connection. The undersigned rejects this interpretation of ELCI's bid as unpersuasive and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In the instant context, the phrase "By Owner" is most readily and reasonably understood, objectively, as being functionally the equivalent of "N/A." ELCI was simply expressing the idea that the budget number (not the work) would be provided by DMS——a reasonable response, given the language of Alternate No. 1. In sum, despite some differences in wording, every one of the responses to Alternate No. 1, including ELCI's, was the product of the bidder's inability, in the absence of the Owner-provided budget number, to carry as an allowance the Owner-provided budget number. Of the five contractors who timely submitted a bid proposal, Merkury's Base Bid of $2,874,597 was the lowest, followed closely by ELCI's Base Bid of $2,877,000. DMS decided to take all six Alternates, however, and after the additional costs were added, ELCI was deemed the lowest responsive bidder, Merkury the second lowest. Accordingly, on October 17, 2005, DMS announced its intent to accept ELCI's bid in toto and award ELCI the contract for the Project. Protesting the intended award, Merkury takes the position that DMS's failure to provide the budget number for Alternate No. 1 effectively rendered this item a nullity, compelling the bidders to include in their respective Base Bids the cost of the electric service connection, which work remained a part of the Project, by virtue of the bid specifications, notwithstanding the loss of Alternate No. 1. Consistent with this understanding of the effect of DMS's silence regarding the budget figure, Merkury took into account the anticipated cost of establishing the electric service connection when working up its Base Bid, ultimately adding $33,388 to the bottom line as a result. ELCI, in contrast, assuming that DMS eventually would provide the figure for the allowance, did not factor into its Base Bid calculation the cost of the electric service connection. ELCI guessed correctly, for in choosing Alternate No. 1, DMS decided that it would provide the successful bidder with the budget number when such became available and thereafter pay the cost of establishing the electric service connection via a change order. Merkury maintains that DMS should have rejected ELCI's bid as materially non-responsive (because the costs that were used in preparing ELCI's Base Bid did not include the cost of establishing the electric service connection) and awarded the contract to Merkury as the lowest responsive bidder. In light of Merkury's argument, it is relevant to note that the ITB called for the Base Bid to be given as a lump sum, without breaking out individual costs; that is, in fact, how each of the six responding contractors presented their respective Base Bids. Thus, there was no way for DMS to know, upon opening the bids, that Merkury's Base Bid included a cost component relating to the electric service connections, while ELCI's did not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered directing that the proposed award to ELCI be implemented in accordance with DMS's intentions. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 10th day of July, 2006.
The Issue Whether the apparent low bid on contract No. SB 95C-66W should be disqualified on the grounds that the bidder does not meet the experience specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid.
Findings Of Fact On August 16, 1994, the School Board issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. SB 95C-66W, which was described as being a "term contract to provide and/or install rubberized coatings for sports surfaces." Among the bidders who responded to the ITB were the Petitioner, Papico Construction, Inc., and AAA Tennis Courts, Inc. On August 31, 1994, bids were tabulated and the School Board posted its intent to award the bid to Papico. Thereafter, the bid process was delayed as a result of a protest filed by another bidder. On December 12, 1994, Petitioner filed the formal bid protest that resulted in this proceeding. The School Board does not challenge the timeliness of Petitioner's protest. Among the special conditions of the ITB is the following pertaining the qualifications of the bidder: E. QUALIFICATIONS: The bidder shall have maintained continual work experience in coatings for running tracks for a period of three years prior to the bid date. Bidder must submit written documentation with bid or within three days upon request, substantiating experience requirement. The bidder shall have a place of business for contact by the owner during normal working days. Petitioner framed its challenge to the bid process by the following portion of its formal bid protest: . . . To award this project to Papico or AAA Tennis Courts is not only directly in contradiction to the 3 years of continuous work experience section of the specifications (Special Conditions - E), but also deprives the school system of our experience. . . . Papico timely submitted to the School Board written documentation that substantiated that it met the experience requirement contained in Special Condition - E. The evidence presented at the formal hearing established that Papico is an experienced contractor for recreational surfaces and has been involved in coatings for running tracks since 1989. Between 1989 and the time of the formal hearing, Papico had been involved as either the contractor or as a subcontractor for the surfacing or resurfacing of running tracks at Indiantown Middle School, Parkland High School, Hidden Oaks Middle School, J.D. Parker Elementary School, Florida Atlantic University, Martin County High School, South Plantation High School, and Deland High School. At the formal hearing, Petitioner asserted that Papico also did not meet the experience criteria contained in Special Condition - M. That provision is as follows: M. QUALIFICATIONS: The contractor will submit a list of five all-weather running tracks the firm has resurfaced during the past three years. The list shall contain: owner name, location, phone number, number of tracks, and year constructed or resurfaced. (The district reserves the right to contract these owners as references.) Notwithstanding the fact that this issue was not properly preserved by Petitioner, the evidence established that Papico provided this list to the School Board, thereby complying with Special Condition - M.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Palm Beach County enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, dismisses the bid protest filed by Recreational Surfaces, Inc., and awards the subject contract to Papico Construction, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James Petrucelli Recreational Surfaces, Inc. 2123 Oregon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Dr. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue This cause has been resolved upon Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss for Petitioner's failure to timely file the formal written protest required by Section 120.53(5) F.S. [1990 Supp.] to protest award of Respondent Alachua County School Board's BID 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems" to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Request for Bid 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems" dated June 14, 1991 was issued by Respondent Alachua County School Board and received by Petitioner/protestant Universal Network, Inc. on or about that date. The bid-closing date was 1:30 p.m. July 2, 1991. No one challenged or protested the specifications prior to the bid submittal date. Universal Network, Inc. and Crime Prevention Security Systems were the only bidders who timely filed bids on or before June 2, 1991. The request for bid accompanied by bid specifications had notified all potential bidders that School Board personnel also intended to open the bids on July 2, 1991, and stated that "Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted . . . on or about the Monday following bid opening, . . ." The request for bid also provided "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." (HO Exhibit 6) The bids were opened July 2, 1991, and oral communications were made by Respondent's personnel to the effect that Crime Prevention Security Systems would probably be successful since it was low bidder. However, Respondent's personnel delayed posting a formal intent to award on Monday, July 8, 1991 because Petitioner orally announced itself aggrieved by the process. Eight days after the bid opening, on July 10, 1991, Respondent's personnel met with both bidders in an effort to resolve any issue that could result in a formal protest. This meeting was tape recorded by the Petitioner. After this meeting, Petitioner filed a letter dated July 11, 1991 stating that Petitioner "learned" through "verbal notification" as of the July 10 meeting that it would not be awarded the bid, outlining its own prior contract work for the Respondent School Board, attacking the bid specifications, and notifying the Respondent that Petitioner would cease to monitor security under the existing contract at midnight on July 31, 1991. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it did not rely on this July 11, 1991 letter (HO Exhibit 1) as its notice of protest. Nothing was formally decided until, on July 16, 1991, Respondent, through its employee, David C. Hotary, formally posted its intent to award Bid 341 to Crime Prevention Security Systems. On that date, Respondent also wrote and hand-delivered a formal letter-notice of intent to Petitioner's president. That letter provided, in pertinent part: As follow-up to our meeting of July 10, and your letter of July 11, this is to advise that posting of the recommended bid award to crime prevention security systems occurred as of this date and will remain posted for a three day period. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Emphasis supplied) (HO Exhibit 2) There is no dispute that Petitioner actually received this written notice of decision or intended decision on July 16, 1991. This procedure complied with Respondent's obligations to provide notice of the award and a window for Petitioner's bid protest under the provisions of Section 120.53(5)(a). F.S. [1990 Supp.] and Respondent's rule (HO Exhibit 5). On July 17, 1991, the Petitioner's president filed with the Respondent a letter bearing that date which provided, in pertinent part, This letter is to inform you that Universal Network, Inc. is now formally protesting BID 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems." We base our protest on unpublished bid variances. (HO Exhibit 3) There is no dispute that this letter was filed with the Respondent within 72 hours "after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of agency decision or intended decision." It clearly constituted the "notice of protest" contemplated by Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S. [1990 Supp.] and is timely under that statute. Under that statute and pursuant to Respondent's rule, the 10 days for filing the required formal written protest would have run out on July 29, 1991, a Monday, allowing for Saturday and Sunday. On July 24, 1991, five days before the formal written protest was due, Respondent's personnel telephoned the Petitioner's president and a conversation ensued. Upon the representations at formal hearing of Petitioner's president Daniel Boudreau, it is found that this conversation encouraged him to file another letter to the Respondent on July 31, 1991. (HO Exhibit 4) Petitioner's president asserted that Respondent's July 24, 1991 phone call was only to urge him to file a letter setting out his grounds for protest more fully so that the issues between Petitioner and Respondent could be resolved informally. Filing a letter which sets out the grounds for a notice of protest is a fair description of what a formal written protest is supposed to do, and it was Respondent's position that the phone call was to urge Petitioner to file its formal written protest. Whether or not the filing of this July 31, 1991 letter could constitute a means of informal resolution of the bid dispute as asserted by Petitioner is a legal issue and is discussed in the Conclusions of Law, infra, but it is undisputed that Respondent's telephone call of July 24, 1991 actually encouraged Mr. Boudreau to file a more detailed letter and did nothing to discourage filing a formal written protest, which formal written protest is mandatory under the applicable statute and rule. Nonetheless, Petitioner filed nothing whatsoever in writing with the Respondent between July 17, 1991 (the date of the notice of protest) and July 31, 1991. On July 31, 1991, Petitioner filed with the Respondent its letter which provided, in pertinent part: This letter is to inform you that Universal Network, Inc. has formally protested BID 341 "Bid Proposal for Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems." We base our protest on unpublished bid variances. Universal Network, Inc. is now asking for a formal hearing and also will be willing to submit a new bid with the SBAC corrected bid specification. Petitioner's July 31, 1991 letter goes on to compare how Petitioner's bid would be altered as of July 31, 1991 if the original bid specifications had specified or clarified certain items or terms and to show that Petitioner's July 2, 1991 bid price would have been lower if that had been the case. (HO Exhibit 4) Petitioner's July 31, 1991 letter clearly constituted Petitioner's "formal written protest" as contemplated by Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S. [1990 Supp.] and the rule and is untimely under that statute and rule.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Alachua County enter a Final Order dismissing the protest/petition of Universal Network, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale A. Boudreau, President Universal Network, Inc. 1031 NW 6 Street, Suite A-3 Gainesville, FL 32601 Thomas L. Wittmer, Staff Attorney School Board of Alachua County 620 E. University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Esquire 111 SE 1st Avenue Gainesville, FL 32602 Dr. Douglas Magann, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601
