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 Respondent HRS published ITB 590:2306 for existing rental space in the central area of Brooksville, Florida. The bid solicitation specified a bid opening time and date of 2:00 p.m. July 17, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted sealed bids. They were the only two bidders. Neither they nor anyone else timely filed any protest of the bid specifications, and therefore the specifications are not subject to attack in this proceeding. Petitioner received a notice of intent to award the bid for lease 590:2306 to Intervenor by letter from Respondent dated August 27, 1991 and timely filed its notice of intent to protest and formal bid protest. Petitioner accordingly has standing to bring this proceeding. Intervenor is the intended awardee and as such has standing to intervene. Petitioner submitted the property located at 7348 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida, and showed in his bid submittal form that his proposed property contained 22,500 net square feet, with future expansion of 2,100 square feet available. When Petitioner submitted his bid, it included a floor plan, site plan, and a PUR 7068 form. A PUR 7068 form is a "Public Entity Crime Certification Statement," a sworn statement under Section 287.133(a) F.S. The ITB included two separate requirements for bidders to establish that they have control over the property that they submit to HRS. HRS' purposes in requiring bidders to demonstrate control are to prevent bids based on total speculation, to establish a reasonable expectation that the bidder can meet his obligations if awarded the bid, and to establish a reasonable expectation that the property can be occupied on time. Item 1 on page 3 provides as follows: Control of property - This pertains to both the structure(s) and proposed parking areas. To submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor must meet one of the following qualifications: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (submit copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documen- tation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas through the base lease term and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas. d.) Submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to in turn, sublease. Any lease must encompass the entire time period of the basic lease and any renewal option periods as required the state. e.) Submit form PUR. 7068 Sworn Statement of Public Entity Crimes (Attachment H). Page 12 provides, in part, as follows: In order for a bid proposal to be accepted the items 1 through 6 must be included in the bid proposal. Items 7 through 11 must be included, if applicable. [Items 11 and 13 state:] 11. Documentation showing bidder as controller of property. 13. Public Enemy [sic] Crime Certification Statement A pre-bid conference attended by Petitioner made clear that evidence of control and the PUR 7068 form were two different items. Petitioner testified that he attached the PUR 7068 form as his sole basis for evidencing control of the building and parking spaces he submitted for lease, and acknowledged that, in fact, the form did not provide any information with regard to his control of the buildings or parking spaces offered for lease. Petitioner's assertion that his name on some of his site plans, etc. constitutes evidence of control is not persuasive. Such assertion is not in line with the ITB requirements or even common sense. Petitioner Proctor owned the buildings he offered HRS in his bid submittal. Petitioner offered multiple buildings separated by parking areas and driveways. The property offered by Petitioner was to have built an awning- covered walkway between buildings but the walkway would have to be placed through the driveway area of the property. The expansion area for Petitioner's property designated in its bid submittal was composed of approximately 10 gated warehouse units which would be converted to office space. Petitioner had leased a portion of the same premises to HRS for 15 years, and HRS was still leasing that portion at the time of the bid opening. At the time of the bid opening, another portion of the property Petitioner proposed to be leased to HRS was also already rented to other tenants, including a lease to the Florida Department of Labor which was not scheduled to expire until December 31, 1991, one day prior to HRS' proposed first day of occupancy under the ITB. The space leased to the Department of Labor would require some renovation for HRS' use, at least to connect it on the interior with the rest of the building. The remainder of the second, adjacent, building to be rented under Petitioner's bid would require more extensive renovation to create office spaces to meet HRS' needs. In addition to the Department of Labor, Petitioner was also renting space in the second building to a beauty salon, a book store, an office supply store, a clothing store, and a barber at the time of bid submittal and opening and at the time of the formal hearing. These latter tenants were on month-to-month leases. In order to ensure that there would be time for necessary renovations before January 1, 1992 and further to ensure that the property would be available for occupancy on January 1, 1992, the ITB required in the following unequivocal language that all bidders file tenant acknowledgments of the bid/proposed lease with their bid submittal: Existing Tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date must be included with the bid submittal. [Emphasis added] Petitioner submitted no tenant acknowledgments from any of his tenants with his bid to HRS. Even though Petitioner failed to submit evidence of control in the form of a deed and further failed to submit the required acknowledgments from tenants occupying the premises on the bid date, HRS did not immediately disqualify Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive. Instead, HRS evaluated Petitioner's bid simultaneously with Intervenor TCC's bid. HRS relied on old leases in its files and actual knowledge that monthly rent was paid to Petitioner for its own currently leased space, and HRS ignored the absence of tenant acknowledgments with Petitioner's bid. HRS followed this course of action despite the requirement of the ITB on page 7, item 1 under EVALUATION OF BIDS which unequivocally provides: Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. This includes submittal on bid submittal forms, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, signatures and notarization, etc. Non responsive [sic] bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. The portion of the ITB designated, Documents Required To Be Submitted With Bid Submittal For Existing Buildings on page 12, item 4. required bidders to submit "Scale Floor Plans showing present configurations with dimensions." Page 3 of 22, Item 9.(b) further required that, as a part of the bid submittal, bidders were to provide "A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0") floor plan showing present configuration with measurements." Contrary to the ITB requirement, Petitioner submitted a floor plan scaled at 1/20" = 1', which also failed to reflect the present configurations with all measurements. Petitioner's scaled floor plan submitted with his bid was prepared prior to the present addition to one building and contained a hand- drawn configuration without accurate measurements for the northwest corner of one building. The term of the lease as shown on the ITB and Bid Submittal Form was 9 and one-half years with an option to renew for 2-5 year renewal periods. At the time of the bid opening on July 17, 1991, the bid submitted by Petitioner failed to have any proposed rental rates shown for "Renewal Options: Option II years 1 through 5." HRS permitted Petitioner to correct or supplement its bid after the bid opening (same date and place) to cover this material omission. Page 6, item 4 of the ITB provided for the property owner or other bidding entity to sign the bid submission. The pertinent part states: 4. Each bid submitted 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. ALL BID SUBMITTAL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS. [Emphasis appears in ITB] Petitioner Proctor signed his bid submittal in proper person. TCC's bid submittal was signed by Sharon K. Lane, "Executive Director," of TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc., Intervenor herein. At all times material, TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc. has been a Florida corporation. At the time of the bid opening, Ms. Lane was TCC's sole shareholder and "all officers." At the time of formal hearing, Ms. Lane remained the sole shareholder, but others had assumed some of the corporate offices. Her status at the time of the bid submittal was sufficient for her to bid on behalf of the TCC corporation and to execute the PUR 7068 form on that corporation's behalf. Intervenor TCC submitted the required PUR 7068 form, but TCC submitted as sole evidence of control an undated, unrecorded "Contract for Sale and Purchase" by and between Hernando Plaza Ltd. as Seller and Intervenor TCC as Buyer, for the property which Intervenor was offering for lease to HRS. The best date assignable to this document is April 29, 1991. It was executed on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves as general partners of the limited partnership. TCC's obligation to proceed to closing under the foregoing contract was contingent upon TCC's securing an anchor tenant. However, the contract requires TCC to take steps to secure an anchor tenant. By its terms, TCC may purchase the property with or without an anchor tenant, but the contract requires TCC, in seeking an anchor tenant, to set time limits for the lease arrangement with the proposed anchor tenant which do not necessarily accord with the timing of HRS' bid process. HRS accepted TCC's contract to purchase from Hernando Plaza Ltd., as evidence of TCC's control of the premises offered by TCC for lease, believing it to constitute an option to purchase and the necessary evidence of control as required by the ITB. (See, Finding of Fact 6, supra.) At the time of the bid opening, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with a legal entity other than the record title owner of the property, which record title owner was and is the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation (Brown Foundation). See, infra. Up to that date, at least, Hernando Plaza Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as the owner of the property. The ITB did not require that an abstract of title be submitted with the bid, and HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contains provisions for future disclosure from successful bidders. (See, ITB item 5 under Requirements for Bidders to Submit Bids.) Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS attempts to protect itself by requiring successful bidders to put up an irrevocable letter of credit for one-half of one percent of the proposed lease rental obligation over the basic lease term as a penalty in the event a successful bidder cannot perform. (See, ITB page 4, item 10.) Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s certificate from the Florida Secretary of State expired December 31, 1981. That fact was advertised and the certificate cancelled July 16, 1982. At that time, Edward M. Strawgate was listed as a general partner and Harold Brown was listed as a limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd. Hernando Plaza Ltd. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. Subsequent to the time that Intervenor submitted its bid proposal, but prior to formal hearing, Hernando Plaza Ltd. was reinstated by the Florida Secretary of State. Once reinstated, the limited partnership's ability to act related back and validated its prior actions. At all times material, the record title of the property offered by Intervenor TCC for lease to HRS was owned by "Harold Brown, Lillian Brown and Muriel Kahr as Trustees of the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation." This title is derived from a recorded June 30, 1967 warranty deed from Hernando Plaza Ltd., which deed was admitted in evidence at formal hearing. The warranty deed was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. Neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid to HRS on behalf of the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. There is also in evidence a recorded December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease between the Brown Foundation and City National Bank. That Amendment to Lease also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal to evidence control of the premises TCC was offering to lease to HRS. That Amendment to Lease also recites that Hernando Plaza Ltd. leased back the subject property from the Brown Foundation by a lease dated June 30, 1967. The June 30, 1967 lease was not recorded, was not part of TCC's bid submittal, and is not in evidence. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to recite that Hernando Plaza Ltd. has assigned its lessee interest under the June 30, 1967 lease to City National Bank by a March 14, 1978 assignment. There is also in evidence a recorded March 14, 1978 "Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease from Hernando Plaza Ltd. to City National Bank." This assignment was not part of TCC's bid submittal. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to further recite that the Brown Foundation has "agreed to give and grant to [Hernando Plaza Ltd.] an option to purchase the property." The remainder of the December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease details the terms or conditions of the option to purchase granted by the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza. For instance, in order to exercise that option to purchase the subject property from the Brown Foundation, Hernando Plaza Ltd., among other requirements, would have to demonstrate that all the terms of the unrecorded June 30, 1967 lease are "in good standing." One may reasonably infer that "in good standing" would at a bare minimum mean that the rents under the lease are paid current at the time the option is exercised, but what the other terms of the lease might be are subject to pure conjecture. TCC's bid submittal did not include documentation that the June 30, 1967 lease was "in good standing." There is also in evidence a recorded June 7, 1989 Trustee's Deed (quitclaim deed of the trustee's interest) from City National Bank's successor bank/trustee to Hernando Plaza Ltd. The Trustee's Deed also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. On the date of bid submittal/opening neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. or City National Bank's successor. At formal hearing, TCC submitted an October 24, 1991 written hearsay statement by Harold Brown as Trustee of the Brown Foundation to the effect that Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s December 18, 1985 option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation was "in full force and effect" and that the June 30, 1967 lease back from the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza Ltd. was "in full force and effect and that the lessee is in good standing thereunder." Assuming these items may be considered in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.58 (1) F.S. as supplementing or explaining direct evidence, they still do not clarify in any way what all the terms of the unrecorded 1967 lease are or that those terms will remain in good standing on the date in the future that Hernando Plaza Ltd. elects to exercise its option, if it elects to exercise its option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation so that Hernando Plaza Ltd. may, in turn, convey the property to TCC, pursuant to Hernando Plaza Ltd. and TCC's April 29, 1991 contract for sale and purchase. Oddly enough, there is further explanatory hearsay that on October 24, 1991, Harold Brown was a trustee of the Brown Foundation and that he also was the sole limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd., although TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza for sale and purchase previously indicated Harold Brown was one of two general partners. Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation must be exercised by Hernando Plaza Ltd. before Hernando Plaza Ltd. can honor its contract to purchase/sell to TCC. Since there is no record evidence that the June 30, 1967 lease from the Brown Foundation as lessor to Hernando Plaza Ltd. as lessee will be in good standing on whatever future date Hernando Plaza Ltd. attempts to exercise its option with the Brown Foundation, one may only speculate both as to when and if TCC will be able to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza Ltd. TCC has only an option to become owner of the subject property at some unspecified date conditioned upon Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s first successfully exercising its option from the Brown Foundation and further conditioned upon all the terms of TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. Apparently, TCC's only recourse to enforce its contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. is a Circuit Court action for specific performance. TCC also submitted a site plan and floor plan with its bid submittal. The ITB required that offices on outside walls must provide windows. TCC's plans did not reflect windows in two sides of the building, but given HRS' retaining the right to partially design and locate its own halls and offices during the building's renovation, TCC's failure to show windows in the two outside walls is not, in and of itself, a material, disqualifying deviation from the ITB so as to unilaterally render TCC's bid nonresponsive. HRS staff member Donald J. Cerlanek prepared a bid synopsis of each bid. This involved completing a form from the HRS leasing manual which illustrates the characteristics of each of the bids. The bid requirements included evaluation criteria and a maximum amount of points which could be awarded for each criteria item. Five HRS bid evaluation committee members executed no conflict of interest forms. These were: Thomas C. Little Jr., David Thomley, Sylvia Smoot, Harvey Whitesides, and Mary Hawks. All committee members were given copies of the bid synopsis form to use in evaluating the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Some of the committee members did not obtain or review the actual bid submissions of each of the bidders, but all of them had access to the bid submissions and read the bid synopsis forms for both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submittals. The bid evaluation committee members, except for Mary Hawks, made site visits to the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Ms. Hawks essentially acted only as a facilitator or conduit for the evaluations of the other four evaluators as set out infra. The four site evaluators took notes regarding each location. The four site evaluators each assigned numerical weights to each item of evaluation criteria except for the rent and renewal rent portions of the evaluation criteria. Although on their site visits some committee members visiting TCC's site may have seen a color version of an artist's rendering of what TCC's project could look like after renovation was complete, a black and white version of the same artist's rendering was attached to TCC's bid submittal to which all committee members had access, and it is found that this situation in and of itself presented no false or misleading information nor constituted any prejudice to a fair bid process/evaluation. Likewise, although some evaluators discussed expansion prospects with TCC's and/or Proctor's on-site representatives, the evidence is credible and persuasive that each evaluator who visited the sites assessed the projects' respective expansion prospects substantially upon what they saw on each site and had experienced in Proctor's existing facility. The points awarded and reasons for the recommendations of each evaluator who visited the sites were reasonably based on specific needs of HRS. These specific needs of HRS were reasonably articulated by the two evaluators who made on-site inspections and who also testified at formal hearing and were reasonably set out in writing in the written notes of the two other evaluators who did not testify. Thomas C. Little, Jr., testified that he found the Intervenor's property superior as a result of the security problems at Petitioner's locations, the closer proximity of the courthouse, hospital, and health department to Intervenor's property and the superiority of a single building offered by Intervenor versus multiple buildings offered by Petitioner. Additionally, he found the esthetics of Petitioner's buildings lacking and expansion offered by Petitioner limited and was concerned that HRS would outgrow the space due to the fact that their service area is one of the most rapidly growing in Florida. His contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Sylvia Smoot, also a member of the evaluation committee, testified that she found Intervenor's facility superior based on its proximity to the courthouse, hospitals, and other key locations, and its flexibility of design and concentration of space in one building. She further found Petitioner's location lacking as a result of the three separate buildings, its limited expansion room, and the necessity for redirecting clients between buildings, and the difficulty for elderly and handicapped clients accessing Petitioner's building. Her contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Evaluators Whitesides and Thomley made substantially similar contemporaneous notes justifying their scoring of the two bidders. Three of the four site evaluators met as a group following the site visits and discussed the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. All four of the site evaluators made recommendations to accept the property for lease proposed by Intervenor, but they did not all confer and jointly develop a single recommendation to the facilities manager. The points assigned by each of the four site evaluators for the properties proposed by Petitioner and Intervenor were as follows: Evaluation Committee TCC Number Member's Names Proctor's Points 3's Points Thomley 75 98 Little 78 93 Whitesides 74 95 Smoot 80 91 307 377 The rent portion of the evaluation criteria was ascertained by applying present value methodology as set forth in the HRS leasing manual to the annual rents offered by the bidders. The discount factor was 8.32 percent. The present value of Proctor's bid was $1,934,038 and the present value of TCC's bid was $2,028,316. The leasing manual is considered advisory only. It advises present values be made, a determination of the difference in amounts be calculated and a comparison of the difference be made to determine a percentage. Thereafter, the percentage is applied to the maximum amount of points allocated for rent in the evaluation criteria. The lowest present value receives the maximum number of points allocated, and, thus, Proctor was awarded 35 points. TCC received 33 points, based upon the fact that its present value of rent was close to the present value submitted by Proctor. No penalty is imposed to a bidder whose rental amounts is higher than the lowest bidder. No benefit is conferred upon the lowest cost bidder over the next lowest bidder. Mary Hawks, Manager for Administrative Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received each of the individual evaluation recommendations from Thomley, Little, Whitesides and Smoot. As a result of travel restrictions placed on the HRS, the four site evaluators and Ms. Hawks, who was also a fifth committee member, did not meet as a group following the site visits although three of the four site evaluators did meet collectively following the site visits. (See Finding of Fact 43-44, supra.) The committee members could have met by telephone conference call but Mary Hawks found it unnecessary to do so because there was such a clear evaluation in favor of Intervenor based on the total composite evaluation scores of 377 for Intervenor and only 307 for Petitioner, out of a total of 400 points. She assigned no points herself but approved their recommendations and forwarded a single recommendation in favor of TCC for ultimate approval by HRS management. Mary Hawks had spoken to the evaluation committee members subsequent to the evaluation and no member had expressed any reservation regarding his/her evaluation or a need to meet to discuss anything additional regarding the bid evaluation. The HRS Intent to Award to TCC subsequently issued. The evaluation process and formula for rent evaluation are not among the more commonly used methods but were reasonable and rational and fairly applied to the bids in this case. No conflict of interest in the evaluation committee members was demonstrated by Petitioner in these proceedings.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that: The bid of TCC Number 3 Ltd. is nonresponsive; The bid of Derick Proctor is nonresponsive; Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2306 to either bidder. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 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 20th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5963BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Proctor's 74 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted, except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the recommended order (RO). Unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized: 1-3, sentence 1 of PFOF 4, 5-6, 9, 11-12, sentence 1 of PFOF 13, sentence 1 of PFOF 16, 17-26, sentence 1 of PFOF 29, 30-33, 35-36, sentences 1 and 4 of PFOF 38, 39-41, 44-54, 56-57, 60-61, 63. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute a proposed conclusion of law (PCOL) or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 4, sentence 2 of PFOF 16, 34, 43. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 10, sentence 2 of PFOF 13, 14- 15, sentence 2 of PFOF 29, sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 38, 55, 58. PFOF 7-8 are accepted as modified because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found and other parts are mere recitations of unreconciled portions of the record and legal argument. The following PFOF are accepted in part but not utilized because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, and other parts are rejected as immaterial to the dispositive issues herein, although correctly quoted from the record: 68-73. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or not dispositive: 27-28, 37, 42, 59, 62, 65, 67, 74. The following PFOF are covered in preliminary material: 64, 66. HRS 21 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-19. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 5, 9-10, 14-15, 21. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 20. PFOF 13 is accepted as modified to correctly reflect the credible record evidence as a whole. TCC Number 3 75 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-31, 34-38, 42- 45, 47-48, 56, 58-60, 64-69, 71-75. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 32. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 33, 40-41, 53-55, 57, 61-63, 70. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or as not dispositive: 39, 46, 49, 51-52. PFOF 50 is not a sentence, but the subject matter is covered in the RO as understood. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire Sam Power, Clerk Bette B. Lehmberg, Esquire Department of Health and Suite 800 Rehabilitative Services One 4th Street North 1323 Winewood Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
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
Findings Of Fact The Authority is an agency of the State of Florida which, pursuant to memorandum of agreement with the State of Florida, DOT, has the authority to acquire right-of-way services and other contractual services relating to the development of that part of the Florida Turnpike known as Northwest Hillsborough Expressway (the Expressway). Kaiser is an Ohio corporation authorized to do business in Florida and has its principal place of business in Oakland, California. Colan is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On December 4, 1990, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of right-of-way acquisition services for development of the Expressway. The request for proposals is titled "Request For Proposal, RFP- THCEA-R/W-90-001, Right-of-Way Negotiation, Relocation Assistance, Property Management and Asbestos Related Activities" (the RFP). Responses to the RFP were due on January 8, 1991. Timely responses to the RFP were filed by both Kaiser and Colan. Proposals were also submitted by Moreland Altobella, ROW Consultants, TransAmerica Energy, and Universal Field Services. The RFP stated that the proposals would be evaluated both on technical merit and on price, with the final ranking of the proposals to be determined based on the separate scoring of eleven separate technical and substantive areas added to a single score for price. On January 29, 1991, Kaiser received notice of the Authority's decision to award to Colan the contract for right-of- way acquisition services for the Expressway. Kaiser's proposal was ranked second by the Authority's evaluation committee, which consisted of William McLean, Dale Patten, Norris Smith, David May, and Ray Speer. The Expressway will come under the Turnpike Authority of the Florida Department of Transportation who is funding the project with state issued bonds. The Respondent is acting as the agent for the Florida Department of Transportation in carrying out this project. In submitting its Technical Proposal (exhibit 2) Colan listed Byron Cherkas as a CPA subcontrator to do Business Damage Reports. Colan also listed two additional CPAs from the firm of Dwight Darby & Co. in Tampa, one listed to do Business Damage Reports and one to do Business Damage Reviews. Although Colan had used Cherkas on previous right-of-way acquisitions to do Business Damage Reports, Colan had no agreement with Cherkas to perform this service when this proposal was submitted. Although Petitioner contends this made Colan's proposal nonresponsive, the Authority took the position that Cherkas was only a backup CPA and the proposal was responsive. There was no need to list additional CPAs and listing Cherkas did not make the proposal nonresponsive any more than it would have been nonresponsive had Cherkas' name had not been added. Petitioner further contends that Colan's proposal was nonresponsive because Colan would not be able to complete this contract in the fifteen months allotted based upon the scheduled contained in the proposal. The schedule [exhibit 2 (D.2)] showing the time for submission of the condemnation packages to the Authority in the tenth month of the project is clearly too late for the land acquisitions involved to be completed by the contract expiration date. This, however, does not make the bid nonresponsive. Colan, upon receiving the contract and agreeing to complete the project in the time allotted, is required to do so under the terms of the contract. The RFP provides for frequent meetings and reports from the successful bidder regarding the progress of the acquisition and modifications of schedules as needed. Furthermore, the Authority is not bound by the schedule contained in exhibit 2 and has no intention of allowing Colan to wait until the tenth month of the contract period to commence the preparation of the litigation documents. Colan acknowledges that waiting until the tenth month to commence suit preparation is unreasonable if the project is to be completed on time, and contends that a clerical error was made in preparing this schedule. Colan's president testified that Colan will comply with any reasonable schedule1 suggested by the Authority, and suit preparation will commence much earlier than the tenth month into the contract period. Petitioner's witness opined that the other companies submitting proposals did not fully understand the scope of the work involved, nor did the persons preparing the RFP. Petitioner's bid of nearly $5 million for this project is nearly $3 million higher than the lowest bid, and approximately $2.4 million higher than Colan's bid, and $1.5 million above the second highest bid. A more reasonable interpretation of the six proposals submitted would be that Petitioner grossly overestimated the scope of the work or overpriced its proposal. The RFP clearly established the scoring system to be used in evaluating the proposals. Five evaluators scored each proposal and the scores awarded are contained in exhibit 7. It is significant that Kaiser's average score in every category except price is higher than Colan's score. Colan received a total averaged score of 83.1 while Kaiser received an average score of 82. All five of the members of the Technical Review Committee who were involved in this RFP testified in these proceedings. All read the pleadings filed in this case and heard most of the testimony presented by Kaiser's witnesses. All testified that, after having heard the testimony and read the pleadings, if they rescored all of the proposals as of the date of the hearing their scores would be substantially tie same as the scores originally given to these proposals. Some of these scorers reduced the score given to Colan in the categories of production control, property management and/or past performance because of the schedule in Colan's proposal which indicated suit preparation would begin in the tenth or eleventh month of the project. The man hours required to accomplish the suit preparation aspects of this RFP are basically the same regardless of when this task is commenced. Accordingly, scheduling these tasks in the latter part of the contract period gave Colan no price advantage in the proposal submission.
Findings Of Fact The Department administers the CDCSAP Act (the "act"). The Florida legislature makes annual appropriations to fund the CDCSAP. These funds are used to finance activities of qualified CDCs. CDCs are community-based organizations which, in concert with state and local governments and private enterprise, facilitate or financially support revenue-generating business for the purpose of community economic development, redevelopment, preservation, restoration and revitalization. To this end, the Department's line staff person for the CDC program, James Fox, who is a planner employed by the Department, reviews applications, gives technical assistance workshops on rules and gives statewide speeches to CDC programs and at their annual meetings. Fox is familiar with the community development corporations statewide and the activities of each CDC program. He has been instrumental in assisting local entities prepare applications to become CDCs to include filing their non-profit corporate status with the Secretary of State. He has authored a pamphlet for the Department which has been distributed to entities desirous of achieving CDC status entitled "How to become a CDC". (Respondent's Exhibit 1). This pamphlet is widely utilized by entities seeking CDC status and provides all of the basic information needed to become a CDC. The act empowers the Department to administer the CDCSAP and authorizes issuance of one and three year administrative grants, planning grants and loans to fund the activities of eligible CDCs. The act requires the Department to monitor expenditures of CDC funds and to provide technical assistance to CDCs. In addition to CDCSAP grants and loans, CDC has also received funding from private foundations and local governments. The Department has adopted Chapter 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code. That chapter implements the act and establishes regulations and procedures governing the CDCSAP. CDCs fiercely compete annually for administrative grants when filing their applications with the Department. These grant applications are reviewed by Fox. There are approximately fifty CDCs statewide and they annually submit applications for grants. Once these applications are received, Fox reviews and scores them pursuant to Rule 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code. In so doing, the Department uses three reviewers and the reviews are individually conducted. In reviewing the grant applications, a funding matrix is used. Using the matrix, a score and rank is made for each application. Next, the division director goes over each application and the matter is discussed with the Department's Secretary. Later a letter of intent is given (to either grant or deny the application). The score lists the rank and order and is not an entitlement to funding. After the applications are reviewed, the Department's senior management lists a "pre-appeal" score and ranking for each applicant. Once the CDCs are notified in writing of the score and ranking in the pre-appeal scoring matrix, they are also advised that the number and amount of administrative grants awarded will be contingent upon passage of a state budget and appropriation for the fiscal year. Applicants are also advised of rights to pursue an appeal regarding the correctness of the scores pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. (Respondent's Exhibit 3). If an appeal is initiated, an administrative proceeding is conducted usually under the informal provisions of Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. A hearing officer assigned by the Department conducts a hearing and issues a recommended order. A final order is then entered by the Department's Secretary. Thereafter, each applicant is assigned a final score and ranking in the matrix which determines funding order priority. The final scores are usually determined prior to adoption of an appropriations act by the legislature. As noted, the final score does not establish whether a particular CDC will be funded. Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 9B-14.007(3) and 9B- 14.009(11)(a)-(c) provide the parameters within which the Department determines the number, type and amount of administrative grants it will award. When grant applications are submitted and evaluated, the Department is, at the time, unaware of the amount of money available for upcoming grants because the legislature has not passed an appropriations bill for the fiscal year. Final decision with respect to the number and amount of administrative grants is made after the final appropriation bills and summary statement of intent is transmitted to the Department. "Proviso language" is passed by the legislature as part of the appropriations bill. It is signed by the governor, has the force of law and is binding on the Department. Legislative statement of intent language is transmitted to the governor at a date after passage of the appropriations act by chairpersons of the House and Senate committees on appropriations. The intent language is the statement of how the legislature, in its considered opinion, thinks the appropriated funds should be spent. It guides the Department regarding use of appropriated funds. The Department considers and relies on applicable legislative proviso or intent language in deciding its final determination as to number and amount of administrative grants. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Department follows the statement of intent language in reaching its final funding decision. Over the years, a pattern has emerged which evidences that the Department carefully considers applicable proviso or statement of intent language. Specifically, from a historical perspective, for the 1983-84 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,175,000 for the CDCSAP but did not include either proviso or legislative statement of intent language. The governor vetoed $200,000.00 of that sum leaving $975,000 to fund the program. The Department awarded administrative grants in varying amounts to 23 CDCs. Subsequently, the legislature amended the statute to allow the Department to fund no more than 18 CDCs. (Respondent's Exhibit 7 and Chapter 84-240, Laws of Florida). For the 1984-85 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. In accordance with that proviso language, the Department awarded administrative grants of $100,000 each to 16 CDCs. For the 1985-86 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP but included neither proviso nor statement of intent language. The Department awarded grants of $100,000 to 16 CDCs. For the 1986-87 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be awarded administrative grants and that a specific CDC be awarded a training grant. Pursuant to that proviso language, the Department awarded administrative grants of $85,000 each to 16 CDCs, and a $40,000 training grant to the specified CDC. For the 1987-88 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,337,156 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. Pursuant to that proviso language, the Department awarded grants of $83,338 each to 15 CDCs. Another $83,338 was divided to provide grants of $41,669 each to two eligible CDCs which received identical scores for the last funding slot. For the 1988-89 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,337,156 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. Pursuant to that proviso language, the Department awarded grants of $72,380 each to 16 CDCs. For the 1989-90 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,337,156 for the CDCSAP and included statement of intent language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. The Department awarded grants of $83,572 each to 16 CDCs. For the 1990-91 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,699,600 for the CDCSAP and included statement of intent language directing that no more than 18 CDCs be funded. The Department followed the statement of intent and awarded grants of $90,564 each to 17 CDCs which scored above the minimum point threshold as set forth in the matrix. For the 1991-92 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP but included neither proviso nor statement of intent language. The Department awarded grants of $88,888 each to 18 CDCs. Final scores and ranking does not establish entitlement to funding under the program. The final score establishes whether a CDC is eligible to receive either a one or three year administrative grant depending on the total number of points received. The score also results in ranking of each CDC so that depending upon legislative appropriations and expressions of intent regarding funding, a funding priority is established. Prior to 1991, the act provided only for the award of one year administrative grants. In 1991, the Florida legislature amended the act to permit the award of multi-year administrative grants and planning grants. (Chapter 91-263, Laws of Florida). The provisions of the act relative to funding provides: The amount of any administrative grant to a community development corporation in one year shall be any amount up to $100,000. The Department may fund up to 18 Community Development Corporations this year as provided for in the general appropriations act. The Department shall develop a diminishing scale of funding each year based on the annual appropriation to ensure compliance with this section and Section 290.0365. See Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes (1991). To incorporate the 1991 statutory changes into Rule 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code, the Department initiated rulemaking pursuant to Section 120.54 in September 1991. Several workshops were held to gain input from CDCs regarding proposed changes to the rule. In addition, a public hearing was held in January 1992 at which the Department received oral and written comments from CDCs regarding the proposed rule challenges. Amendments were adopted and took effect on March 22, 1992. During the rulemaking process, no comment was submitted regarding the proposed changes to Rule 9B-14.009(11). No party initiated a rule challenge to the proposed amendments pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. Rule 9B-14.007(3), which was not affected by the 1992 amendments, states in relevant part that "[n]o grant will be awarded for funds exceeding $100.000." Respondent's Exhibit 2 at Rule 9B-14.007(3). Rule 9B-14.009(11), as amended in 1992, now authorizes the award of two types of administrative grants of one and three years duration in addition to planning grants. The pertinent portion of this rule provides: A maximum of 18 administrative grants may be awarded in any fiscal year pursuant to Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes. Applicants which receive a score of 150 or more points will be awarded a three year administrative grant. Applicants which receive a score of at least 100 points but less than 150 points will be awarded a one year administrative grant. For the 1992-93 funding cycle, prior to the application deadline and after the amendments to Rule 9B-14 were adopted, public application workshops were held in Tallahassee and Miami. At the workshops, representatives of the Department discussed the recent statutory and rule changes to the CDCSAP as well as the proper way to complete applications. The application deadline for administrative grants for the 1992-93 grant cycle was April 1, 1992. The Department received 29 timely applications. When the 1992-93 grant applications were received, evaluated and given tentative scores and rankings, the Department was unaware of the amount of legislative appropriations for the CDCSAP and whether any proviso or statement of intent language would accompany the appropriation. After the applications were evaluated, the preappeal scores and rankings derived and the applicants were notified of the results, several CDCs including Petitioners appealed their scores. Informal hearings were held during late May 1992. The hearing officer's recommended orders were issued June 25, 1992 followed by the Department's final orders on July 8, 1992. Thereafter, each applicant was assigned a final score and ranking. For the 1992-93 funding cycle, 21 CDCs scored above the 100 point minimum threshold. Of these 21, 12 CDCs scored above 150 points and 9 CDCs scored above 100 points but less than 150 points. Each of the Petitioners scored above 100 points but less than 150 points. In late June 1992, the legislature passed an appropriations act which was signed into law on July 2, 1992. On July 14, the Department received a copy of the appropriations act and the accompanying statement of intent regarding the disbursements of appropriated funds of the CDCSAP. The Department requested funding of $1,800,000 for the CDCSAP grant and loan program for fiscal year 1992-93. However, the legislature reduced that funding request to $800,000 for the CDCSAP grants and included a statement of intent language directing that those CDCs which received sufficient point scores under Rule 9B-14 to qualify for a three year administrative grant be funded. The intent language states: It is the intent of the legislature that funds provided in specific appropriation 293A shall be used to award administrative grants in accordance with the provisions of Section 290.036, Florida Statutes, of equal amounts, to those Community Development Corporations that receive a sufficient point score under the Department of Community Affairs evaluation of FY 1992-93 grant applicants to qualify for a three year administrative grant pursuant to criteria established in Chapter 9B-14.009(11) (b), F.A.C. In reaching its decision respecting funding, the Department considered whether to follow the statement of intent language and award 12 grants of $66,666 each, or instead to award 18 grants at $44,444 each. The Department's Secretary ultimately decided to follow the statement of intent language and award grants of $66,666 each to the 12 CDCs which qualified for three year grants under Rule 9B-14. The action of the Secretary was within the discretion accorded by Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 9B-14.009(11)(a) to award "up to" 18 grants. The Department has not issued any type of statement which indicates that, in future funding cycles, it will award only three year administrative grants. The Secretary's decision relates only to the 1992-93 fiscal year. Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rules 9B-14.007(3) and 9B- 14.009(11)(a), Florida Administrative Code commands the Department to award between 0 and 18 administrative grants each year, provided no single award exceeds $100,000. Flexibility is given to the Department based on the uncertainties each year surrounding the legislative appropriations process. Due to the vagaries of the appropriations process, it is not practical or feasible for the Department to adopt a rule which requires it to award a specific number of administrative grants annually. Nor is it feasible or practicable for the Department to wait for the appropriations bill to be passed before initiating an order on the number of grants it will award. The Department strives to get the administrative funds to the CDCs expeditiously. At a minimum, rulemaking takes several months and would accordingly substantially delay transferring grant monies to the CDCs.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intent to award a contract for bridge-tending services (RFP DOT 92/93 2088 REBID) to Intervenor constitutes fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, illegal or dishonest action.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.-12., below. Stipulated Facts Respondent issued the RFP for bridge-tending services on May 14, 1993. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP were opened on June 16, 1993. Proposals were submitted by five firms, including Petitioner and Intervenor. All proposals were determined at the time to be responsive. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was appointed to review the technical portion of the proposals. The three members of the TRC were Alan Hyman, J. L. Gillis, and Yingyong Sujjavanich. The members reviewed the technical portion of the proposals on June 17, 1993. The evaluation forms completed by the TRC and a summary score sheet were delivered to Respondent's purchasing office on the morning of June 18, 1993. The price proposal was evaluated by Respondent's purchasing office. The price evaluation of each proposal was performed by applying a formula which compared the submitted price quotations. After the scores for the technical proposal and the cost proposals were totalled, it was determined that Intervenor's proposal had earned the highest number of points. This result was presented to Respondent's District 2 Executive Committee and a recommendation was communicated by the Purchasing Director to award the RFP to Intervenor. The Executive Committee accepted the recommendation and directed that the contract be awarded to Intervenor. On June 18, 1993, at 4 p.m., the bid tabs were posted noticing Respondent's intent to award the contract to Intervenor. On or about July 6, 1993, Petitioner requested a meeting with Respondent's representatives regarding the RFP. That meeting was held on July 9, 1993. At the meeting, Petitioner raised an issue regarding an arithmetic error in the scoring of the technical proposals. Intervenor remained the proposer with the highest number of points. However, another proposal formerly ranked as number two was lowered to number three status and Petitioner, previously ranked number three, was raised to number two rank. On July 12, 1993, Respondent posted an amended bid tab indicating its intent to award the contract to Intervenor. Other Facts Respondent chose to score the bid pricing, a non- subjective task, in Respondent's District 2 office. Technical portions of the proposals were reviewed by the TRC, comprised of members from Respondent's District 5 office. This unusual step was taken by Respondent in order to reduce prejudice to any proposal in view of previous accusations made against District 2 employees. Bud Rosier, Respondent's employee, has overall responsibility for bridge determination that District 5 employees chosen as committee members were qualified to evaluate the proposals. Each response to the RFP contained a technical proposal and a price proposal. Intervenor's technical proposal received 1.33 points less than Petitioner's technical proposal. The price proposals, as noted above, were scored in accordance with a mathematical formula that compares price proposals to each other and does not take any subjective factors into consideration. Intervenor was awarded 5.55 points, compared to Petitioner who received no points for a proposal more than $140,000 higher for the initial year of the contemplated contract. Although members of the TRC were not given any background information by Respondent regarding the competing proposals, beyond that contained in the submitted bid packages, no information was withheld from the committee. The members were given adequate time to review the proposals and do any desired independent background checking regarding past performance of any proposer, although no requirement in the RFP mandated such a background review. At least one of the TRC members, Sujjavanich, chose not to independently research past performance of the Intervenor. No evidence was offered at hearing with regard to whether the other two members independently researched any of the proposers' past performances. Even if review of past performance, apart from the materials submitted by the proposers, were required by provisions of the RFP, failure of the evaluators to accomplish that task would result only in the loss to Intervenor of the 3.66 points awarded for past performance and Intervenor, with a remaining total of 81.89 points, would remain the highest ranked proposer. In view of the objective process used to arrive at the results of the evaluation of the prices of the competing proposals, there was no need to provide this information to the members of the TRC who were doing the technical proposal evaluation. Although the RFP provided that the TRC would be given such results, the failure of Respondent's personnel to provide this information to the evaluators could not have made any difference in the final result since the committee, using the objective price evaluation criteria, would have arrived at the same result as the purchasing office on cost scores. The admitted failure to provide the superfluous cost information to the TRC is inadequate to show that such omission resulted in prejudice to the final scores of any of the competing proposals and must be considered to be only a minor variation from the RFP by Respondent. Contrary to Petitioner's allegations, there is no competent substantial evidence to support any finding that the members of the TRC (Hyman, Gillis, and Sujjavanich) did not possess required background, experience or professional credentials adequate for evaluating proposals for bridge-tending services. All three members of the TRC were familiar with the RFP, attachments to the RFP, bridge-tending procedures and bridge-tending qualification procedures. There is no competent substantial evidence to establish that Intervenor's proposal is not financially feasible. Proposed utilization of 72 bridge-tenders by Intervenor for a total price of $673,333.44 does not mean that 72 bridge-tender positions would be established or filled, or that the positions would be paid at the rate proposed by Petitioner of $8.40 per hour. The evidence establishes that a proposer would need an optimum number of bridge requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the award of the bid in RFP DOT 92/93 2088 Rebid to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4271BID The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-12. Accepted. 13.-16. Rejected, relevancy. 17. Accepted. 18.-19. Rejected, relevancy. 20.-25. Accepted. 26.-27. Rejected, cumulative. 28. Rejected, credibility. 29.-33. Rejected, relevancy. 34.-35. Accepted. 36.-37. Rejected, argumentative and mischaracterization. 38.-46. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 47.-51. Rejected, relevancy. Intervenor's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected, cumulative. 3.-4. Accepted. 5.-6. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, argumentative. 10.-11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted by reference. 14.-16. Accepted, but not verbatim. 17.-22. Adopted by reference. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-30. Adopted, but not verbatim. 31. Rejected, narrative. 32.-35. Rejected, cumulative. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-11. Adopted. 12. Rejected, unnecessary. 13.-17. Adopted, not verbatim. 18.-19. Rejected, cumulative. 20.-22. Adopted. 23. Rejected, recitation of RFP. 24.-26. Adopted. 27. Rejected, recitation of RFP. 28.-29. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Cassidy, III, Esquire. John O. Williams, Esquire Renaissance Square 1343 East Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Carolyn S. Holifield, Esquire Mark D. Tucker, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building # 562 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining to award the bid for its district office to Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) and whether the petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid under the terms of the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact GENERAL BACKGROUND - STIPULATED FACTS Petitioners received a formal Invitation to Bid on Lease No. 590:1784 from HRS, District V. The purpose of the ITB was to obtain competitive proposals for the leasing of office space by HRS within a specifically defined area. Petitioners timely submitted their bid in response to the ITB. All timely received bids were first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. Petitioners' bid was determined to be responsive to the technical requirements of the ITB. Responsive bids were then presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. In comparing the various responsive bids and formulating a recommendation for award, the members of the bid evaluation committee were required to visit each proposed facility and to apply the evaluation criteria as contained in the ITB package. By memorandum dated July 30, 1986, the bid evaluation committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger although petitioners submitted the lowest rental price. On or about August 5, 1986, petitioners received notice from HRS of its intent to award Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. By letter dated August 6, 1986, petitioners notified HRS of their intent to protest the intended award of Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. The Notice of Intent to Protest was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10- 13.11, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the petitioners timely filed their formal written protest. Petitioners are substantially affected by the decision of HRS to award the lease to Koger. THE BIDDING PROCESS The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form (ITB) seeking approximately 39,968 net rental square feet of office space in Pinellas County, Florida, to be used as the district administrative offices. The ITB set forth the method in which the bids would be evaluated as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsive- ness. This includes submittal on bid submittal form, inclusion of required information and data, bid signed and notarized, etc. Non responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for com- parison and formulation of a recom- mendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed facility and application of the evaluation criteria. The committees recommendation will be presented to the department's official having award authority for final evaluation and determin- ation of successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form. The ITB also provided that "the department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interests of the department and the state." In accordance with the ITB a pre-bid conference was held on April 29, 1986; however, neither petitioners nor any representative of petitioners attended the pre-bid conference. Further, petitioners made no oral or written inquiries concerning the ITB or the evaluation criteria to be utilized. Bids received from the following providers were determined to be responsive and presented to the bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of the recommendation for award: James P. & Margaret R. Gills (1100 Building) Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) LTBCLH Partnership (Justice Building) Procacci Real Estate Management Co., Inc. (ICOT Building) Elizabethan Development, Inc. (Handy City Building). BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE The bid evaluation committee was composed of the following people who, along with their staffs, would occupy the leased property: Robert Withrow, Chairman of the Committee and District Administrative Services Director; Samuel Kinsey, Financial and Accounting Director for District V; Patricia Bell, Program Manager for Aging and Adult Services; Fredrick M. O'Brien, General Services, Manager for District V; and Pegi Hollingsworth, Personnel Officer. Each member of the evaluation committee received a bid package consisting of the bid specifications and the bids submitted. Each member also received a bid evaluation sheet which was used to rate each bidder. They received no other instructions with regard to the evaluation criteria. Although each specific evaluation criterion was weighted, i.e., given a comparative value, the committee members were not specifically instructed as to how points should be assigned for each category. The evaluation committee went to each of the proposed buildings for the purpose of making a comparative evaluation based on the evaluation criteria provided. However, the primary focus was on the Koger Building and the petitioners' 1100 Building because they had submitted the lowest rental rates of the five bidders considered. After the viewing process, the members of the committee, except Mr. Withrow, discussed the factors that should be considered in applying each of the evaluation criterion. Although the committee members had not formulated the evaluation criteria to be used, they were uniquely qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided to the specific needs and requirements of the HRS offices that would occupy the building. Though the committee members were in agreement as to the various factors to be included in each of the criterion listed, they did not discuss the points that would be awarded to each facility. Each member independently assigned points to each facility based on his or her own evaluation of the facility's comparative value in each of the listed categories. Koger received the best evaluation from all five committee members with point totals of 98, 98, 98, 98 and 99 out of a possible 100 points. Petitioners' building was ranked last of the five buildings evaluated by four of the members, with point totals of 75, 77, 71 and 75, and fourth by Mr. Withrow with a total of 81 points. Based on the comparative evaluation of the buildings, the committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger. By letter dated July 30, 1986, the District V office received authorization from the HRS Director of General Services to award the bid to Koger as being in the best interest of the department and state. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA The ITB included the evaluation criteria list used by the committee to ascertain the relative value of each building. At the top of the page it is stated: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated... The evaluation criteria are divided into three general areas: (1) Associated Fiscal Costs, (2) Location, and (3) Facility. Each general area includes subcategories, with each subcategory being given a total maximum value. Each of the criteria disputed by petitioners is discussed below. 1(a) Rental rates for basic term of lease. (Weighting: 45) All of the bids received by HRS were within the rental limits established by the Department of General Services and also much lower than expected. Even the highest bid was lower than anticipated, and Koger's and petitioners' bids were considered especially desirable. The bids received, listed at present value for the ton year basic lease period, are as follows: BIDDER TOTAL COST AMOUNT MORE THAN LOW BID 1100 BUILDING $1,881,690.1 KOGER 1,993,131.4 $111,441.3 JUSTICE 2,473,559.8 591,869.7 ICOT 2,655,306.1 773,616.0 HANDY CITY 3,223,202.0 1,341,511.9 Rental rates for the basic term of the lease were given a weighted value of 45. All of the committee members gave petitioners 45 points, as the low bidder, and all gave Koger 44 points as the next low bidder. However, four of the members simply agreed that the low bid would receive the maximum amount of points with each subsequent low bidder receiving one less point than the one before it, which resulted in the high bidder receiving 41 points even though its bid was 1.7 times greater than the low bid. Only Mr. Withrow made an attempt to prorate the points based on the differences in the amount bid, thus resulting in the high bidder receiving only 20 points. However, even Mr. Withrow awarded Koger 44 points based on the minimal difference between the Koger bid and the petitioners' bid. Both Mr. Withrow and Mr. Kinsey explained the award of 44 points to Koger by comparing the difference in the amounts bid to the HRS District V budget or the budgets of the entities using the facilities. However, the purpose of the evaluation was to compare each facility to the other facilities. Thus, the award of points for rental rates should have been based on a comparison of the rates offered. Although it was reasonable to assign the maximum number of points to petitioners, as the low bidders, the amount of points assigned to the remaining bidders should have been based on a comparison of the amount of each bid to the low bid. This would have made a significant difference in the points awarded to Justice, ICOT, and Handy City; however, even using a strict mathematical computation would not significantly affect the points awarded Koger due to the minimal difference in Koger's bid and petitioners' bid. Koger would receive no less than 42 points, only 2 points less than awarded, regardless of the method of mathematical computation used. 1/ 2(a) Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of mad boundaries (Weighting: 5) All the members of the committee agreed that Koger is in the most preferred area because its location is more accessible to the employees and the persons who visit the office than any of the other buildings. Koger is in northeast St. Petersburg, minutes from the interstate. The 1100 Building is located in a more congested area in downtown Clearwater on the extreme northern boundary of the designated area. In making a comparison Of the building locations, all of which were located within the map boundary, the committee jusifiably determined that the building that was the most strategically located, in terms of accessibility, would be considered to be in the most preferred area. Thus, Koger was awarded five points by all committee members. The 1100 Building received 2, 0, 1, 3 and 1 points. Although all committee members awarded Koger the highest points, only one committee member resided closer to the Koger Building than the other buildings. Mr. Withrow, who lives closer to the 1100 Building than Koger, gave the 1100 Building only 1 point because it was more inaccessible to the district clients and employees. Further, the District Administrator, who approved the lease to Koger, resides closer to the 1100 Building. 2(b) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space (Weighting: 5) Both Koger and the 1100 Building received the maximum of five points in this category except from Mr. Withrow who gave the 1100 Building four points. The committee members felt that the bus transportation as about the same for each building. Although the 1100 Building had more buses passing the facility due to its location in downtown Clearwater, the committee considered the destination of the buses and concluded that a person would wait the same length of time for a bus to take him to his destination from either the Koger Building or the 1100 Building. Mr. Withrow differed on the points awarded because he considered the Koger location to be better due to its proximity to the airport. The district office has a large number of people that visit from Tallahassee and other districts in the state. 2(c) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 3) Koger received the maximum of 3 points from every committee member in this category; the 1100 Building received 0 points from every member. Although this category is listed within the general area of "Location", the committee members followed the category requirement and considered all environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building. In the 1100 Building, committee members noted problems with the air conditioning system and the elevators. The building was not maintained well, and the bathrooms were small and poorly ventilated. The HRS parking at the 1100 Building was not conveniently located. To get to the parking lot from the building an employee would have to cross a parking lot adjacent to the building, cross an intersection and then walk up to a block to get to his or her car. Many of the office employees work late and would be walking to their cars after dark, and there was concern expressed for employee safety considering the parking arrangement offered by petitioners. Koger had none of the problems observed at the 1100 Building. Further, Koger was better suited for the handicapped because there was no need to use a ramp as there was at the 1100 Building. 3(a) Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighing: 10) 3(b) Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 10) 3(c) Provisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations...within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) Koger's bid is for a two-story building containing approximately 39,000 square feet. The 1100 Building is a 15-story building. It would provide approximately 39,000 square feet on the second, fourth, fifth, part of the eighth, part of the ninth, and twelfth floors. The space allocation in the 1100 Building, spread over 6 floors, would provide a major problem in efficiently locating the staff. Certain offices could not be placed on certain floors because of space restrictions, and related offices could not be placed in close proximity to each other. Offices that needed to be on the same floor could not be located on the same floor. Because the space offered by petitioners is spread over 12 floors, accessibility to related offices would be much more difficult. Further, the limited space per floor makes it more difficult for HRS to properly utilize the space provided. None of the testimony provided by the committee witnesses related the "conformance of the space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid" (e.s.) The ITB lists the offices and rooms required, giving sizes for each. Other than the total square footage, which petitioners met, there were no other specific requirements contained in the ITB. None of the committee members compared the conformance of the space offered to the specific room and office requirements. Indeed, the testimony of the committee members indicate that accessibility of the space was considered under criteria 3(a) rather than the conformance of the space to the ITB. Since the space offered by petitioners apparently complied with the requirements of the ITB, petitioners should have received 10 points for that category. The points awarded under 3(b) and 3(c), however, were proper. The space offered by the 1100 Building is not susceptible to an efficient layout or good utilization of the space offered. Further, the committee legitimately differentiated between the single buildings offered by each bidder, under 3(c), by considering where the space was located within the building. Obviously, factor 3(c) reflects a concern that the space offered not be too separated. It clearly provides that proposals for space in two separate buildings will get fewer points than single building proposals, and there is no indication that all single building proposals should receive the same maximum points. This factor clearly relates to the proximity of the spaces offered to one another, with contiguous space getting the most points. 3(d) Offers providing street-level space (Weighting: 2) Approximately half of the space offered by Koger is street-level space. Koger received two points. The 1100 Building provides no street-level space; it received no points in this category. Petitioners do not contend that they should have gotten any points, but assert Koger should only have gotten one point because not all its space was street-level space. THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION The evaluation committee members were very conscientious in comparing the relative values of the buildings offered based on the criteria provided and their observations. Their evaluations were not made arbitrarily, but based upon the factors set forth in the evaluation criteria. Although errors were made in calculating the values awarded for categories 1(a) and 3(a), these errors were not due to arbitrary action by the committee members. Further, should the appropriate points under 3(a) be added to petitioners evaluations and three points be subtracted from Koger's evaluations (two points for 1(a) and one point for 3(d)), petitioners evaluations would be 79, 80, 76, 80 and 84, and Koger's would be 95, 95, 95, 95 and 96. The strategic plan for HRS, 1986-1991, Goal 12, is to enhance employee morale and job satisfaction in several ways, one of which is to replace or upgrade 90 percent of substandard physical work environments by December 31, 1990. The testimony and evaluations show, and the committee members found, that the Koger Center would provide a better work environment than the petitioners' 1100 Building. Based on the criteria set forth in the ITB, the Koger bid is the "lowest and best" bid.
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue On May 12, 2004, did Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), act illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it cancelled the posting and noticed its intent to reject the bid of Rosiek Construction Co., Inc. (Rosiek), in relation to financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement, SR 682 (the Project)? § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Findings Of Fact The subject of this protest is financial project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement. Respondent and 12 other pre-qualified bidders received copies of the bid solicitation notice, plans and specifications for the Project at issue. Rosiek submitted a responsive bid for the Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on April 28, 2004. There were no other bidders. Rosiek is pre-qualified to bid and receive the contract for the Project and therefore is a responsible bidder. On May 12, 2004, DOT posted its notice of intent to reject all bids. Rosiek timely filed this bid protest on May 14, 2004, with DOT, along with the statutorily required bid protest bond. DOT's 2004 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction is applicable to this project. FACTS BASED UPON ROSIEK'S ADMISSIONS DOT had advertised its bid solicitation notice for Financial Project Nos. 256903-1-52-01 and 256903-1-56-01, Pinellas Bayway Bridge Replacement on or about March 4, 2004. Rosiek received the copy of the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project. Rosiek did not file a specifications challenge with respect to the referenced Project. DOT advertised the amount of $37,087,000.00 as its budgeted amount for the Project. Rosiek submitted a total bid of $50,470,378.12 for the Project (total bid A+B). ADDITIONAL FACTS Juanita Moore is a manager of the DOT Contracts Administration Office. She served as a member of the Technical Review Committee and the Awards Committee in relation to the Project. When the Technical Review Committee is confronted with a bid, such as the Rosiek bid, which is from a single bidder, something is missing from the bid or for certain differentials in price between the bid received and the official cost estimate, the Technical Review Committee considers these to be "problem jobs." In connection with terminology, Ms. Moore explained that the budget figure, referred to in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the Project as a Proposal Budget Estimate, is derived from an earlier estimate in the process and in turn an official cost estimate was established for the Project. The official cost estimate is also referred to simply as the estimate. The official cost estimate has not been disclosed as has been explained in the Preliminary Statement to the Recommended Order. The official cost estimate here is broken down into component items within the Project pertaining to cost for Mobilization, Concrete Class IV, Concrete Class V, etc. After the Technical Review Committee considered the Rosiek bid, the bid was passed on to the Awards Committee where it was decided to reject the bid. According to Ms. Moore the bid was rejected as too high when compared to the official cost estimate. The reference to a bid being too high relates to a bid which is more than 10 percent in excess of the official cost estimate. The budget figure and the official cost estimate are not necessarily the same in a given instance. The fact that it was the only bid was also a factor considered in the rejection. As Ms. Moore explained, at the time the Rosiek bid was rejected, it was principally because it was too high in relation to the official cost estimate. Given the posture in this case, the rejection as the only bid will form the basis for resolving this dispute, absent DOT's willingness to divulge the amount of the official cost estimate or how it was established. DOT does not have an established policy for rejecting bids based upon the fact that only a single bidder responded to the solicitation. In her experience, Ms. Moore does not remember DOT rejecting a bid solely on the ground that there was only one bidder. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting held on May 12, 2004, detail the response by that committee to the Rosiek bid. In the copy of that document provided for this proceeding, DOT's official cost estimate is redacted. The percentage differential between the official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is likewise redacted. The item number 0101-1 for Mobilization reflects Rosiek's bid of $4,900,000.00 compared to the official cost estimate which is redacted. Similarly, Item No. 0400-4-4, Concrete Class IV refers to the contractor bid price of $800.00 per cubic yard compared with the official cost estimate which is redacted. There are other comparisons between several additional categories or items in which the contractors bid price is reflected but the official cost estimate in comparison is redacted. The minutes go on to describe how the review being made by the Awards Committee led to the conclusion that the official cost estimate could be adjusted, placing the bid received by Rosiek a certain percentage above the estimate on a 10 percent criteria job but the differential between the adjusted official cost estimate and the Rosiek bid is not revealed as a percentage because of redaction. The DOT district where the project would be located is District 7, the Tampa office. The minutes of the Awards Committee meeting indicate that the district and the Technical Review Committee recommended to the Awards Committee that it reject the Rosiek bid and re-advertise. That was the decision made by the Awards Committee on May 12, 2004, to re-let in June. Nothing in the minutes prepared by the Awards Committee refers to the significance of Rosiek as the only bidder and any concern which the Awards Committee had about that fact. On May 12, 2004, when DOT provided a Cancellation of Posting and a Notice of Intent to Reject to Rosiek, it did not state the rationale for that decision. It merely indicated to Rosiek that it was DOT's intent to reject all bids on the project and advised Rosiek of its opportunity to contest that decision. On May 5, 2004, Kenneth A. Hartmann, P.E., the District 7 Secretary, prepared the District Response to Post- Bid Evaluation of Bids in Excess of Approved Award Criteria. The document is presented in question-and-answer form. In response to the question numbered 4 within the document, related to the prospect of critical safety deficiencies in the existing system being corrected by the construction of a new bridge, Mr. Hartmann responded with the answer "No." In relation to question numbered 2, excluding normal inflation, the question was asked whether re-advertising the project would likely result in a higher bid. Mr. Hartman answered "No." In response to question numbered 16, related to his recommendation as the district secretary, for action that should be taken by the Awards Committee he stated "This project should be rejected and re-advertised for a June 2004 1st [sic]. Considering that the project is medium to large and was competing against two other large bridge projects on the same day it is understandable that the contractor's bid was higher than our estimate." In response to question numbered 15 concerning the work load level of the contracting industry in the locality where the project would be constructed, Mr. Hartmann referred to "a high level of work load." At hearing Donald Skelton, P.E., the District 7 Secretary testified in support of the rejection of the Rosiek bid. In the past he had served as Director of Transportation Development with DOT, a position that made him responsible for preparation of the design plans and contract packages that are bid. He had involvement with this Project pertaining to the preparation of design plans and getting the Project to contract letting. He reviewed the Rosiek bid. In discussions related to the Rosiek bid during the post-bid evaluation period, there was a concern over a lack of competition and the differential between, what Mr. Skelton refers to, as the budget amount and the bid amount by Rosiek. Mr. Skelton was mindful of potential safety issues that might warrant the prospect of trying to find additional money to fund the Project, if it was necessary to replace the existing bridge for safety reasons. If the bridge were structurally deficient or in bad shape, that would need to be addressed, versus the additional time necessary to potentially rebid the project. No safety issues of that sort were found by Mr. Skelton. Mr. Skelton explained that the fact that there was single bidder made it difficult, if not impossible, to make a comparison between that bid and what the true market value of the bridge construction would be. Mr. Skelton expressed the hope by the DOT, that there would be more than one bidder in the future to truly get an impression of the degree of competition and whether the competition would result in a realistic price for the public. He recognized that there is no guarantee that DOT is going to get a lower bid if the project is re-bid. Mr. Skelton indicated that when you have multiple bids you can compare what the economic system would support in relation to the affordability of the project. That comparison is of similarity in prices among the competitors trying to win the job, with the belief that bidders put their best effort forward to prevail in the competition. A single bid does not give any indication of market factors, in his view. Michael Rosiek is the vice-president for Rosiek. In his testimony, he expressed a concern that if the project was re-let for bid, Rosiek's competitive position would not be good, in that the other contractors would have read the Rosiek bid that was made in the first letting, informing the competitors of the Rosiek price to its detriment. Further, Mr. Rosiek expressed a concern that in a re-letting the company would be bidding "against ourselves." Louis Wenick, P.E., has a business consulting service. The nature of the business is consulting work relating to the construction industry. A considerable part of the business involves DOT projects. In his work Mr. Wenick is involved with scheduling, cost analysis, and entitlement analysis in DOT projects. He is familiar with DOT's specifications, policies, and procedures. Mr. Wenick is a registered engineer in Florida and a certified general contractor in Florida. Mr. Wenick obtained information from DOT concerning its history in receiving sole bids for a project and the instances in which the sole bidder was awarded the contract. Mr. Wenick looked at procedures followed by DOT in awarding contracts. Mr. Wenick looked at the DOT experience in re- letting bids to determine if a company was a low bidder in the first letting when bids were rejected, and what percentage of the time that low bidder would succeed in being awarded the contract upon a re-letting. Mr. Wenick prepared certain charts intended to depict the DOT response in the areas examined by the witness. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 3 is referred to as Problem Jobs for the April 28, 2004, letting, with two posting dates of May 20, 2004, and June 7, 2004, respectively. The chart depicts the proposal I.D. number (bid), the project number and the type of problem identified in reviewing bid responses and a brief statement of the Technical Committee's comments and the Awards Committee's disposition in those projects depicted. Nothing more is described in the chart. In no case set forth in the chart was the type of problem described in any detail or, limited to an experience with a single bidder, as opposed to perceived problems in relation to the bid that was too high, as well as having a single bidder or to the problem of having a bid that was too high alone. Seven projects were awarded. Two were not. The rejections were based upon the bids being too high. One of the projects initially awarded was later rejected due to the unavailability of local funding to support the project. Mr. Wenick prepared a chart, Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 4. This reflects the DOT award results for sole or single bidders from the period July 1999 through April 2005. The columns in the chart show the numeric count of sole bids, at certain letting dates, with the contracts numbers, the name of the low bidder, and the disposition of the bids. The numeric count of sole bids is a running tally over the period. This reflects 52 sole bids of which eight were rejected, making the percentage accepted 84.62 percent. Again the nature of the projects is not shown in the chart, and this chart does not indicate the basis for rejection. Rosiek's Exhibit numbered 5 is another chart prepared by Mr. Wenick. It reflects instances in which projects were re-let for bid in the period July 1999 to April 2005. The letting dates are reflected. The project numbers, the low bidders names, if known, and the amount quoted is set out. The re-let date if the project was re-let is reflected. The low quote on re-bid and the low bidder's name on re-bid are reflected, as is the percentage difference between the low quote in the first letting and the low quote in the re- letting. Where data is established in all columns in the chart, 18 of the projects are shown to have been re-bid out of 24 projects that were bid initially. Within that group, five bidders who bid in the initial letting were awarded the contract in the re-letting, while 13 low bidders in the first letting were disappointed in the re-letting. This equates to 27.78 percent success rate by the low bidder in the initial letting when re-bidding in the re-letting. Having considered the exhibits prepared by Mr. Wenick, the information is insufficient to discern the reason for DOT's past policies and practices and to compare them to the present case for consistencies in the application of those policies and practices when rejecting bids. Additionally, the reason for the choices in any single project described in the charts cannot be appropriately understood from the charts and compared to the experience here. On the topic of the success rate for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting and the low bid in the re-letting, it is so general an analysis, that it cannot be relied upon to determine the real significance for contractors who provided the low bid in the original letting, only to be disappointed in the re-letting when the contractor did not receive the contract.
Recommendation Upon consideration, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Rosiek Amended Formal Written Protest challenging the DOT decision to reject its bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance, acted illegally, arbitrarily, fraudulently, or dishonestly in rejecting all bids for lease #460:0119 and not awarding subject lease to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance established a requirement to lease 5371 square feet of office space in Daytona Beach, Florida, and a "Request for Space Need" was approved by the Department of Management Services on February 11, 1998. The Department of Insurance subsequently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for lease #460:0119 (Respondent's Exhibit 1). A non-mandatory pre-bid conference was held on June 1, 1998, in Daytona Beach and two prospective bidders, Petitioner and Nova Village Market partnership attended. The RFP provided that proposals which did not meet all mandatory requirements of the RFP would be rejected as non- responsive. The RFP provided for evaluation criteria are awards factors. The awards factors totaled 100 points with no minimum point total required. Ten of the points were allotted for moving costs defined as the costs of relocating communications, networks, furniture and other equipment. This factor gave the current landlord an automatic 10-point advantage since there would be no relocation costs. Moving costs provisions tend to discourage the presentation of bids because the bidders have to overcome an automatic 10-point advantage provided the current landlord. The RFP also provided that all proposals could be rejected, however, such "rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification." None of the conditions of the RFP were questioned or challenged by interested parties. Two responses were received by the Department of Insurance in response to the RFP and these were opened in Respondent's Tallahassee office on July 8, 1998, by Mr. Kip Wells of the Department. One was received from the current landlord, Nova Village Partnership, hereafter Nova, and the other from the Petitioner. The Nova proposal was deemed non-responsive. Neither Nova nor Petitioner contested the determination that Nova's proposal was non-responsive. Only one responsive proposal, the Petitioner's proposal, remained. On July 9, 1998, the Department representative, Mr. Kip Wells, called Petitioner to schedule an appointment for 9:00 a.m., on July 10, 1998, to visit and evaluate the proposed facility. No persons from the Department appeared at the scheduled appointment. At 10:45 a.m., on July 10, 1998, Kip Wells called Petitioner to say that since Petitioner's proposal was the only responsive proposal received, and that "all bids" were being rejected. Mr. Wells testified at hearing. His reason for rejecting the remaining bid was: When I saw that it was obvious the current landlord was not going to be very cooperative, I decided that one choice was not enough. If we were going to have to make a move, we needed more than one thing to choose from. So, I immediately - - since I had already set up with local people in Daytona to tell them that I was coming down to evaluate the bids, I sent them an E-mail and told them that I would not be meeting the following day to evaluate the bids. Mr. Wells decided to reissue the RFP without any moving costs criteria, and redistribute those 10 points among the other award factors. Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest and then a Formal Protest, both in a timely fashion. There is no state policy prohibiting the award of a lease to a sole bidder on a RFP. The "Leasing Policy" of the Department of Insurance states that "The Lease Administrator, with assistance from the Division employees, will establish bid or quote specifications. These specifications will include special needs for the Division(s) as well as the evaluation criteria upon which to evaluate the proposals." Neither the Department's Lease Policy (Petitioner Exhibit 3) nor the State's Real Property Leasing Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) give the Lease Administrator the authority to reject or evaluate bid responses. Neither does he have a vote in the bid evaluation process. His responsibility is to coordinate the process. Randall Baker, Manager of Private Sector Leasing of the Bureau of Property Management of the Department of Management Services (hereinafter DMS), testified. The DMS prepares a manual as a guideline for user agencies to assist in the leasing of property. The DMS manual is not binding on agencies and DMS has no review oversight; however, their comments on agencies' leases are reviewed by the state auditing authorities and failure to follow the guidelines can result in audit criticism. Baker confirmed that the agency's written procedures as outlined in the RFP were consistent with the DMS guidelines. The DMS manual states as follows regarding the receipt of only one responsive proposal: When only one responsive proposal is received it may be considered and accepted providing the following conditions are documented: Adequate competition was solicited. The rate is within established rental rate guidelines. The proposal meets stated requirements. The proposal was processed as though other proposals were received. The Petitioner's bid was responsive to the RFP and the lease rate bid by the Petitioner was less than the average rate for state leases in the Daytona area and less than the amount budgeted by the Department for this lease. The lease rate by the Petitioner was reasonably priced and competitive. Although the agency failed to complete the process as envisioned, see paragraph 20 below, this was in no way the fault of Petitioner. The Department's leasing policy requires that the lowest and best response to an RFP be determined through cost analysis and evaluation by an evaluation committee. Mr. Wells did not forward Petitioner's bid to or discuss with the evaluation committee Petitioner's bid, but unilaterally rejected it. It was clear from Mr. Wells' testimony that this was his individual decision and was based upon his personal belief that it was the best thing to do.1 At hearing, the stated justification for rejecting "all bids" was that it gave the Department the opportunity to delete the requirement of moving costs from the awards factors; however, the evidence does not indicate that the moving cost provision result in non-competitive bids. The sole responsive bidder was within the local lease price range and within budget. Neither the Respondent nor DMS has established a policy prohibiting the acceptance of a sole responsive bid if there is competition solicited. The Department of Insurance has accepted a sole bid on at least one project in the past. There was no evidence that the RFP was not an open and fair competition. The evidence shows that it was properly advertised, that all conditions were known, and that all interested parties had an equal opportunity to participate. In sum, there was adequate competition in submitting the bids. Mr. Baker testified regarding the policy of DMS. The DMS policy is that if there is one responsive bidder, there has been competitive bidding. The RFP provides that the Respondent may reject all bids if it has strong justification. See paragraph 5 above. Mr. Baker also provided examples of "strong justification for rejecting proposals." His examples include facilities which are proposed outside the required geographic area, prices considerably in excess of state guidelines and agency budgets, specification changes due to modification of the agency's program requirements, and "intervening external forces." No evidence establishing a strong justification for rejecting the Petitioner's bid was presented. Without completing the process and evaluating the Petitioner's bid, the agency never considered whether the bid was in the state's best interest. However, this was not the fault of the Respondent, and the agency's failure to follow its procedures should not inure to its benefits. Further, Because there was no minimum score required on the evaluation criteria of the RFP, there is no need to evaluate Petitioner's proposal because it is the only responsive proposal. For all the reasons stated above, the rejection of Petitioner's bid was contrary to the terms of the RFP, contrary to state policy, and arbitrary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds that: Respondent's actions in rejecting Petitioner's responsive bid were arbitrary; The Respondent did not follow the requirements set forth in the Department of Insurance Leasing Policy, nor the Department of Management Services Real Property Leasing Manual, or the Request for Proposal itself; That no adverse interest to the State or the Department would have occurred had Petitioner's responsive bid been accepted; and therefore, Petitioner's claim shall be upheld as the lowest cost and best proposal for RFP #460:0119, and that the Department of Insurance shall award Petitioner Lease #460:0119. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1998.
