Findings Of Fact In May, 1987, the Department contracted with B.P. Associates, then owner of the Bay Plaza facility, to lease space at that facility located in Brandon, Florida. A part of the bid conditions required extensive physical renovations of the facility which were being supervised by Coldwell Banker, a real estate brokerage and management firm serving as property manager and construction supervisor. Construction was begun in December, 1987. Mr. Burrwood Yost was hired by the Department as its Facilities Services Manager for the Tampa Region in March, 1988. Mr. Yost soon became dissatisfied with the work being accomplished under Coldwell Banker's supervision and the company's responsiveness to maintenance problems arising at the facility, which the Department had asked to be corrected. As a result of this dissatisfaction with Coldwell Banker's demonstrated inability to properly perform, Mr. Yost recommended that the bid award to B.P. Associates be withdrawn and that the procurement be relet. On June 17, 1988, the bid award to B.P. Associates was withdrawn. On June 1, 1988, however, shortly before the withdrawal of the prior award, ownership of Bay Plaza was transferred to Northern which immediately substituted a new property manager and construction supervisor for Coldwell Banker. The new management firm was Grubb and Ellis, which took over on September 1, 1988. New bids were solicited by invitation to bid on July 15, 1988 which called for approximately 27,122 square feet of leased space to be available by April 1, 1989. The bid invitation clearly stated that "all bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form." This form outlined the bid procedure, listing award factors to be considered and specifying the precise amount of weight each factor would be given. Past performance was not listed as a basis for evaluation on the bid invitation form and Mr. Yost admits that past performance was not to be considered as a factor. Five bids were received of which three were deemed responsive. These were Bidder C, Northern; Bidder D, Turner Development Corporation; and Bidder E, Alderwood B. Northern's bid was the lowest of the three responsive bids by more than $2.00 per square foot over the life of the lease. Alderwood was the second lowest. Each of the bids was evaluated by a bid evaluation committee consisting of seven representatives from the various Department program offices that were to occupy the leased space. The chairman of the committee, Ms. Chipman, was placed thereon at the request of Mr. Yost, and was actually a supernumerary since the committee a originally constituted by Mr. Akridge, the Department's Facilities Services Manager Assistant in Tampa, was made up of only six members. A 100 point bid evaluation scale, which was included in the bid package furnished to each bidder, was to be utilized by the committee to evaluate each bid. Prior to beginning their evaluation duties, the committee members were walked through each proposed site, and in the briefing given by Department authorities, specifically advised that prior performance was not a criteria and should not be considered. When the committee members' evaluations were computed, Northern's bid for Bay Plaza received a score of 83.5. Alderwood's bid for its property was given a score of 87.9. Each evaluator rated Alderwood highest and the evaluation committee concluded that, consistent with the overall criteria which called for the lease to be awarded to the lowest and best bid that met program needs, Alderwood's bid was lowest and best. Consequently, the committee recommended that Alderwood receive the award even though Northern's bid for Bay Plaza was lowest in terms of total dollars involved. The bids were evaluated based on three major evaluation criteria. These were Fiscal Costs, Location, and Facility. The Fiscal Cost element was further broken down into three subcategories; rental rates, renewal rates, and moving costs. Northern received 25 points of the 25 available for rental rates because it offered the lowest rental rate. When reduced to present value, Northern's bid for the entire term of the lease was more than $600,000.00 below the next lowest bid and for the first nine years of the lease alone, was $336,799.00 lower. Alderwood was awarded 21.5 points for its rental rate submission. In the area of renewal rates, Northern was awarded 7 of 7 possible points and Alderwood was awarded 2. These awards were not computed by the committee or assigned by them. Instead, the scores were computed on the basis of a present value analysis accomplished in Tallahassee and were entered on the score sheet by Mr. Akridge, the Department's local supervisor for this procurement. Considering the moving costs, however, Alderwood outscored Northern by 3 to 2.7 points. This difference was attributed to an additional moving cost for the Bay Plaza site as opposed to the one move cost if the Alderwood site were chosen. To have the rehabilitation work done at Bay Plaza would have required a move to another location while the work was being done and another move back when it was finished. In the Alderwood case, the Department would move only once. The "Location" criteria also had three subcategories for consideration. They were, general area, in which both bidders received the maximum 10 points; public transportation at 5 points, and environmental factors at 15 points. In the area of public transportation, Alderwood received the full 5 points with Northern receiving 1.1. Department personnel considered the fact that bus service was available through the site at Alderwood, the stop being within wheelchair and walking distance of the building, as being more significant and of higher value than the proposed bus service envisioned in 1989 for Northern's facility which, at the time of the bidding, was not served by a bus. Bus company officials stated an intention to provide bus service to the area in the future. The environmental factors subcategory related to the physical characteristics of the building and the surrounding area and the effect of these factors on the "efficient and economical conduct of Department operations." In this subcategory, Alderwood received a higher score than did Northern's building because the committee was of the opinion the Alderwood facility would be more energy efficient. Current Department occupants of Northern's facility at Bay Plaza contended that because of the large expanses of glass, there would be more heat generated in the building in the afternoon. No official energy efficiency assessment was done of either building because both occupied less than 20,000 square feet. Consequently, the committee analysis here was based on the experience of some committee members and was neither scientific nor professional. The committee was also concerned with the potential for theft because of the large amounts of glass and was of the opinion that the Bay Plaza layout was "confusing." Neither of these judgements carry much weight, however. Another environmental factor considered by the committee concerned the parking availability at each facility. The committee was of the opinion that the layout at Northern's facility was not good. It was long and extended. Staff also was concerned that the several access doors to the Northern facility could cause clients to become confused. More important, however, was their concern that due to the several entrances to the building, it would be difficult to control entry. Alderwood's facility, on the other hand, provided a central entrance for each building and it was felt this would allow tighter security control for the safety of the building occupants. The committee was also impressed by the fact that Alderwood's facility provided a play area for clients' children, and felt that Alderwood's landscaping was more appealing. The rating of Alderwood's handicap access as high, is important. Turning to the third major bid criterion, Facility, Northern's facility was awarded 16.3 points of a possible 20 for layout/utilization while Alderwood's was awarded 18.7 points. For the subcategory, single building, Northern's facility received 6.7 points out a possible 10 and Alderwood's facility was awarded 8.1. As for the final subcategory, street level, both facilities were awarded 5 points. As for layout/utilization, one committee member, Chipman, awarded Alderwood more points because it provided a separate entrance for each program, because it provided covered walkways for weather protection, and because there was less of a "maze" effect in that facility due to its square configuration. This last factor was of concern to other committee members who rejected the idea of clients having to walk through offices to get to the different programs. The wider hallways and better access for handicapped, as was stated previously, were also considered positive factors for Alderwood. Neither facility offered the single building which was a desired characteristic, Mr. Akridge, however, advised the committee in his preparatory briefing that since neither bidder offered a single building facility, the committee could award points on the layout of the multi-unit facility based on the relationship of the individual components to each other. At least two committee members, Chipman and Collins, rated Alderwood's facility better and awarded more points because they felt the layout of that facility allowed a more advantageous grouping of programs within the units. There is substantial evidence, however, that the information furnished the committee was neither complete nor in all cases accurate. Once the committee completed its evaluation, Mr. Akridge tabulated the scores and prepared a "request for bid award" letter dated September 21, 1988 for transmittal to Department officials in Tallahassee. The letter was prepared to report the committee recommendation for the award to Alderwood and to explain why the recommendation was made to award to that bidder as opposed to the low bidder. Review of this letter clearly reflects that Mr. Akridge and the committee were concerned with past performance at the Bay Plaza facility. When Mr. George Smith, a senior management analyst for the Department in Tallahassee received Mr. Akridge's letter, recognizing the possible appearance of consideration of an improper factor, he requested that Mr. Akridge seek and provide more justification for the committee's findings. While Mr. Smith contends he did this because of his concern over costs, the fact remains that Akridge's letter of September 21 did mention past performance which was an invalid consideration. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Akridge to prepare another memo giving additional information about such things as bus service, the difference in rental rates, the building layouts and locations and those factors which the users of the proposed facility, those individuals who were on the committee from the using organization, felt were important to them in the effective accomplishment of their jobs. Mr. Smith clearly indicated he recognized that past performance is not a valid point for consideration and that it would play no part in his analysis of the bids preparatory to making final recommendation for award. In response to Mr. Smith's direction, Mr. Akridge prepared another memorandum dated September 30, 1988. Though by far the greatest portion of this memo is a detailed comparison of the two facilities and the concerns of the committee regarding them, the first paragraph, (1 A) refers to the failure of the former leasing agent to obtain state fire marshal approval and a reference to concern that in light of the fact that Northern is an absentee owner, there might well be a return to slow response times experienced under the prior management contract. Though Mr. Smith recognized that the September 30 memorandum again made reference to prior performance, experienced as he was in the procurement of facilities, he also recognized that "that was not a part of the evaluation criteria" and "basically, just disregarded that." Thereafter, the award was made to Alderwood. Petitioner contends that whether consciously or unconsciously, past performance of Northern's predecessor in ownership influenced the evaluation and bid review process thereby placing Northern at a competitive disadvantage to Alderwood. There is evidence in the record to indicate this conclusion, may be justified. Mr. Yost, the Facilities Services Manager, admits that he was dissatisfied with the performance of the prior management of the Bay Plaza facility and it was because of this dissatisfaction that the decision was made to recommend withdrawal of the prior award and a new bid invitation. Though he claims he deliberately kept himself out of the re-bid process, the evidence indicates that he oversaw it from the beginning and was present and/or involved in almost every part of it. The invitation to bid utilized his name; he attended the pre-bid conference and injected himself into the process by answering questions of bidders; he personally reviewed each bid upon receipt with Mr. Akridge; and, though he turned the committee selection over to Mr. Akridge, specifically requested that a nominee of his own choosing, Ms. Chipman, be appointed. Ms. Chipman, to whom Mr. Yost had previously spoken regarding his dissatisfaction with the prior Bay Plaza operation, was appointed as the seventh member of a committee originally scheduled to have only six members and served as the chairperson thereof. It is also significant to note that while the committee was in session evaluating the bids, Mr. Yost came into the committee room and met with the members while the deliberation process was going on. This creates a definite appearance of impropriety. After the protest was filed by Northern's agent, on November 8, 1988, Mr. Akridge, on behalf of the Department, met with members of the evaluation committee and representatives of Alderwood. During this meeting, the Department representatives explained to Alderwood how they wanted the layout of the facility to be accomplished and directed the architect who was present to prepare preliminary design plans. This appears to have been in contravention of provisions of a Department rule, (10-13.011(2)(a), F.A.C) which calls for the contract award process to be stopped until the protest is resolved. The evaluation criteria, found on page 16 of 17 of the Bid Submittal Form at subparagraph 1A, states that rental rates for the basic term of the lease, evaluated testing a present value methodology at a discount rate of 8.31 percent, would constitute 25 percent of the total evaluation criteria. This requirement was not appropriately applied in this case. The points included on each committee member's evaluation form for this category do not correlate to the present value rates furnished by the Department. Whereas Alderwood's bid was 21 percent higher than Northern's when reduced to present value, Alderwood received 86 percent of the rental rate points given Northern instead of 79 percent of Northern's points as it should have received. As a result, Northern did not receive the appropriate weight for its rental rates points as compared to it's competitor, Alderwood. In addition to the above, there are several examples indicating that points given by the committee were awarded based on inaccurate assumptions, unreliable information, or speculation. These include a failure to recognize that the windows at Bay Plaza are tinted; an inaccurate belief by one committee member that Alderwood's buildings are closer together than Northern's; a failure to properly apportion points by a committee member in the area of public transportation on the mistaken belief that Northern's facility would not have bus service; a mistaken belief that hallways at the Northern facility could not be widened when, in fact, Northern had agreed to renovate the entire facility including the hallways to whatever design the Department requested, (in this regard, Mr. Akridge properly advised the committee it should assume for the purpose of evaluation, that Northern would widen the Hallways if requested) ; the possible improper award of points for moving costs when no information on actual costs was available; a failure by the committee to recognize that major construction planned for in front of the Alderwood facility would hinder what the committee considered that building's better access; a failure to recognize that bid specifications required a security system be installed in any facility leased which would minimize if not eliminate the theft risk; and a lack of information regarding crime rates, police patrols, night lighting, and the nearness of police facilities to the buildings in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the intent to award lease no. 590:1853 to, Alderwood B. Partners, Limited, be withdrawn; that a new evaluation committee be appointed to review the bids submitted by the responsive bidders; that this committee be properly briefed as to the requirements of their task and the appropriate standards to be applied thereto; and that the Department thereafter issue an award to the lowest and best bidder as determined by this evaluation committee. RECOMMENDED this is 15th day of March, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalpachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5325BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY PETITIONER; Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Balance accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but more in the form of argument than as Finding of Fact. The paragraph is redundant to other evidence already considered. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and as to substance, incorporated herein. BY THE RESPONDENT; & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein with comment. Redundant to 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein though 17 is redundant to 16. Accepted and incorporated herein as to the fact that bus service is planned for the Bay Plaza facility in 1989. Accepted with the exception of that portion dealing with Mr. Yost's having nothing to do with the evaluation of the bid which is rejected. Accepted but irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted with the exception of the disclaimer of Mr. Yost's participation in the selection of committee members. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted with the exception of the last sentence which is not a Finding of Fact but a recitation of testimony. First sentence rejected as a recitation of testimony. The second sentence is accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a recitation of evidence contained in Mr. Smith's deposition. Not a Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Brown, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith, Cutler & Kent, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Richard Candelora, Esquire Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P.A. Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601 Jack D. Farley, Esquire DHRS District Six Legal Office 400 West Buffalo Avenue, Room, 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire DHRS General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The questions presented here concern the entitlement of the Petitioner or Intervenor to be awarded lease rights under the Respondent's proposed Lease No. 590:8026, in that Petitioner and Intervenor have claimed that entitlement to the exclusion of the other party.
Findings Of Fact Respondent invited bid proposals for the provision of approximately 32,000 square feet of office space for its District VIII operation in Fort Myers, Florida. Petitioner, Chuck Bundschu, Inc., and Intervenor, Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company, responded to the bid proposal by offering to provide the office space. Those responses may be found as part of the Composite Hearing Officer's Exhibit. Following the October, 1981, submittal of bid proposals, a bid evaluation committee was appointed by the Subdistrict Administrator for District VIII to consider the bids. In turn, he afforded guidance to that committee on the subject of the evaluation of the proposed bids offered by Bundschu and Walco, the only bidders for the project. The evaluation committee performed the task of weighing the bid proposals, in keeping with evaluation criteria which are outlined in Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual" dealing with the procurement of lease space, which criteria are set forth in a form referred to as "HRSM 70-1, page A1-4-8," which is attached to chapter four of the manual. All criteria used for the evaluation process were drawn from that form with the exception of criterion No. 7, related to staff and client marking which was a product of this bid evaluation effort. (A copy of the HRS manual and forms may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. The evaluation committee's summarization utilizing the form criteria and the additional parking criterion may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, which is a replication of the original.) The HRS manual for procuring leased space is a publication of February, 1980, and establishes uniform guidelines by which bid proposals are considered by local officials who are part of Respondent's organization. Nonetheless, the exact weight to be afforded each criterion outlined in the manual is determined by the local evaluation committee. Weighing concerns the subject of awarding numerical values for beach bidder related to the various criteria with a maximum possible score being 100 points. On the basis of the evaluation performed by the committee, the Bundschu total was 88.25 points and the The Walco point total was 82 out of the possible 100 points. Consequently, the evaluation committee recommended that Bundschu be awarded the lease. Mark Geisler, in his capacity as Subdistrict Administrator, for District VIII, concurred in this evaluation as may be seen in his November 6, 1981, transmittal of the bid materials and associated evaluation, which transmittal may be found as pert of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The District Administrator, District VII, in the person of Frances Clendenin, who was acting for the District Administrator, Ivor D. Groves, Ph.D., also recommended acceptance of the Bundschu bid. This position was made known by a memorandum of November 16, 1981. A copy of that recommendation is found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The recommendations spoken to thus far were made known to Lester C. Missman, an official within the Division of General Services of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This division was, at the time of the bid proposals, and is now, headed by Dr. Homer Ooten, whose function within Respondent's organization includes the responsibility to evaluate lease proposals involving the Respondent agency and to make a final decision on the question of the lease award, based upon a review of the local subordinate unit's recommendation. By this, it is meant that the lease by Health and Rehabilitative Services as "user agency" is signed by Ooten based upon a delegation of authority to him through the vehicle of correspondence signed by the agency head. Ooten, upon considering the recommendation of the District Administrator's office, the Subdistrict Administrator and the evaluation committee, did not find fault with the criteria nor the point weighing scheme used in the evaluation process. He did question the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee on the subject of client mileage for those clients receiving services from Respondent in a move from the HRS office in the Bundschu building where they were located at the time, to the building where Walco intended to let property. This was a distance of seven/tenths (7/10) of a mile and based upon the number of clients receiving services, there would be an estimated $100,000.00 in client mileage cost increase. This item was not deemed to be an appropriate consideration by Ooten and was disregarded in his review of the cost analysis performed by the evaluation committee. That cost analysis may be found as part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 2, and includes interlineations by Ooten in his opinion on the subject of the cost analysis. That analysis had indicated an overall advantage of approximately $11,000.00 in favor of Bundschu and was premised upon costs related to Item 12 in the criteria, which criterion is cost of moving. It assumed a difference of over $131,000.00 in moving costs, the majority of which costs pertained to client inconvenience ($100,000.00), discounting $120,000.00 plus dollars related to the difference in the bid amount between the Walco and Bundschu bids which bid estimate was in favor of Walco. Ooten's opinion on the subject of the priority of including $100,000.00 plus dollars in clients' travel costs, when considered in the context of point awards under Item 12 in the criteria, lead Ooten to believe that the differential in point awards would not result in a 9.25 value of Bundschu versus a zero value for Walco. In his mind, the differential would be much less. Ooten made his own evaluation of moving costs per se, and through that process determined that approximately $15,600.00 would be necessary for a move into the Walco facility whereas $5,600.00 would be involved in the Bundschu move, which required the expansion of existing space in the Bundschu facility. Based upon an evaluation of the point differential in the rental rate criterion which was a differential of 2, that is 30 points out of a possible 30 for Walco and 28 points out of a possible 30 for Bundschu, Ooten also opined the this was an unreasonable assessment in view of the fact that the Walco bid amount was more than $120,000.00 less than the Bundschu bid. This taken together with the fact that there only existed approximately a $9,000.00 difference on moving costs between Bundschu and Walco, which was in favor of Bundschu, and there having been indicated a 9.25 out of a possible 10 point difference in Item 12 on the question of costs related to moving, led Ooten to believe that the true factual status of criteria Nos. 1 and 12 was not as depicted by the evaluation committee. Per Ooten, with proper assessment Walco would have received a higher point count than Bundschu through the process of applying the bid criteria, as well as being the lower bidder from the point of view of rental rates alone. After several exchanges with the District level personnel of Respondent who had been involved in the lease evaluation process, in which, on two (2) occasions, the local officials continued to support their initial opinion of the propriety of the award to Bundschu, a decision was made at the District VIII level to support the award of the lease to Walco as may be seen in the January 6, 1982, correspondence from the District Administrator to Missman, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. On January 6, 1982, Ooten issued a letter to the District VIII Administrative Services Director indicating the authority to award Lease No. 590:8026, formerly referred to as No. 590:1472, for the benefit of Walter Lee Johnson d/b/a Walco Leasing Company. Having learned of this decision and in keeping with the provision Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, Bundschu, through counsel, indicated opposition to that award on January 12, 1982, followed by a formal petition letter setting forth grounds for the opposition, which petition was filed on January 19, 1982. This series of documents is part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit, through copies. Subsequently, Items 4 and 6 in the petition letter were resolved between the parties without the necessity of a hearing and this is borne out by a copy of the February 1, 1982, correspondence from counsel for the Respondent to counsel to the Petitioner, part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. The matter was then referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing by correspondence from the Assistant General Counsel for Respondent, dated February 4, 1982, a copy of which may be found as a part of the Hearing Officer's Composite Exhibit. There followed the intervention of Walter Lee Johnson as a party of record and the hearing was held on April 27, 1982. Petitioner's first contention deals with the idea of discounting the lease value based on the value of the "stream of future lease payments." This theory is contended for through Robert Sizemore, C.P.A., expert witness of the Petitioner. He would call for the discount of lease payments on the theory that present dollars will have a discounted value in the future, as the lease period unfolds. Taking into account the method of payment by the Respondent and the vicissitudes involved in attempting to establish the value of today's dollar at a future time, this theory of discounted dollars at a 10 percent or 12 percent rate per annum in succeeding years is not indicated. Assessment through the legislative appropriations process of sufficient funds to meet lease payment demands is not contingent upon the value of the dollar at any given point in the history of the lease. Therefore, the "stream of future lease payments" concept is inapplicable here. Likewise, trying to project the value of today's dollar at some future date is so tenuous as to be an unacceptable method to evaluate the competing lease proposals. Finally, even if this method was used, a 10 percent discount rate for inflation would leave approximately a $67,000.00 difference in the bid proposals and a 12 percent per annum discount rate related to inflation would leave approximately $52,000.00 difference in the bid proposals, in favor of the Walco bid. Petitioner has contended that Respondent failed to properly account for direct moving expenses. In that regard, the calculations made by Ooten on the question of moving expenses as reported above are accepted as fact. As a third claim, Petitioner has alleged the agency s disregard for recommendation of its evaluation committee in making the lease award. While the initial recommendations of the evaluation committee and staff were disregarded, the District Administrator eventually accepted the point of view of the Division of General Services within the Respondent's Department. Moreover, even if the local officials within the Respondent's Department had not accepted Ooten's viewpoint, the initial evaluation committee's development of criteria was flawed and the Ooten perception was correct, leading to a decision in favor of Walco. Finally, the contention by Petitioner that the agency did not seek adequate input from third parties affected by the relocation of the facility was not demonstrated through testimony. The method for review of the proposed lease was acceptable and to the extent that it required an appreciation and response to the needs of others not directly involved in the lease process, it has been amply afforded. Evaluation was in keeping with Respondent's "Facilities, Acquisition and Management Manual, HRSM 70-1, fourth chapter" and the award is based upon concurrence of the Division Director of the General Services Division of HRS pursuant to that chapter. Through argument, counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the fact that in the initial evaluation process set forth in the sixth criterion, superior points of 2.5 for Walco as opposed to 2.25 for Bundschu had been awarded, when in fact the narrative summary of the reasons for such awards indicate an advantage to Bundschu. Even if the .25 points were allowed in the favor of Bundschu, this would not change the result.
Findings Of Fact During March 1988, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid by which it sought to lease 17,973 net usable square feet of office space to be located within a specified geographic area in Tampa, Florida, under a nine year lease with two additional three year option periods. This Invitation to Bid is referred to as Lease Number 590:1927. Three bids were received in response to the Invitation to Bid, and they were opened on May 13, 1988. Bids were received from the Petitioner, 8900 Centre, Ltd., and the Allen Morris Management Company. All bidders were determined to be responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Despite the fact that petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated June 10, 1988, of its intent to award Lease Number 590:1927 to 8900 Centre, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. Petitioner has timely filed its protest seeking review of that decision. It is undisputed that Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. For the first year of the lease, Petitioner bid $7.85 per square foot, while 8900 Centre bid $7.95 per square foot. Thereafter, Petitioner proposed a yearly increase of 50 cents per square foot, reaching $11.85 per square foot in the ninth year of the lease, while 8900 Centre proposed annual increases of approximately 75 cents, reaching $14.00 per square foot in the ninth year. This equates to an actual dollar difference over the nine year term of approximately 185,000. However, using a present value methodology and a present value discount rate of 8.81 percent referred to on page 17 of the bid submittal form, the present value difference in these two bids is approximately $1,000 per month, which would result in a present value difference between Petitioner and 8900 Centre of approximately $108,000 over the nine year period. Neither the Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, nor the actual bids were offered into evidence. One page of the bid submittal form, designated as page 17 of 18, was offered and received in evidence. This portion of the bid submittal form states that the "successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best." It also sets forth evaluation criteria, and assigns weights to each criteria. The evaluation criteria include associated fiscal costs (35 points), location (40 points) and facility factors (25 points) . A synopsis of bids was also offered and received in evidence showing the points awarded to each bidder by the Respondent's bid evaluation committed. Out of a possible 100 points, 8900 Centre received 95.17 points, while Petitioner received 82.25 points and the Allen Morris Management Company received 70.67 points. Petitioner asserts that the members of the evaluation committee were not qualified or knowledgeable in basic construction, design and engineering principles, and therefore could not competently evaluate the bids submitted. However, Petitioner did not offer competent substantial evidence to support this contention. Only the chairperson of the committee, Susan Jennings, was called to testify, and she appeared thoroughly knowledgeable in the bid process, the needs of the agency, the bid requirements and the representations made to the committee members by each bidder, including Petitioner, when the committee made its site visit to each location. Since the actual Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, and evidence about the other committee members were not introduced, it is not possible to know what the specific duties of the committee were, how they were to carry out their duties their qualifications and training, and whether they failed to competently carry out these duties, as alleged by Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's lower bid, Respondent awarded this lease to 8900 Centre, Ltd., based upon the evaluation committee's determination assigning 8900 Centre the highest number of evaluation points. Out of a possible 35 points for fiscal costs, Petitioner received 34 and 8900 Centre received 31.5. Thus, Petitioner's status as low bidder is reflected in the points awarded by the committee. Since neither the bid invitation or specifications were introduced, no finding can be made as to whether the difference between these two bidders comports with any instructions or directions provided by the agency to potential bidders, or whether this difference of 2.5 points on this criteria reasonably reflects and accounts for the dollar difference in these two bids. Petitioner received 34.75 points out of a possible 40 points on the general evaluation criteria "location," while 8900 Centre received the full 40 points. Within this criteria, there were three subcategories, and on the first two subcategories (central area and public transportation) there was an insignificant difference of less than one-half point between Petitioner and 8900 Centre. The major difference between these two bidders which accounts for their significant difference on the location criteria, was in the subcategory of environmental factors, in which Petitioner received 15.17 points and 8900 Centre received the full 20 points. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence to discredit or refute the committee's evaluation in the subcategory of environmental factors. To the contrary, the only testimony from a committee member was that of Susan Jennings, and according to her, Petitioner failed to explain the availability of individual air conditioning and heating controls, or the possibility of separate program entrances, which could be made available under its bid. Although Petitioner sought to explain at hearing that these desires of the agency could be accommodated in its bid, there is no evidence that such an explanation was provided in its bid or during the bid process when the evaluation committee visited the Petitioner's site. The committee was aware, however, that 8900 Centre would provide individual heating and air conditioning controls, as well as separate outside entrances for the three programs which would occupy the leased space. Additionally, the committee was concerned, according to Jennings, that parking areas at Petitioner's facility were more remote and removed from the building entrance than at 8900 Centre, and were somewhat obscured by trees and shrubbery, thereby presenting a potential safety concern for employees working after dark. Finally, every employee would either have a window or window access at 8900 Centre, while it was not explained that Petitioner's site would offer a similar feature. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the evaluation committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for environmental factors to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. The evidence reflects a reasonable basis for this difference. The other significant difference between these two bidders was in the subcategory for layout and utilization under the evaluation criteria "facility." Petitioner received 13.67 points while 8900 Centre received a full 20 points. Jennings explained that the separate outside entrances leading directly into the three programs that would occupy this space was preferred to a single reception area for all three programs. Petitioner offered the single reception area in its bid and site visit presentation, while 8900 Centre made it clear that each program would have its own entrance. Since these programs do not have a receptionist position, and none wanted to give up a secretarial position to serve as receptionist for all three programs, the committee did not consider the single reception area entrance to be desirable. Additionally, Petitioner's facility was a two-story building, while 8900 Centre is a single story facility. Jennings explained that the committee considered a ground level facility to be preferable to a two story building, particularly since the Medicaid program was to occupy the major portion of this space. The Medicaid program would have to be split up at Petitioner's facility, either in two separate buildings or on two levels of the same building, while at 8900 Centre, Medicaid could be accommodated in one, single story building, with the other two programs in a second, single story building. Finally, parking at 8900 Centre was directly next to, and outside the entrance of the building, while Petitioner offered to make assigned spaces available in a general parking area which serves its entire 100,000 square foot complex. The parking offered by Petitioner is more remote than that offered by 8900 Centre, and would be less secure at night due to a greater distance from the building entrances and the parking lot. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for layout and utilization to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. There is a reasonable basis for this difference, according to the evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest to Lease Number 590:1927. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of December 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 88-3765 BID) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted, in part, in Finding of Fact 1, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but Rejected in 7. 6-7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3-4. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5 and 6, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record of this case. Adopted In Findings of Fact 5, 7-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the point difference in this subcategory is insignificant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael V. Giordano, Esquire 7821 North Dale Mabry Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Jack Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Fifth Floor, Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue There are two issues presented by Petitioner, as follows: Was the bid of Intervenor, BDC Deland Ltd., responsive? Was the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), decision to award the bid in this case arbitrary and capricious?
Findings Of Fact HRS issued an invitation to bid (ITB) competitively for Lease No. 590:2438 for approximately 17,568 square feet of office space in Deland, Florida. A three percent variance in the amount of space offered was permitted. The ITB required that all bidders attend a pre-proposal conference because valuable information and explanations would be provided to interest bidders at the conference which were to be complied with by the bidder. Paris and Procacci attended. The requirements included providing 140 assigned (reserved) parking spaces by the bidder for the office's use. See Bid Submittal Form, Page 9 of 25. The requirements contained two provisions directly relating to parking requirements, Paragraphs 11d and 21, and one which is tangentially related concerning compliance with zoning, Paragraph 6. Paragraph 11d provides as follows: Section 11: As part of the bid submittal, bidder are to provide: * * * (d) A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, config- urations and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between the Department an lessor to meet the needs of the Department. (Emphasis supplied.) Paragraph 21 provides as follows: Section 21: Parking: For this facility the Department has determined that a minimum of 140 parking spaces are required to meet its needs. This parking is to be under the control of the bidder, off street, suitably paved and lined. This parking is to be provided as part of the lease cost to the Department. Lessor will grant to the lessee an exclusive right to use 140 parking spaces. Lessor shall submit with this bid submittal a letter certifying that the lessor agrees to the requested number of parking spaces on site, states the number of parking spaces per square foot of space as required by the local zoning jurisdiction and provides a site plan of the parking lot identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces conform to local jurisdiction requirements of number and size, and that the number of parking spaces requested in this invitation can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirement of other tenants. (Emphasis supplied.) * * * Bidder Response: Parking Being Bid Exclusive spaces available on site. See attached site plan. Non-exclusive spaces available on site. Exclusive spaces off site located from the proposed facility (Distance) Bidder must provide recent evidence of control of all parking spaces being proposed. Permis- sion to park is not control. The provisions of Section 21 were included in the lease because HRS had previously had bad experiences with parking availability. Parking, as evidenced by the requirement for a site plan and certificate to be submitted with the proposal, was an important and material provision of the lease. Both Paris and Procacci submitted bid proposals, including site plans, which were deemed responsive by HRS. HRS considered the proposals of both Paris and Procacci, and performed site visits to both properties. In addition, the evaluators were familiar with both properties. Paris's bid was evaluated to be the lowest and best bid, and HRS noticed the bidders of its intent to award the bid to Paris. At that point, Procacci asserted to HRS that Paris' proposal was deficient because it did not meet the parking requirements in terms of the quantity of parking spaces Paris could provide based upon its submittal because of the zoning requirements and impact of the "out parcels" indicated on the site plan which had been submitted. After being contacted by Procacci, HRS inquired of Paris, pursuant to the terms of the RFP, if it was sure it could provide the parking as required and comply with local zoning. HRS also inquired about the status of the out parcels. Paris advised that, although it had intended to try and develop the areas marked as out parcels, it did not have contracts to develop these areas, and that Paris understood that it could provide the number of parking spaces required to HRS and current and future tenants within the local zoning provisions. HRS, through its counsel, checked with the local zoning official, and was advised that Paris had enough space on site to provide parking spaces complying with local codes for HRS, current tenants, and future tenants. The zoning official's estimates were based upon general assumptions about the nature of the future tenants which affected the space required for parking; however, these assumptions were generally consistent with Paris' development plan. HRS was also advised that in developing the out parcels, Paris would have to comply with existing codes including the provisions for parking. Paris was the owner in fee simple of the site upon which the proposed leasehold and parking lot were located. At the time the bid was submitted, the property contained 168,000 gross square feet of leasable space, of which, 66,000 gross square feet were leased to Belk Lindsey, Dollar General, Community Dialysis, a coin laundry, the DeMarsh Theatre, and the Department of Labor. The property had vacant 101,000 gross square feet of which 18,005 gross square feet were being offered to HRS. The existing leases included governmental uses, commercial uses, medical uses, and a theater. The total area of medical uses is limited to medical clinic and the Dialysis Center which had 5,184 square feet. (Only the portion of the Health Department which is clinic is treated as medical office space, and the remainder is treated as governmental use. See Volume IV, Page 568, line 4. The larger figure (5,184) for the clinic's area stated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is utilized for the volume of the clinic instead of Paris' figure of 4,200 square feet.) The total area of governmental uses is 71,336 square feet and includes the Department of Labor (5,000), HRS (18,000), Volusia County Environmental Health (22,277), and Volusia County Health Department (26,059). The total area of commercial uses is 49,016 square feet including Belks (41,490) and Dollar General (7,526). There was a total of 31,624 square feet vacant which Paris planned to lease for government offices. Under city code, the net square area was divided by a factor to arrive at the required parking for each type of use. The factor for the various uses are as follows: Governmental-200 square feet; Commercial-250 square feet; and Medical-100 square feet. The theater would require one space for every two seats and 5 for staff. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Utilizing the areas given above and the code's parking factors given above, the governmental offices less HRS would require 267 parking spaces. HRS would require 140 parking spaces. The clinic/dialysis center would require 52 parking spaces. The commercial uses would require 196 parking spaces, and the 232 seat theater would require 166 parking places. It is inferred that the vacant space was to be rented to governmental activities pursuant to the landlord's plan, and would require 188 parking spaces. A total of approximately 1,010 parking spaces would be required for the entire facility computed on gross areas assuming no future changes in the existing leaseholds and the lease of all the vacant space for government offices. The city code utilizes net area to compute parking excluding rest rooms, halls, etc. However, the estimation using gross figures results in a maximum estimate. Paris certified that the parking spaces were controlled by the bidder, that the parking spaces were on site and in the area indicated on the site plan submitted with the bid, and that 980 parking spaces could be accommodated. Paris' site plan also indicated the area in which the 140 parking spaces for HRS would be located. Other tenant parking was not indicated on the site plan; however, none of the other tenants had assigned parking. Paris calculated that a total of 840 spaces were required using the known data for current leases, 140 spaces for HRS, and a factor of one parking space for every 200 square feet of remaining vacant space. The building official opined that the completely leased facility would require between 750 and 1050 parking spaces, and that there was enough space on site to accommodate the required parking. Other competent evidence was received that between 880 and 1,077 parking spaces meeting code requirements could be placed on the site. Estimates by qualified, knowledgeable people varied based upon assumptions about occupancy and use, whether the lot could be "grandfathered in" and how the parking lot was laid out. There were enough spaces to provide parking for the HRS lease and all of the existing tenants at the time of submission of the bid proposal. However, under the existing code provisions, 140 parking spaces could not be accommodated in the rectangle indicated on Paris' site plan. This is not considered to be a material deviation from specifications because Paris had agreed to provide 140 spaces, the final arrangement and placement of the parking for HRS was subject to further negotiation, and the entire parking lot was subject to being relined. If spaces meeting code requirements would not have fit in the rectangle, Paris would have been required to adjust the size of the rectangle or design of the parking until they did fit. This was relatively easy because the other tenants did not have assigned parking. The RFP provided that the successful bidder would have time to remodel the property and to bring it into compliance with existing codes. This would include the parking facilities as well as the building. The HRS staff made a site visit, and were familiar with the property. They concluded that there was sufficient parking, and that Paris had made a valid, supportable offer. Their conclusion was reasonable given the opinion of the local building official and their personal knowledge of the property. The RFP calls for a performance bond, and permits HRS to cancel the contract if the successful bidder cannot perform under the terms of the bid. Minor deficiencies in the proposals of Procacci and Paris, which are not at issue in this case, were waived. The RFP contained no "fatal" deficiency provisions. The ITB stated that HRS reserved the right to waive minor informalities or technicalities, and seek clarification of bids received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX All of the parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 Irrelevant. Paragraph 3 Paragraph 5,6. Paragraph 4 Argument and conclusions. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7. Paragraph 6 First sentence is contrary to best evidence. Second sentence subsumed in other findings. Third sentence is contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 7,8 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 Irrelevant. Paragraph 10 Subsumed in Paragraph 6, and Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 12 No confusion exists. The terms of the RFP are clear. Paragraph 13 Rejected. There is no requirement to indicate on the site plan "existing" parking, unless it is assigned to an existing tenant. There was no assigned parking for existing tenants. Paragraph 14 Rejected. Paris' letter is based upon assumptions regarding future occupancy and uses; however, the site plan is not based upon those assumptions. Paragraph 15 Irrelevant. Paragraph 16 See comments to Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17 It was confusion for Paris to include parking spaces in areas marked "Future out parcels" on his site plan; however, this was clarified by HRS in its discussions with Paris, which indicated that there were no planned uses for those areas. Paragraph 18 The figure of 937 spaces is not mentioned on either of the two pages referenced. See discussion in Paragraph 19, Findings of Fact. Paragraph 19 Paris did not certify 980 "existing" spaces. He certified that the parking lot could accommodate 980 parking spaces. Paragraph 20 Contrary to facts. The 813 figure was not "identified" by HRS. Further, it is unclear from the reference to what the figure referred. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 et seq. Paragraph 22 See discussion of Paragraph 17, above. Paragraph 23 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 et seq., and Paragraph 13-18. Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 25 Rejected as argument. Use of gross figures increases the number of required spaces; therefore, is not misleading in making estimates of future needs. Paragraph 26 Rejected as argument, and contrary to facts which indicates that HRS did conduct site visits, was familiar with the facilities, and checked challenged information with city building officials. Paragraph 27-29 Irrelevant, and subsumed in Paragraph 8. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2,3,4 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 4. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 7 Irrelevant. Paragraph 8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,13,19. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 10 Subsumed in Paragraph 7. Paragraphs 11,12 Subsumed in Paragraphs 5,19. Paragraphs 13,14 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 15,16 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 18-21 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 22-24 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,23. Paragraph 25 Subsumed 22,24. Paragraphs 26-28 Subsumed in Paragraph 6. Paragraph 29 Subsumed in Paragraph 2. Paragraphs 30,31 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,19. Paragraph 32-34 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraph 34 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 35 Irrelevant. Paragraph 36,37 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraph 15. Paragraph 39 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraphs 40-42 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 43,44 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraphs 45,46 Subsumed in Paragraphs 23-24. Paragraph 47 Paragraph 18. Paragraphs 48,49 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 50,51 Under the terms of the RFP, Paris had the opportunity to bring the facilities into code compliance. Failure to do so was a basis for terminating the contract. See Paragraph 20. Paragraph 52 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 53-60 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10-12. Paragraph 61 Paragraph 19. Paragraph 62 Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 63,64 Conclusions of Law. Intervenor's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 2 6,7 Not necessary to determination of issues. Paragraphs 8i-vii Subsumed in Paragraphs 5,6,8,10,19,21. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 13. Paragraphs 10i-viii, 11i-iv,12i-vi Paragraphs 13-17,21 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 13i-ii Ir-relevant. Paragraph 13iii Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 13iv,v Irrelevant. Paragraphs 15-15iii Paragraphs 8,23. Paragraphs 16i-ii,17 Paragraph 8. Paragraph 18 Paragraph 9. Paragraphs 19,20 Paragraphs 10-12. Paragraphs 21i-v Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 22i-vii Conclusions of Law. Paragraphs 23i-iv Paragraph 19. Paragraph 24 Irrelevant. Paragraph 25 Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 26i-viii Paragraph 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker, and Varkas 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Ellen Phillips, Esquire HRS District 12 Legal Office 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 412 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Robert W. Morrison, Esquire Wells, Allen, Lang and Morrison 340 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
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
The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed award of DCPHU Bid I-90 to the Intervenor, Meyers Parking Systems, Inc., for the management of a parking facility located at 1350 Northwest 14th Street should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact For approximately the last ten years, Kinney has operated the parking lot at the Dade County Public Health Unit building located at 1350 N.W. 14th Street in Miami, Florida (the "Parking Lot") pursuant to a contract with HRS. The existing contract between Kinney and HRS for the management of the Parking Lot was entered in June 1989 and was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1990. That contract included two one-year options to renew. The contract also included a provision that allowed either party to terminate the contract upon thirty days notice. The contracts for management of the Parking Lot in previous years were substantially identical in form to the existing contract. In February of each year, a contract review committee consisting of the head of the administrative services department of the facility (the "Contract Manager') and several other employees of the facility would meet to discuss the Parking Lot contract and to determine whether to renew the contract or rebid it. (This Committee will be referred to as "Parking Lot Committee.") The Contract Manager (whose title has been recently changed to Administrative Services Director) essentially chaired the Parking Lot Committee and appointed the other employees who served on the Committee. For the last ten years the Contract Manager has been responsible for overseeing this contract. During this time, his main contacts at Kinney were Chuck Adams, who was usually at the Parking Lot on a daily basis, and Mr. Adams' supervisor, Ken Deutsch. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams left the employ of Kinney sometime prior to February, 1990. The exact date of their departure was not established. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams now work for Meyers. Kinney's new representative with respect to the Parking Lot contract was Tony Benyon, who assumed those responsibilities on February 1, 1990. Mr. Benyon had previously worked for Meyers and was on the job only twenty two days before the decision was made to rebid the contract. On February 22, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met and determined not to renew the contract with Kinney. At the time this decision was made, the Contract Manager was aware that the former Kinney employees had switched jobs and were now working for Meyers. However, it does not appear that he brought the job changes to the attention of the Parking Lot Committee because at least one member of the Committee was not aware of the job changes. On or about March 23, 1990, HRS issued an invitation to bid for the management and operation of the Parking Lot (the "Invitation to Bid.") Although the evidence did not establish exactly how many time this contract had been bid in the past, it appears that bids were solicited for this contract on at least two prior occasions during the ten years that Kinney had been operating the Parking Lot. On each occasion, the Invitation to Bid form was substantially identical to the form used in March of 1990. Page 6 of the Invitation to Bid requested bidders to submit a resume of their backgrounds. Page 8 of the Invitation to Bid was entitled "Bid Sheet" and required bidders to submit the following information: "(1) Proposal for Operating the Lot; (2) Proposed Rates, (3) Proposed Net Income Distribution." The Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to provide any documentation regarding their financial condition nor did it indicate that prior job performance would be considered in evaluating the bids. The Invitation to Bid contained a provision that "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." Between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the bids were received, the Contract Manager admits that he "probably" had conversations with some of the bidders and responded to questions about the bid. The Contract Manager could not specifically recall any such discussions with potential bidders between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the date the bids were submitted. However, he admitted that it was likely that some discussions took place. Kinney was never advised of any such discussions between the Contract Manager and other potential bidders. Three sealed bids (including proposals from Kinney and Meyers) were received and opened by HRS at a bid opening on April 4, 1990. A fourth bid was disqualified because it was not sealed. The members of the Parking Lot Committee and representatives of the bidders were present at the bid opening. The bid submitted by Kinney proposed a net income distribution to HRS of 82.5 percent with the remaining 17.5 percent being retained by Petitioner. The Kinney bid also contained a specific breakdown of anticipated costs, fees and expenses to be deducted from the projected gross income to achieve projected net income, a resume and a list of references regarding other-lots being managed by the Petitioner in the area. Meyers and Hi-Rise Parking Systems, Inc. ("Hi- Rise") also submitted bids. Both of those bids contained a proposed net income distribution of 90 percent to HRS. Neither the Hi-Rise nor the Meyers' bids contained a resume or a list of local references of other lots being managed by the companies nor did they contain a listing of anticipated costs, fees and expenses. At the bid opening, the Contract Manager indicated that the bids submitted by Meyers and Hi-Rise were the low bids and the Parking Lot Committee would meet to determine how to "break the tie." At this point, Kinney was effectively eliminated from consideration. By letter dated April 10, 1990, the Contract Manager requested additional information from Meyers and Hi-Rise as follows: Company background information including officers, organization and latest financial/management audit; [and] At least three references to include name of contact person, firm, mailing address and telephone number. The Contract Manager did not request any additional information from Kinney or the disqualified bidder. On or about April 16, 1990, Meyers submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. On or about April 17, 1990, Hi-Rise submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. Thus, it is clear that information regarding the financial condition of Meyers and Hi-Rise was not submitted until after the bids were opened. On May 1, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met to discuss the additional information received from Meyers and Hi- Rise. At that meeting, the members of the Committee completed a "bid selection review form" that listed (1) net income distribution (2) references and (3) company management and financial condition as the criteria for evaluation of the bids. The Committee determined that Meyers and Hi--Rise were "tied" in all categories except financial condition. At best, the submitted financial information provides a cloudy picture of Meyers' financial status. The information indicates that Meyers showed an income loss for the year 1988-1989 of $3,670,000. While a large portion of this loss is apparently related to corporate restructuring, it does not appear that any members of the Parking Lot Committee understood or fully considered this financial information nor did they seek to have the submitted financial information reviewed by an accountant. Hi-Rise's financial records indicate that it is a significantly smaller company, but its records indicated a positive cash flow for the preceding year. Notwithstanding these facts, the Committee decided to award the contract to Meyers. This decision was essentially made on the recommendation of the Contract Manager. The bid selection review form stated as follows: Based on bids and additional information provided, the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Team recommended award of DCPH Bid No. I-90 to Meyers Parking System, Inc. On May 9, 1990, HRS provided all interested parties with a notice of its selection of Meyers as the successful bidder. In the Notice of Selection, HRS indicated that Meyers had been selected based on the proposed net income distribution, references, background and financial condition. Petitioner timely filed a protest of the proposed award of the contract. The Parking Lot Committee excluded Kinney from consideration based solely upon the net income distribution percentage. However, since the Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to specify or limit in any way the expenses that could be deducted from gross revenues prior to distributing proceeds to HRS, there was an insufficient basis to accurately evaluate the proceeds that HRS could reasonably expect pursuant to any of the bid proposals. HRS and Meyers have argued that, because HRS has many years experience and expense records relating to the operation of the Parking Lot, the information provided pursuant to the Invitation to Bid provided HRS with sufficient information to make a reasonable evaluation of the financial terms of the proposals. This contention is rejected. To permit such uncertainty and discretion to be built into the bid process would substantially undermine the integrity and dependability of the process. Item 12 on page 6 of the Invitation to Bid required that "bidders will submit a resume of their background and other local lots they are currently managing." No such resume or lists were provided by Meyers. Meyers contends that its response to Item 1 on Page 8 of 8 adequately addressed this requirement. That response provided as follows: PROPOSAL FOR OPERATING LOT. Meyers Parking System, Inc. proposes to operate the Dade County Health department's parking lot with the same high degree of professionalism that we are known for and have demonstrated to our other clients throughout the county. The facility will be managed by trained, uniformed, courteous employees and supervised regularly and closely with our field supervisors and our Regional Vice-President... This statement is not a sufficient response to Item 12 of the Invitation to Bid. During the Parking Lot Committee meeting on February 22, 1990, several complaints were made regarding Kinney's performance under the existing contract. However, no efforts were ever undertaken by HRS to terminate the existing contract with Kinney. While HRS contends that the complaints were part of the reason for deciding to rebid the contract, no steps were taken to disqualify Kinney from bidding on the new contract. In any event, most of the complaints voiced on February 22, 1990 would have been the responsibility of the prior managers of Kinney who now work for Meyers. In February and March of 1990, the disbursements to HRS under the existing contract diminished significantly. This decrease in payments was the result of embezzlement by Kinney employees. While HRS has cited this shortage to justify its decision in awarding the contract to Meyers, there is no evidence that HRS ever attempted to terminate the existing contract nor does it appear that the Parking Lot Committee considered this fact in deciding to eliminate Kinney's bid from consideration. Similarly, the evidence established that there have been problems during the months of March, April and May of 1990 with attendants failing to appear at work on time or leaving the job site. Again, however, there is no indication that HRS attempted to terminate the existing contract or that the Parking Lot Committee relied upon these factors in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration. There have been recurring complaints made to Kinney under the existing contract regarding excessive towing of cars from the Parking Lot. The problem of parking lot attendants ordering cars towed without the permission of HRS has existed off and on for sometime. Even though HRS representatives had voiced complaints about the. towing policies, the evidence indicates that this recurring problem became worse in the late spring and early summer of 1990. Nonetheless, HRS never sought to terminate the existing contract because of the towing problems nor did the Parking Lot Committee rely upon this fact in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for DCPHU Bid I-90 and issue a new Invitation to Bid. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31 day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31 day of October, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before January, 1989, The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide for social services in Haines City, Florida. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease of 9041 square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3%. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given by advertisement in four central Florida newspapers. HRS had prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS' requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of % (Weighting: 30) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 5) Associated moving costs i.e. furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc. (Weighting: 0) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 5) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 20) Facility Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 20) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 15 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100% The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: rental rates environmental factors efficient space layout The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to several hundred people every month. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the influx of people. Because of servicing so many people, factors two and three received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by Intervenor, Unirealty Services, Inc. (bid A), and Petitioners, Messrs. Matthews and Walker (bid B). The bids were opened February 20, 1989, and Mr. Michael T. Akridge, former Facilities Services Manager, District VI HRS, determined both bids were responsive. At the time the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had an option contract to purchase the subject facility, and an authorization from the optionees (two principals of Intervenors) for Unirealty to act as their agent. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committee's choice of lowest and best bid. The purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Six individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. The bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Unirealty was the "lowest and best." The bid evaluation committee consisted of six representatives of the Department who visited each bidders' site and questioned the bidders' representatives. Each of the committee members worked with or supervised HRS programs that were to be located in the leased space. The solicitation for bids provided each bidder, among other things, with the bid evaluation criteria, a 100 point scale, which the committee used to evaluate the bids. Each committee member's evaluation scores were averaged and totaled to score Petitioners at 90.8, and Unirealty at 83.9. Each committee member gave a higher score to Unirealty. The three major bid evaluation criteria were FISCAL COSTS, LOCATION and FACILITY. Under the FISCAL COST criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioners received 30 points out of 30 possible, and Unirealty got 23.1. For Renewal Rates, Petitioners got 5 out of 5 possible points, and Unirealty received 3.7 points. No points were awarded for Moving Costs. The evaluation committee did not assess points for Rental or Renewal Rates. These were scored by Michael T. Akridge, bid manager, based on a present value analysis of bidders' proposed rates. Mr. Akridge did not give the Committee the points for Rental and Renewal Rates until after they had completed their evaluations of the LOCATION and FACILITY criteria. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Central Area-- 10 points--with both bidders receiving 9.3; Public Transportation--5 points-- which both bidders received; and, Environmental Factors--20 points--out of which Petitioners received 12.8 points and Unirealty 20 points. The Environmental Factors sub-category included building physical characteristics and surrounding area and their effect on the efficient and economical conduct of Department operations. Unirealty received a higher score than Petitioner because the committee believed its building had a better appearance, and was in better shape. The area surrounding the building was more open, while Petitioners' building was in a less desirable neighborhood with a bar or liquor store and bus station nearby which could create problems for clients because of transients. It had far more window space which creates a better work environment, and allows staff to be watchful of clients and their children outside, and the windows would be tinted. The windows at Petitioner's site were limited and no more could be added. Unirealty had more adjacent parking spaces, with handicapped parking closer to the building, and part of it was fenced which provided added protection to clients and staff. Petitioners' site had adjacent businesses whose patrons were using some of the parking spaces which the committee felt could create a problem. The Unirealty building could have an outside food stamp issuance facility which would be far more accessible to clients and to make the lobbies less crowded. It had an existing alarm system. It did not have side streets adjacent to the building, thus there would be less traffic congestion and therefore safer for clients; and, it had outside gathering areas where clients could go to smoke. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, Petitioners received 11.8 points out of 20 for Layout/Utilization and Unirealty received 19.7 points; for Single Building, both bidders received 10 points out of 10 possible. For the Layout/Utilization sub-category Unirealty received more points because its building configuration was more flexible and conducive to design of interior space, with less maze effect. The members of the committee each testified that it was important that the Unirealty building had no support poles to get in the way as they did in Petitioners' building. The support poles in Petitioner's building created a safety problem for clients and inhibited the location of desks and corridors. At Unirealty's site each worker could have a window, and mechanical and service areas could be put in the center of the building, with a playroom for clients' children. It provided a better restroom location near the front of Petitioner's building and lobby areas, and clients would not have to wander through work areas to get to the restrooms. Unirealty's building provided better control of clients' movements and thus better security. Members of the committee also upgraded the Unirealty building because its pitched roof was less likely to leak and its air conditioning was zoned thus providing better air quality and temperature control. At Unirealty there was better ingress and egress, and entry ways could be added. This could not be done at Petitioners' site. The Unirealty building could have different entrances for each HRS program, with separate lobbies for each program with less client congestion and better control. During the Committee members inspection of the sites they were told of an existing security alarm system already in place at the Unirealty site and were told that system would remain in place. When asked, the Petitioner's representative was unsure if his client would install a similar system at their site. A security system for the entire building was not included in the bid specifications, and it was improper for the committee to give Unirealty extra points for this unsolicited item. The proposed lease agreement calls for 9041 square feet of office space and a minimum of 66 parking spaces. Unirealty offered 72 parking spaces and Petitioner offered 75. The committee awarded more evaluation points to the Unirealty site based on future expansion capability of the building and the existing additional on-site parking spaces which were visible at the site at the time of inspection. The committee erroneously believed that the extra square footage of building space and extra parking spaces would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was not in the bid specifications and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The evaluation committee included the improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the Unirealty property. The two improper factors cannot be considered here. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was clearly to award the lease to the Intervenor. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Petitioners presented greater problems for design and flexibility due to the rectangular configuration of the building. The other consideration was that the physical characteristics of the Unirealty site and the surrounding area were considered far superior to the Petitioner's site. A close review of each evaluation sheet and the testimony of each committee member at the hearing shows that the improper factors were not so heavily weighted as to invalidate the committee recommendation. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after inspection of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Intervenor's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Intervenor's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. Over an eight year period the Petitioner's rental cost was significantly lower than the Intervenor's. However, it is clear the legitimate considerations of the committee were crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder. The conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. After the committee recommendation was scored and tabulated, Mr. Akridge requested the committee chair, Ms. Gail Newell, to prepare a draft letter of the proposed bid award. This was done in collaboration with the other committee members. Mr. Michael T. Akridge then prepared the bid award letter for the signature of the Administrative Services Director based on the draft letter. In it the two improper considerations were mentioned. The authority to award the lease to Unirealty was approved on March 8, 1989, by King W. Davis, Director of General Services for HRS based on the bid award letter, dated February 26, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:2057 to Unirealty Services, Inc., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39 (in part), 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 81, 83 (in part) are adopted in substance in so far as material. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 37, 73, 74, 80 are rejected as conclusions of law. Paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 44, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 72, 75, 778, 82, are rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66 are rejected assubordinate or immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1-17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Matthews, Jr. 2405 Hideaway Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire HRS District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Neal A. Sivyer, Esquire Paul J. Ullom, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P. A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
