The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September 2002.
Findings Of Fact In February 1994 the School Board, by and through its design consultants, W. R. Frizzell Architects, Inc., and, more particularly, its project architect, Byron Tramonte, issued plans, specifications, and related contract documents associated with additions, remodeling, and reroofing of John F. Kennedy Middle School, Palm Beach County, Florida. At a pre-bid conference conducted at the project job site attended by representatives of the School Board, its consultants, as well as representatives of Petitioner, Respondent, and Intervenor, among others, Petitioner's Greg Hill questioned the sufficiency of the drawings with respect to the earth work requirements associated with Alternate 1. As a result of this inquiry, the owner's design consultant issued Addendum 2 (including an as-built drawing) dated February 23, 1994, which was ". . . made available for grading estimates." The drawing attached to Addendum 2 had two sets of elevation numbers on it. One set of elevation numbers were underlined. The clearest of the underlined numbers were difficult to read. Many of the underlined numbers were impossible to read. The other set of elevation numbers on the subject drawing were boxed. The boxed numbers were all clear and legible. In view of the purpose for which the drawing was attached to Addendum 2, the most logical interpretation of the drawing was that the boxed elevation figures represented the existing elevations. The drawing attached to Addendum 2 also included some circled handwritten information. In large letters the circled information read: "JFK MIDDLE SCHOOL AS BUILT EXIST. ELEV." Immediately below in smaller letters it read: "Note: The 2 softball fields were not constructed. 2/23/94." The circled handwritten information was to some extent ambiguous. But it was an ambiguity that could be resolved by careful site inspection. Careful site inspection would have revealed that the boxed numbers corresponded to existing site conditions and that the underlined numbers, to the extent they were legible, did not. Petitioner's Vice President Greg Hill was primarily responsible for the preparation of the portion of the Petitioner's bid relating to Alternate 1. Greg Hill visited the job site during the prebid conference and also visited the job site on one other occasion after receiving Addendum 2, but before submitting the Petitioner's bid. Greg Hill is an experienced estimator with respect to matters involving the type of work encompassed by Alternate 1. In spite of his experience and in spite of his two pre-bid site visits, Greg Hill misinterpreted the architect's intent and used the underlined elevations on the drawing attached to Addendum 2 as a basis for estimating portions of the work associated with Alternate 1. As a result of this mistake Greg Hill reached erroneous conclusions about the amount of fill that would be required and substantially overestimated the amount of fill. This mistake caused the Petitioner's bid for Alternate 1 to be somewhat higher than it would have been if Greg Hill had based his estimates on the boxed elevation numbers. A similar mistake was made by CSR Heavy Construction-North, Inc., a company that was seeking work as a subcontractor on Alternate 1. On the last day for submitting bids on the subject project, the Intervenor received an unsolicited bid from CSR Heavy Construction-North, Inc., to perform some or all of the work encompassed by Alternate 1. CSR's bid was much higher than the Intervenor's proposed bid for that work, which caused the Intervenor's President to become worried that perhaps he had misinterpreted the drawings attached to Addendum 2. Intervenor's President called the School Board Architect and asked for confirmation of his interpretation to the effect that the bidders should base their estimates on the boxed elevation numbers on the drawing attached to Addendum 2. The architect confirmed that the Intervenor's President had correctly interpreted the drawing. The architect did not call any other potential bidders to tell them they should use the boxed numbers because he thought it was obvious that all potential bidders should use the boxed numbers. The bids for the subject project were opened on March 3, 1994. The Petitioner was the apparent responsive low bidder for the base bid. The Intervenor was the apparent responsive low bidder taking together the base bid and the bids on Alternates 1 and 2. The School Board published notice of its intent to award a contract to the Intervenor for the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2. The Instructions To Bidders portion of the subject bid specifications included the following provisions: BIDDER'S REPRESENTATIONS: Each Bidder, by making his Bid, represents that he has read and understands the Bidding Documents. Each Bidder, by making his Bid, represents that he has visited the site and familiarized himself with the local conditions under which the Work is to be performed. BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * 3.11 Familiarity with Laws: The Bidder is assumed to be familiar with all Federal, State and Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, that in any manner affect the Work. Public Contracting and Purchasing Process Florida Statute, Section 287.132-.133 (Public Entity Crimes) is applicable. Ignorance on the part of the Bidder will in no way relieve him from responsibility. * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. * * * BID PROTEST PROCEDURES: * * * 10.02 The Bid Documents/"Advertisement tol Bid" will be posted in the office of thel Department of Capital Projects at the time of the solicitation to Contractors. Any person who is affected adversely with respect to the Bid Documents shall file a notice of protest in writing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the Bid Documents, and SHALL FILE A FORMAL WRITTEN PROTEST WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE DATE HE FILED THE NOTICE OF PROTEST. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120. It is important to the proper functioning of the public works bidding process that all bidders be treated alike. To this end, important information furnished to one potential bidder should be furnished to all other potential bidders.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of the Petitioner and awarding a contract to the Intervenor for the base bid and Alternates 1 and 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May 1994. APPENDIX The following rulings are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings submitted by Petitioner. Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 6: Rejected as not completely accurate. The practices described are common, but not universal. Drawings usually have a legend to explain the difference between existing elevations and elevations to be achieved. Paragraph 7: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected as constituting inferences or arguments not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11: Accepted in substance, but with some modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraph 12: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted in part. Accepted that if the Petitioner had used the boxed elevation numbers, it's proposal on Alternate 1 would probably have been substantially lower. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as speculation Paragraph 14: Rejected as not fully supported by competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting primarily argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. To the extent the material in this paragraph purports to be factual, it tends to be contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence is to the effect that there were no ambiguities in Addendum 2 that could not have been resolved by careful site inspection. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 18: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; careful site inspection would have confirmed that the boxed numbers represented the existing elevations. Paragraph 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as speculative and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 21: Rejected as constituting a proposed ultimate conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact, and as, in any event, a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence. Findings submitted by Respondent. Paragraphs 1 through 8: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 12: Rejected as constitution a proposed ultimate conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. (The conclusion is warranted, but it is a conclusion nevertheless.) Findings submitted by Intervenor: (No separate proposals; the Intervenor adopted the proposed findings of the Respondent.) COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Rosillo, Esquire School Board of Palm Beach County 3318 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C-302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Alan C. Brandt, Jr., Esquire Leiby, Ferencik, Libanoff and Brandt Suite 400 150 South Pine Island Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33324 Richard B. Warren, Esquire Kelley, Aldrich & Warren, P.A. 801 Spencer Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
The Issue The issue in this bid protest is whether Respondent acted arbitrarily when it decided to reject all of the bids it had received in response to a solicitation seeking bids on a contract for roof repairs.
Findings Of Fact On January 10, 2008, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the "Department" or "DEP") issued an Invitation to Bid (the "ITB"), the purpose of which was to solicit competitive bids from qualified contractors on a project whose scope of work envisioned repairs to the wind-damaged roofs of several buildings located on the grounds of the Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Some of the buildings to be repaired were single-family residences. Work on these structures accordingly needed to conform to the requirements prescribed in the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the "Manual"), which the Florida Building Commission (the "Commission"), following an explicit legislative directive, see Section 553.844(3), Florida Statutes,1 recently had adopted, by incorporative reference, as a rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2007).2 The Rule had taken effect on November 14, 2007, giving the Manual's contents the same status and force as the Florida Building Code. Id. Just before the Department issued the ITB, the Commission had approved, at a meeting on January 8, 2008, a modified version of the Manual, which it called the 2007 Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures, Version 2 (the "Revised Manual"). In consequence of the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual, the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") caused a Notice of Proposed Rule Development to be published on January 25, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This official advertisement announced that the Commission intended to amend Rule 9B-3.0475, so that its incorporative reference would mention the Revision Manual instead of the Manual. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 461-62 (Jan. 25, 2008).3 DCA caused a Notice of Proposed Rule respecting the intended revision of Rule 9B-3.0475 to be published on February 1, 2008, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. See 34 Fla. Admin. W. 605 (Feb. 1, 2008).4 On February 5, 2008, the Department issued Addendum No. 4 to the ITB (the "Addendum"). The Addendum provided in pertinent part as follows: Bidders shall bid the project as specified despite the recent change in Rule 9B-3.0475 relating to hurricane mitigation retrofits. Any additional water barrier will be accomplished by Change Order after award of the contract. (The foregoing provisions of the Addendum will be referred to hereinafter as the "Directive"). On February 12, 2008, the Department opened the bids it had received in response to the ITB. Ten (out of 12) of the bids submitted were deemed responsive. The bid of Petitioner Spinella Enterprises, Inc. ("Spinella") was one of the acceptable bids. On February 19, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to award a contract to the lowest bidder, namely Spinella, which had offered to perform the work for $94,150. The second lowest bidder was The Bookhardt Group ("Bookhardt"). Bookhardt timely protested the intended award, raising several objections, only one of which is relevant here. In its formal written protest, dated March 3, 2008, Bookhardt alleged that "[t]he new State of Florida law F.S. 553.844 was not part of the solicitation." On April 4, 2008, Rule 9B-3.0475, as amended to incorporate by reference the Revised Manual, took effect. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9B-3.0475 (2008). On May 16, 2008, DEP posted notice of its intent to reject all bids received in response to the ITB. (Bookhardt's protest, which remained pending, had never been referred to DOAH for a formal hearing.) Spinella timely protested the Department's decision to reject all bids. In an email sent to Spinella on July 22, 2008, DEP's counsel explained the rationale behind the decision: The reason the Department rejected all bids follows. When the Department posted the notice of intent to award the contract to Spinella Enterprises, Inc., the second low bidder (Bookhardt Roofing) protested the intent to award. The second low bidder's basis for protesting the intended award was that Addendum 4 directed bidders to ignore certain rules of the Construction Industry Licensing Board [sic], which had become effective after the bid opening, which was not in accordance with the law. As a result, this may have caused confusion and the Department had no assurance that bidders were bidding the project correctly. In addition, the statement in Addendum 4 that the Department would add the required moisture barrier afterward by change order set up a situation where bidders had no idea how much the Department would be willing to pay for the change order. Further, the moisture barrier was not the only thing required by the new rules. Potential bidders may not have bid due to these uncertainties. The Department agreed with Bookhardt's assertions and rejected all bids . . . . Notwithstanding Spinella's protest, the Department issued a second invitation to bid on the project in question. As of the final hearing, the bids received in response to this second solicitation were scheduled to be opened on August 12, 2008. Ultimate Factual Determinations The Department's decision to reject all bids is premised, ultimately, on the notion that the Directive told prospective bidders to ignore an applicable rule in preparing their respective bids.5 If this were true, then the Directive could have been a source of potential confusion, as the Department argues, because a prudent bidder might reasonably hesitate to quote a price based on (possibly) legally deficient specifications. The Directive, however, did not instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule. Rather, under any reasonable interpretation, it instructed bidders to ignore a proposed rule and follow existing law. Such an instruction was neither confusing nor inappropriate. To be sure, the first sentence of the Directive——at least when read literally——misstated a fact. It did so by expressing an underlying assumption, i.e. that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been changed, which was incorrect. In fact, as of February 5, 2008, the Rule was exactly the same as it had always been. (It would remain that way for the next two months, until April 6, 2008).6 DEP's misstatement about the Rule might, conceivably, have confused a potential bidder, at least momentarily. But DEP did not factor the potential for such confusion into its decision to reject all bids, and no evidence of any confusion in this regard was offered at hearing.7 More important is that the unambiguous thrust of the Directive was to tell bidders to rely upon the "not recently changed" Rule 9B-3.0475, which could only have meant Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 (2007) as originally adopted, because that was the one and only version of the Rule which, to that point, had ever existed. Thus, even if the Department were operating under the mistaken belief, when it issued the Addendum, that Rule 9B-3.0475 recently had been amended; and even if, as a result, DEP thought it was telling prospective bidders to ignore an applicable, existing rule, DEP nevertheless made clear its intention that prospective bidders follow the original Rule 9B- 3.0475, which was in fact the operative Rule at the time, whether or not DEP knew it. Indeed, as any reasonable potential bidder knew or should have known at the time of the Addendum, (a) the Commission recently had approved the Revised Manual, but the contents thereof would not have the force and effect of law unless and until the Revised Manual were adopted as a rule, which had not yet happened; (b) the Commission had initiated rulemaking to amend Rule 9B-3.0475 so as to adopt the Revised Manual as a rule, but the process was pending, not complete; (c) Rule 9B-3.0475 had not been amended, ever; and, therefore, (d) the Manual still had the force and effect of law. See endnote 6. The Directive obviously could not alter or affect these objective facts. At bottom, then, a reasonable bidder, reviewing the Directive, would (or should) have concluded either (a) that the "recent change" which DEP had in mind was the Commission's approval of the Revised Manual (or the subsequent announcement of the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475) or (b) that DEP mistakenly believed the Rule had been changed, even though it had not been. Either way, a reasonable bidder would (or should) have known that the Department wanted bidders to prepare their respective bids based not on the Revised Manual, but the Manual. In other words, regardless of what DEP subjectively thought was the existing law, DEP clearly intended (and unambiguously expressed its intent) that bidders follow what was, in fact, existing law. This could not have confused a reasonable bidder because, absent an instruction to exceed the minimum required legal standards (which the Directive was not), a reasonable bidder would have followed existing law in preparing its bid, just as the Directive required. Once it is determined that the Directive did not, in fact, instruct bidders to ignore an applicable, existing law, but rather told them to rely upon the applicable, existing law (notwithstanding that such law might change in the foreseeable future), the logic underlying the Department's decision to reject all bids unravels. Simply put, there is no genuine basis in logic or fact for concluding that the Addendum caused confusion. The other grounds that DEP has put forward do not hold water either. Contrary to the Department's contention, the possibility that a Change Order would be necessary if an "additional water barrier" were required could not possibly have confused potential bidders or caused them to be uncertain about how much money the Department would be willing to pay for such extra work. This is because Article 27 of the Construction Contract prescribes the procedure for entering into a Change Order, and it specifies the method for determining the price of any extra work. See ITB at 102-05. The fact that the proposed amendment to Rule 9B-3.0475, if it were to be adopted and become applicable to the instant project, might require other additional work, besides a water barrier, likewise could not reasonably have caused potential bidders to refrain from bidding, for the same reason: The Construction Contract contains explicit provisions which deal with the contingency of extra work or changes in the work. Id. In sum, DEP's intended decision to reject all bids cannot be justified by any analysis that a reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar importance. It is, therefore, arbitrary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that its decision to reject all bids was arbitrary. Because the Department elected not to comply with the statutory directive to abate this procurement pending the outcome of Spinella's protest, with the result that the contract at issue possibly has been awarded already to another bidder; and because the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is ultimately within the agency's discretion, the undersigned declines to make a recommendation regarding the means by which DEP should rectify the harm to Spinella, but he urges that other appropriate relief be granted if Spinella cannot be awarded the contact. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On March 15, 1988, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) number DOF-ADM-48. The Invitation to Bid's purpose was to secure a contractor to service and install water filters on private drinking water wells located in eight counties within the State of Florida. The filters were required to be installed by the Department for the removal of ethylene dibromide (EDB) from contaminated drinking water obtained from private wells. EDB is a constituent of pesticides and is a suspected carcinogen. The filter systems operate by running the water through a tank containing a pleated paper filter similar to a coffee filter. The pleated paper filter contains granular activated carbon (GAC). The GAC absorbs impurities such as EDB. The water is also passed through a sterilizer unit. The sterilizer unit disinfects the water by bombarding it with ultraviolet light. For instances of heavy pollution the water may be filtered through a double tank system or require pretreatment with another media filter in order to remove more concentrated impurities from the water. The Department sent its ITB to a number of vendors. The ITB invited the submittal of bids and set a bid ending date of April 27, 1989. The bid included the standard State of Florida Invitation to Bid Bidder Acknowledgment form, number PUR 7028, also referred to as a "yellow sheet." The acknowledgment form provides spaces for the vendor to list identify information and to sign the bid. It also sets forth, general conditions applicable to the bidding process. Among the General Conditions contained on the yellow sheet is General Condition 4(d) which states:,, It is understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped as a result of this bid shall be a new, current standard production model available at she time of the bid. ... Further, General Condition 7 provides: Any Manufacturers' names, trade names brand names, information and or catalog numbers listed in a specification are for information and not intended to limit competition. The bidder may offer any brand for which he is an authorized representative which meets or exceeds the specifications for any items(s). If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer's name and number. ... The ITB also contained a number of terms, specifications and special conditions geared towards the specific purpose of the contract. These included the following Additional Bid Conditions: PROOF OF EQUIVALENCY: Vendor shall provide written, documented proof of equivalency for their equipment where it differs from the named brands and equipment specified in the bid specifications. EQUIPMENT, COMPONENTS, SPECIFICA- TIONS AND DOCUMENTATION: Vendor shall provide full documentation and specifications on all equipment and components to be used in providing the GAC filter systems and maintenance as specified in the bid. In this case, proof of equivalency of equipment is important to maintain the integrity of the water filter systems, and to insure cost-effectiveness in servicing the system. The bid specification also contained civic requirements for the GAC. The GAC specifications governed such items as moisture content, particle size and distribution absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity was measured by an iodine number. An "iodine number" reflects the milligrams of iodine absorbed per gram of carbon. The higher thin iodine number, the more absorptive the carbon. In this case, the GAC requirements ware as follows: Granular activated carbon, with thee exception of the standards below, shall comply with the "American Water Works Association Standard for Granular Activated Carbon" (AWWAC B604-54). The GAC standards are as follows: Impurities - No soluble compounds should be present that are capable of causing adverse effects on the health of the consumer. Moisture - Shall not exceed two (2) percent by weight of listed container contents. Apparent Density - Shall be 28.5 - 31.0 pounds/cubic foot. Particle size distribution - should range between U.S. standard sieve size NO. 8 and NO. 30. A maximum of 15% of the particles can exceed 8 in size and a maximum of 4% can, be less than NO. 30 in size. Abrasion Resistance - Retention of average particle size shall not be less than 75 percent as determined by either the stirring abrasion or the RO-Tap abrasion test. Adsorptive Capacity - The "iodine number shall not be less than 950 or equivalent adsorptive capacity. The GAC must be packed and rinsed at the successful vendor's facilities not at the well site. Virgin GAC must be stored in facilities that will protect it from weather and vandalism. The Department had used a GAC manufactured by Ceca Division of Atochem, Inc. The carbon was known as Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. GAC 30WE had consistently met the Department's requirements. Atochem labelled or named the carbon, "GAC 30WE," because it met certain product quality standards and in order to differentiate the carbon from other types of GACs it manufactures, such as GAC 830WE. GAC 830WE is the same size carbon particle as GAC 30WE, but it has a lower adsorptive capacity, i.e., iodine, than 30WE. About two years prior to this bid, Atochem quit intentionally manufacturing she carbon it labelled Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. At that time the current contractor, Continental, unilaterally, and without informing the Department, substituted another GAC for Cecacarbon GAC 30WE. The Department therefore has been using a GAC of unknown manufacture for the past two years without complaint. Section II of the ITB indicated that the UVL disinfectant light source "must be an Aquafine Model NO. DW-400 or its equivalent." It further stated that the water flow meter required as apart of the filter system must be "a badger Model 15 The ITB required that specifications for the individual equipment components "MUST BE PROVIDED WITH YOUR BID OR THE BID WILL BE DECLARED INCOMPLETE AND INELIGIBLE FOR CONSIDERATION." Section III of the ITB, concerning the "Type II" systems (those consisting of two filter tanks), contained the same provisions as to UVL sterilizer units, water meters and component specifications as Section II. The Aquafine DW-400 was the UVL system currently being used by the Department's contractor. The ITB also contained a pricing sheen for vendors to list unit prices on 20 different components of the filter system. By multiplying the unit price by the Department's estimate of the respective numbers needed of each limited component, a total bid price was arrived at by the bidder. On April 17, 1989, the Department issued the first addendum to the ITB. Addendum number 1 changed the estimated number of pleated paper filters on the pricing sheet from 6500 to 10,200. A new bid opening date of May 23, 1989 was bet. On May 23 1989, the Department issued the second addendum to the ITB. In addition to establishing a new bid opening date of June 21, 1989, the second addendum made several substantive changes. It required bidders to submit with their bid an EDB isotherm for the GAC medium being bid by each bidder. An isotherm is a graph showing the adsorptive capability of the GAC. Since the Department would have no knowledge of the performance capabilities of a previously unused carbon, the EDB isotherm was "critical" where the carbon proposed for use had not been used on a Department contract before. For a known GAC, i.e. one the Department had used before, the isotherm was not material. The second addendum also changed the "designated model number for the water meter from the Badger Model 15 or equivalent to the Badger Model 25L or equivalent. The water meter model number was changed because the Badger model 15 was no longer being produced. Additionally, the model number of the freeze housing was changed from the "AMTEK big blue filter" to the "AMTEK NO. 20 or equivalent." The freeze housing was made an optional component of the bid. The third addendum, dated June 13, 1989, reinstated the freeze housing as a required component of the budget but provided that the housing could be of either fiberglass or aluminum construction. It also clarified the testing required to justify installation of a media filter on a system, and clarified that upgrades of systems from Type I to Type II. A new bid opening date of June 28, 1989 was set. Due to the entry of a temporary restraining order by a circuit court judge, the June 28, 1989, bid opening did not transpire. When the restraining order was later lifted, the Department issued Addendum IV, which set a bid opening date of September 28, 1989, and which gave bidders who had submitted bid prior to the June entry of the restraining order the opportunity to submit a new bid. Petitioner, Continental Water Systems, Inc., (Continental) a Florida corporation, timely submitted a bid of $895,877.50 to the Department in response to the Department's Invitation to Bid. Intervenor, Global Marketing, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, doing business in the State of Florida, timely submitted a bid of $784,431.50 to the Department in response to the Department's Invitation to Bid Number DOF-ADN- 48. Petitioner and Intervenor were the only two bids submitted. The Department made a preliminary determination that both bids were responsive, and posted its bid tabulation on October 30, 1989. Global was the apparent low bidder and was awarded the contract by the Department. In its bid, Global indicated that it would use the Aquafine DW-400 UVL sterilizer unit and the Badger Model 15 water meter. It also indicated that it would use Cecarbon GAC 30WE. Global did not include an EDB isotherm with its bid. Continental's bid included specifications for both the Aquafine DW-400 and a UVL system manufactured by "Ultra Dynamics Corporation known as Model Number DW-15. For the GAC, Continental bid Alamo ABG-CWF a GAC medium manufactured by Calgon as Filtrasorb 300 GAC. The bid contained an EDB isotherm for the GAC product. It also included specification sheets showing its intent to use a Badger Model 25L water meter. Unknown to the Department, the Aquafine Corporation no longer produces the DW-400 UVL sterilizer unit as a standard production model. It ceased production of this model in June or July of 1989. It has enough materials on hand to produce another 45 to 50 units. Aquafine is under contract to sell those units to Continental. If requested to produce more DW-400's, Aquafine might again manufacture the DW-400. However, Aquafine would not begin such production unless ban order for at least 1000 units was made. At present, Aquafine manufactures only one model for drinking water systems. The model is the DW-8. No specifications were included in Global's bid for the DW-8 or any other potentially equivalent sterilizer unit from another manufacturer. In this case, the bid specifications clearly list the DW-400 as an acceptable submission. The evidence did not show that the DW-400 was no longer available, even though the model was no longer being produced. There is no newer prototype of the DW-400. A contract, which an ITB constitutes the offer portion of, must be interpreted to give effect to all of its language and clauses. Therefore, the specific reference to the DW-400 as an acceptable submission must be given effect as an exception to the general requirement that "any item offered or shipped . . . be a new, current, standard production model . . . Since Continental did not challenge the bid specifications in regard to the UVL system, the complaint of non-responsiveness. . . cannot be heard now. Global therefore was responsive to the Department's ITB on the UVL component of its bid. When the Department learned that the Badger Model 15 water meter was no longer being manufactured it decided to change its specifications due to the change in production. The specifications were changed from the "Badger Model 15 or equivalent" to the "Badger Model 25 or equivalent." Global's bid did not list the Badger Model 25, but listed she Badger Model 15. However, Continental did not preserve the issue regarding the responsiveness of Global's bid on the water meter in its Formal Written Protest. Therefore, no findings are made regarding the responsiveness of Global's bid on the water meter component. The heart of the whole filter system is the GAC. The carbon proposed to be used by Global, Cecarbon GAC 30 WE, is no longer produced by the manufacturer. It has not been in production since 1987. Global and the Department did Introduce into evidence a faxed copy of a letter from an Atochem sales representative indicating that an amount of GAC 830 carbon would be available "until the end of 1989" to meet the Department's bid specifications. However, GAC 830 is not the same product as that bid by Global and does not have the same manufacturing standards as the GAC 30WE bid by Global. Neither does Atochem now intentionally produce a carbon that meets the specifications for DOF-ADM-48. Specifically, Atochem does not produce a carbon with an 8 x 30 mesh size that has a minimum iodine number of 950. The 8 x 30 mesh size carbon that Atochem produces, GAC 30, has an iodine number of 900 to 920. Due to variation in the capabilities of different lots of GAC 830, some lots may have a 950 iodine number. The evidence did not show whether the company tests its GAC 830 beyond its manufacturing standards. Nor did the evidence show whether a higher adsorpting GAC 830 lot is available. A letter from a sales representative that such a lot is available does not rise to the level of competent evidence which would support the conclusion that Global had materially meet the Department's ITB on the GAC element. At a minimum the Department or Intervenor would have had to bring the Company's documentation, including an isotherm, for that particular GAC lot to demonstrate responsiveness for a product labelled with a name which carries a lower adsorptive standard. The only carbon manufactured by Atochem which has a minimum iodine number exceeding 950 is a different size carbon. This carbon has a mesh size of 12 x 40, and thus does not meet the DOF-ADN-48 specifications. Both the Aquafine sterilizer unit and the Ultra Dynamics units, bid by Continental, meet the specifications for this ITB. The GAC bid by Continental meets the specifications for this ITB. This particular carbon has also been accepted by the Department for use by continental on a previous Department contract in January 1988, where the specifications for the carbon were identical to those applicable here. Continental did submit an EDB isotherm. Global's bid was not responsive to the ITB. It offered a carbon element which is no longer in production. It will have to substitute another GAC not identified in its bid in order to perform under the contract. Global provided no technical literature with its bid to establish the equivalency of any other GAC. Additionally Global did not provide an EDB isotherm for the carbon it planned on using from Atochem. These omissions were material. Global's bid therefore cannot be said to be responsive to the Department's ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order awarding the bid to Petitioner as the lowest and best bid. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 17th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NUMBER 89-6372BID The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraph 27 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the parts pertaining to the UVL systems unresponsiveness. The facts contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 to Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 4, 8 and 9 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez, and Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Clinton Coulter, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James C. Barth, Esquire Callahan, Barth & Dobbins 5374 Highway 98 East, Suite C-1 Destin, Florida 32541 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Facts based on stipulation These proceedings concern Petitioner's Bid Protest in connection with that certain project known as Chiller Installation, Glades Campus, Project NO. 9237, PBCC No. 6812. Petitioner has taken all steps necessary to perfect its bid protest in a timely manner and has standing to bring this bid protest. Petitioner and Respondent met and were unsuccessful in an attempt to resolve the bid protest as required by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. M. K. Mechanical, Inc., a Florida corporation, is a State of Florida Certified Mechanical Contractor and as such was a "Qualified Bidder." The original specifications for the subject project contained few electrical specifications and were silent as to how an electrical contractor was to be licensed. The bid was due on Tuesday, January 12, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. On Friday, January 8, 1993, at 3:42 p.m., via facsimile transmission, M. K. Mechanical, Inc., received supplementary electrical specifications, thirty (30) pages in length. Contained in these supplementary specifications, for the first time, was a requirement that the electrical subcontractor had to be "locally" licensed. M. K. Mechanical, Inc.'s, primary place of business is in Edgewater, Volusia County, Florida. M. K. Mechanical, Inc.'s, submitted bid was proper in all respects other than an electrical subcontractor's name was not given, instead "to be determined" was inserted. M. K. Mechanical, Inc., submitted the lowest bid. Electrical subcontractor is a "major" subcontractor on this project. The sole basis for the decision by Respondent that Petitioner's bid was "non-responsive" was the failure to list an electrical subcontractor. Additional facts regarding bid specifications The bid specifications include the requirement that bidders list all "major subcontractors" and that the category of "major subcontractors" includes electrical subcontractors. Section 5.2.1 of the Contract Documents within the Bid Specifications provides as follows: Unless otherwise required by the Contract Documents or the Bidding Documents the Contractor at the bid opening shall furnish to the Owner and Architect Form 00420, a written list of the major Subcontractors; Site Utilities, Structural Concrete, Masonry, Structural Steel & Steel Joists, Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical and Roofing, who he proposes to use on this work.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Palm Beach Community College enter a Final Order in this case denying the protest of the Petitioner, M. K. Mechanical, Inc., and awarding the contract in Project No. 9237, PBCC No. 6812 to the Intervenor, Hill York Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sid C. Peterson, Jr., Esquire DeLoach & Peterson, P.A. Post Office Box 428 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 33170 James M. Adams, Esquire Gibson & Adams, P.A. Post Office Box 1629 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Herbert L. Dell, President Hill York Corporation Post Office Box 350155 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33335 The District Board of Trustees Palm Beach Community College 4200 Congress Avenue Administration Building Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Attention: Mr. Dick Jones
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent properly rejected the bid of Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued on February 28, 1990, an invitation to bid concerning the installation of bleachers at a high school ("ITB"). The ITB was duly advertised. Among the bidders was Interkal, Inc., which is a manufacturer of bleachers. The Interkal bid, which was timely submitted, was executed by its president. The Interkal bid contained a bid bond naming Interkal as principal and a certification from the secretary of Interkal reflecting a corporate resolution authorizing the execution of all bid documents on behalf of Interkal by its corporate officers. The Interkal bid disclosed two subcontractors. The supplier was shown as Interkal, and the erector was shown as Petitioner. Petitioner is the authorized factory representative for Interkal in Florida. As such, Petitioner solicits business and installs and removes bleachers on behalf of Interkal. As compensation, Petitioner receives commissions for such work from Interkal. However, the shareholder and chief executive officer of Petitioner is not a shareholder or officer of Interkal. In addition, Petitioner is not authorized to execute bid documents on behalf of Interkal. Petitioner is no more than a Subcontrator of Interkal. The bidder in this case was Interkal, not Petitioner, even though Petitioner handled much of the paperwork or its manufacturer. When an unrelated bidder was awarded the contract, Petitioner filed a formal written protest in its name. Interkal has not participated as a party in the subject proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of Diversified Design Enterprises. ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned N. Julian Stenstrom, McIntosh, et al. P.O. Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772-1330 William Merkel, President Diversified Design Enterprises 321 N.E. Second Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Robert W. Hughes, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 1211 Mellonville Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
The Issue Whether the decision by the State of Florida, Department of Corrections (DOC) to reject all bids received in response to Request For Proposal 93-RIVHSD- 075 (RFP) was arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, illegal or dishonest. Additionally, Intervenor challenges Petitioner's standing to bring this proceeding since Bio-Medical Applications, Petitioner's wholly-owned subsidiary corporation, submitted the bid at issue and because Petitioner would not be a party to any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP.
Findings Of Fact Standing In its response to the Request For Proposal at issue in this proceeding, Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. (BMA) provides the following regarding vendor name and address: Vendor Name: Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. Vendor Mailing Address: c/o National Medical Care, Inc. 1601 Trapelo Road Walthem, Massachusetts 02154 In the bidder acknowledgment and ownership interest portion of its response to the RFP, BMA disclosed the following: ... This bid is presented in good faith without collusion or fraud and Ernestine M. Lowrie, as signer of the bid from Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. has full authority to bind as the principal bidder. All stock of Bio-Medical Applications of Florida, Inc. is held by Bio-Medical Applications Management Company, Inc. and all the stock of the latter corporation is held by National Medical Care, Inc., 1601 Trapelo Road, Walthem, Massachusetts 02154. All of the stock of National Medical Care, Inc. is held by W. R. Grace and Company. The Dialysis Services Division of National Medical Care, Inc. (NMC) is the largest division of NMC. In each state in which NMC has an interest in dialysis services operations, Bio-Medical Applications is organized as a corporate entity and is part of the Dialysis Services Division of the parent corporation, NMC. Petitioner in this proceeding, NMC, is not currently organized and registered as a corporation under the laws of the State of Florida. At the final hearing in this case, NMC's representative testified that he was not aware that NMC was registered to do business in the State of Florida but thought NMC had been operating in Florida for about 20 years. BMA is wholly owned by NMC. The Respondent agency originally expressed its intent to award the contract at issue to BMA. NMC has a substantial interest in the RFP and the contract at issue, therefore, its substantial interests will be affected by the agency's proposed action to reject all bids. NMC has alleged that the agency's decision to reject all bids was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, and fraudulent. Further, Petitioner also contends that the agency decision to reject all bids, after BMA's bid proposal has been disclosed to competitors, undermines the competitive purpose of the bid process. The Request for Proposal On August 27, 1993, the DOC issued RFP No. 93-RIVHSD-075. The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for a contract to perform peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at the Department's Broward Correctional Institution and its South Florida Reception Center. The RFP required that bid proposals be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. The RFP provided that a bidder would receive up to 50 points for its price proposal and up to 50 points for its qualitative proposal for a total of 100 possible points. The RFP also provided that the DOC reserved the right to reject all bids when the DOC determined it was in its best interest to do so. The Bid Evaluation Upon initial review of the proposals submitted in response to the RFP, the DOC originally calculated that Petitioner's subsidiary, BMA, had received 49 out of 50 possible points from its price, as well as qualitative proposal for a total of 98 points. On October 22, 1993, the DOC sent written notice to all proposers of its intent to award the contract to National Medical Care, Inc. (Petitioner). At the time it mailed its notice of intent, the DOC believed that the difference between the Bio-Medical and the lowest price proposal (received by HealthInfusion) was $156,780 over the five year term of the proposed contract. HealthInfusion and an additional disappointed bidder filed protests contesting the DOC's notice of intent. Based upon input from the protestors, the DOC learned that it had miscalculated the cost of Bio-Medical's proposal. When the DOC corrected its initial error in calculation, BMA's proposal was $340,000 higher over the first three years of the proposed contract and $972,000 higher than the lowest bidder for the entire five year contract term. The Decision to Reject All Bids On November 24, 1993, the DOC notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. In addition to the initial miscalculation of price in the bid, the DOC discovered what it considers to be other irregularities in the evaluation in this case. BMA was the existing provider at the time the RFP issued. The bid evaluators worked closely on a day to day basis with Petitioner's employees. The DOC believes the evaluators preferred that Petitioner be awarded the contract and that the evaluators were not objective. During the process of evaluation, the evaluators were provided a letter from a party representing one of the bidders which contained allegations regarding negative background information on other bidders. The DOC believes that the letter should not have been given to the evaluators and that access to the letter further affected the evaluator's ability to be objective. Admitted Facts NMC and the Respondent DOC filed a Prehearing Stipulation in which the following facts are admitted by those parties: The DOC issued Request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075 ("RFP"). The RFP requested bidders to submit bids for peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis treatment at Broward Correctional Institution and South Florida Reception Center. Bid proposals had to be filed with the DOC by September 30, 1993. On November 24, 1993, the Department notified all bidders of its intent to reject all bids. The Department rejected all bids due to significant irregularities in the bid evaluation process and the price difference between the winning bid and the low bid was too great. (Emphasis supplied.) On December 3, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its notice of intent to protest the DOC's decision to reject all bids. On December 13, 1993, National Medical Care, Inc. filed its formal written bid protest. Burden of Proof Petitioner has failed to prove, by the preponderance of evidence, that the DOC acted arbitrarily, illegally, fraudulently or dishonestly in making its decision to reject all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order dismissing NMC's protest of its decision to reject all bids in response to request for Proposal No. 93-RIVHSD-075. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of March, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 16th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7111BID The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: Petitioner's PFOF 1 is adopted in paragraph 8 of the Recommended Order (RO). Petitioner's PFOF 2 is adopted in paragraph 9 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 3 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 4 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 5, to the extent not conclusory, is adopted in paragraph 1 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 6 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 7 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. 8-9. Petitioner's PFOFs 8 and 9 are hereby adopted. Sentence 1 of Petitioner's PFOF 10 is hereby adopted. Sentence 2 of this proposed finding is rejected as conclusory. Petitioner's PFOF 11 is adopted in paragraph 14 of the RO. 12-14. Petitioner's PFOFs 12, 13 and 14 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 15 is adopted in paragraph 2 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 16 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 17 is adopted in paragraph 26 of the RO and is a fact, in effect, stipulated to by Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner's PFOF 18 is adopted in substance in paragraph 21. To the extent not adopted in the RO, the remainder of Petitioner's PFOF 18 is hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 19 is adopted in paragraph 13 of the RO. Petitioner's PFOF 20 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 16 of the RO. 21-24. Petitioner's PFOFs 21-24 are hereby adopted. Petitioner's PFOF 25 is rejected as a conclusion. Petitioner's PFOF 26 is rejected as conclusory and argumentative. This proposed finding is also irrelevant based upon facts admitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's PFOF 27 is rejected as irrelevant based upon facts admitted to by Petitioner. 28-34. Petitioner's PFOFs 28-34 are hereby adopted to the extent relevant. Based upon Petitioner's admission that the Respondent rejected all bids based on "significant irregularities," these proposals are for the most part irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 35. Petitioner's PFOF 35 is hereby adopted. 36-39. Petitioner's PFOFs 36-39 are adopted. 40-44. Petitioner's PFOFs 40-44 are cumulative and not necessary to the conclusions reached. Respondent's PFOF: 1-19. Respondent's PFOFs 1-19 are adopted in the RO. 20. Respondent's PFOF 20 is rejected as conclusory. 21-22. Respondent's PFOFs 21 and 22 are adopted in the RO. 23. Respondent's PFOF 23 is rejected as argument. 24-26. Respondent's PFOFs 24-26 are adopted in the RO. 27. Respondent's PFOF 27 is rejected as conclusory. 28-29. Respondent's PFOFs 28 and 29 are adopted in the RO. 30-32. Respondent's PFOFs 30-32 are rejected as conclusions and argument. Respondent's PFOF 33 is hereby adopted. Respondent's PFOF 34 is rejected as argument. Intervenor's PFOF: 1-21. Intervenor's PFOFs 1-21 are adopted in substance in the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 22 is adopted, in substance, in paragraph 4 of the RO. Intervenor's PFOF 23 is hereby adopted. Intervenor's PFOF 24 is adopted in substance. Intervenor's PFOF 25 is hereby adopted. However, Intervenor has failed to prove that the activity of NMC is not within one of the several exceptions to the requirements of Section 607.1501, Florida Statutes. COPIES FURNISHED: Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Jennifer Kujawa-Graner, Esquire PANZA, MAURER, MAYNARD & NEEL, P.A. 3081 East Commercial Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Timothy G. Schoenwalder, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact Respondent advertised for bids for work to be performed on the Statewide Regional Juvenile Detention Center located in Pasco County identified as Project Number HRS 85-300000. In response to this advertisements Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted bids on January 23, 1966. According to calculations performed by Respondent, Petitioner was low bidder and Intervenor was the next lowest bidder. The construction budget for this job is $1.5 million, and both bids are considered by Respondent to be within budget. Depending on the alternatives chosen within each bid, Petitioner's bid is lower than Intervenor's by between approximately $6,000 and $40,000. Section B-14 of the advertisement for bids requires each bidder to submit a list of the subcontractors who will perform work on the job for him and specifies that only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. Section D of the advertisement for bids specifies the work areas for which a subcontractor must be listed and states that said list is an integral part of each bid submitted. The subcontracting areas include electrical plumbing, mechanical, roofing security control systems, food service equipment and fire protection. Petitioner's bid was rejected on February 4, 1986, because its bid failed to include a roofing subcontractor's name as required in the advertisement for bids. Petitioner does not dispute that its bid was incomplete when submitted since it failed to identify a roofing subcontractor. However, Petitioner contends this omission was a result of clerical error in typing the bide and that, in fact, it had selected Republic Roofing as its subcontractor. John Breen, Petitioner's project manager, testified that it was his intent to use Republic Roofing when he submitted the bide that he had a firm bid from Republic Roofing, and that when this omission was brought to his attention after bids were opened, he identified Republic Roofing in writing on January 24 and 29, 1986, to Brian Seufert an intern architect working for Respondent's project architect. Seufert confirms Breen's testimony through affidavit jointly filed by the parties. Seufert indicates that the project architect has no reason to believe that Petitioner could not perform the work required by the project. By affidavit jointly filed by the parties, Joyce Kleja secretary for Petitioners also supports Breen's testimony about her clerical error in omitting the roofing subcontractor when she typed the bid. Ray Scerbo, an estimator for Republic Roofing, disputes the testimony of Breen through jointly filed affidavit. Scerbo indicates it was not until a couple of days after the bid opening that he was told by Petitioner that Republic Roofing "had the job" if Petitioner was awarded the contract. This conflicts with the first written notice from Breen to Seufert dated January 24, 1986, as well as Seufert's affidavit that Petitioner told Seufert on January 24, 1986, that Republic Roofing had been selected. Scerbo is no longer employed by Republic Roofing. After considering all of the evidence, it is specifically found that Petitioner's omission of Republic Roofing from its list of subcontractors was through clerical error and that Petitioner had firmly decided to use Republic Roofing for subcontracting work prior to submission of its bid. The advertisement for bid required all subcontractors to be listed in any bid in order to allow Respondent to review prior performance and licensure of subcontractors, and also to prevent "bid shopping". Bid shopping is a practice which inflates a general contractor's bid and therefore the actual award by encouraging subcontractors to initially submit high bids to the general contractor and then negotiate a lower price with the general contractor who has received the award. The general contractor's bid remains inflated however and in this way the cost to the state is increased.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order awarding Project Number HRS 85-300000 to Intervenor. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 1st day of April 1986. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 86-0495B1D) Petitioner has submitted a memorandum and a Proposed Recommended Order, both of which appear to set forth proposed findings of fact in unnumbered paragraphs. For purposes of ruling thereon, the unnumbered paragraphs which appear to set forth proposed findings have been consecutively numbered. Memorandum: Introductory material and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as simply a summary of testimony and evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 2 and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Proposed Recommended Order: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 3, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise rejected as contrary to Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rulings on Respondent's and Intervenor's jointly filed Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. , 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis R. Long Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 Sam Powers Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32301 William Page; Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Fons Esquire Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 5th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issues presented in this proceeding are whether Petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid on CTB 5998 and whether Petitioner is entitled to the bid award.
Findings Of Fact On November 5, 1990, Florida A & M University, acting as the agent of the Board of Regents, issued a Call to Bid (CTB) for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium (repainting project). The total project was estimated to cost $595,000.00. The funds for the project would come from the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget. 1/ Specifically, the funds for the repainting project were appropriated by the legislature as a specific line item in the 1990-1991 budget. The line in the budget read, "Fire Code Corrections/Repainting-Bragg Stadium (includes $490,000.00 Reimb. to Aux. Fund), of $682,000.00." The $682,000.00 figure was obtained from several documents submitted by FAMU to the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents then submitted the University's budget requests to the Commissioner of Education who, in turn, submitted an integrated budget to the governor and legislature. See Chapter 216 and 235, Florida Statutes, for the specifics of this budgetary process. The beginning of the budgetary process in relation to the repainting project occurred on October 16, 1989, when Louis A. Murray, the Associate Vice President of Florida A&M sent a document titled "the University's 1990-91/1992- 93 Capital Improvement Fee Project List for Legislative Consideration" to Dr. Carl Blackwell, the Vice Chancellor for Budgets. The document contained two attachments entitled "Capital Improvement Fee Project List, Project Information Sheet" (Project Information Sheet) for the fire code corrections at Bragg Stadium and the repainting of Bragg Stadium. It also included a Project Information Sheet for the remodeling of the Commons Building. The Project Information sheet dealing with the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium contained the amount of funding being requested by FAMU for the repainting project and a breakdown of the project's estimated costs. The project cost detail for the repainting of Bragg Stadium states: Construction $495,000.00 (Assumes bid date of 1991) Professional Fees . . . . 43,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . 30,000.00 Contingency . . . . . 27,000.00 Total Project Cost: $595,000.00 Importantly, the Project Information Sheet for the repainting of Bragg Stadium contains the basis utilized by FAMU to arrive at the repainting project's estimate. FAMU represented in the Project Information Sheet as follows: The basis for the estimate is the bid experience of a prior advertisement of the project by our own Plant Operations Maintenance Office, which came in at over $400,000. 2/ This estimate was again verified in a letter, dated October 25, 1989, from Dr. Murray to Dr. Blackwell. The letter states, in part, as follows: . . . . Since the opportunity for completing this project is between football seasons, the University wishes to advance dollar requirements from its Auxiliary Trust Fund with expected reimbursement from Capital Improvement Trust Fund after Legislative approval on July 1, 1990. This action will permit us to proceed with the Bid process and construction contract through completion before the 1990 football season. The scope of this project is summarized as follows: This project includes sandblasting, repainting and structural repairs for Bragg Stadium. Sandblasting and repainting is estimated at $415,000, while structural repair, primarily isolated rust spots, will cost approximately $75,000. . . . . The total estimate in Dr. Murray's October 25, 1990, letter was $490,000.00. It was this letter which prompted the parenthetical language in the line item of the General appropriations act for 1990-1991, passed by the legislature and enacted it to law. The Project Information Sheet for the fire code corrections to Bragg Stadium (fire code project) contained a project cost detail as follows: Construction $70,000.00 Professional . . . . . 7,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . (No entry) Contingency . . . . . 10,000.00 Total Project Cost: $87,000.00 The contract for the fire code corrections was let for bid prior to the repainting project. The amount of the contract for the fire code project was approximately $107,000.00. This contract amount exceeded the amount of the construction portion of the Project Cost Detail of $70,000.00 shown in the Project Information Sheet for the fire code project. Dr. Murray testified that this action was acceptable because it was within the discretion of Florida A&M to use the $682,000.00 appropriation to perform the fire code project in any amount it deemed appropriate, without regard to the break-outs shown in the Project Information Sheets. However, even assuming the correctness of Dr. Murray's position and deducting the amount of the fire code project's contract and the architectural fees of $7,000.00 listed in the Project Information Sheet, $568,000.00 of the original budgeted amount of $682,000.00 would remain for use on the repainting project. Florida A&M University, also prepared a document titled, "Summary of Capital Improvement Fee Projects for 1990-91/1992-93." The document is a summary of Florida A&M's budget requests for those years. This document also lists the fire code project and the repainting project along with the requested funding for those projects for the years 1990 through 1991. The funds requested for the projects are broken into three categories; Planning, Construction and Equipment. The entries for the repainting project show that the amount of $522,000.00 is for "Construction". The $522,000.00 figure was obtained by taking the $495,000.00 figure for construction contained within the Project Information Sheet for the repainting project, and adding the amount of the contingency cost ($27,000.00) for the project which was also shown on the Project Information Sheet. The combined total for the two projects was $682,000.00, the exact amount appropriated by the legislature for the two projects. Once the legislature had appropriated the money, FAMU, on November 5, 1990, requested that A Capital Outlay Implementation Plan be established with the Capital Outlay Trust Fund. The establishment of such a Plan is similar to creating a special account within the trust fund from which the University can draw. On November 26, 1990, the Plan was established for both projects in the amount of $682,000.00, as had been appropriated by the legislature. 3/ The Capital Outlay Implementation Plan contained a section titled, "estimated budget". The estimated budget contained estimates for the various phases of both projects as follows: Construction. $565,000 Professional Fees. 50,000 Furnishings and Equipment. 30,000 Contingencies. 37,000 .................................$682,000 Significantly, these documents were the only pre-established construction budgets developed by FAMU prior to the opening of the bids in this case. 4/ The specific pre-established construction budget for the repainting project was $522,000.00. Later, after the filing of the bid protest, FAMU would attempt to render a strained interpretation of the phrase "pre-established construction budget" contained in the bid specifications and engage in some inappropriate accounting in order to create several lower budget estimates. The Bid Package for CTB 5998 provided in the "Instructions to Bidders", Item D-21, Rejection of Bids, as follows: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the owner such rejection is in the best interest of the owner. The Bid Package further provided in the "Instructions to Bidders" at B-23, Contract Award, page 16 of 106, in relevant part: The contract will be awarded by the Florida Board of Regents for projects $500,000 or more, and by the President of the University, on behalf of the Florida Board of Regents, for projects of less than $500,000.00, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the owner to accept it. . . . The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. The aggregate bid shall consist of the base bid plus accepted active alternate bids, or less accepted deductive alternate bids, applied in the numerical order in which they are listed on the bid form. If the base bid exceeds the amount of the pre-established construction budget, the owner may reject all bids. (Emphasis added) A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on December 6, 1990, and was attended by seventeen contractors, including Petitioner. By the terms of the bid package, the bid opening date was set for December 18, 1990. However, by addendum, the bid opening date was extended to December 21, 1990. Seven bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. 5/ The bids were opened at 10:00 a.m. on December 21, 1990, at the conference center of Florida A&M University. The bids were opened by Chuks Onwunli on behalf of Florida A&M, and tabulated by William Sabella, a representative of the architectural firm , Barnett, Fronczak Architects, the consulting architects for the repainting project. The opening and tabulation of all the bids was recorded on a document titled "Bid Tabulation". The result of the opening was that Phoenix Coating was the low bidder with a bid of $419,000.00. Feimster-Peterson, Inc., was the second lowest bidder with a bid of $474,320.00, and Monoko, Inc., was the third low bidder with a bid of 487,462.00. The four other bidders listed on the bid tabulation sheet were all over the amount of $490,000.00. 6/ As can be seen from the numbers, the top three bids were well within the pre-established construction budget for the repainting project. On December 21, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent a Notice of Protest by telecopy and overnight delivery for delivery on Monday, December 24th. The basis of the protest was that the low bidder, Phoenix Coating, was not responsive because it had not attended the mandatory pre-bid conference and had not complied with the minority participation requirements of the specifications. On December 28, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent its formal protest to Forrest Kelly, the Director of Capital Programs at the Florida Board of Regents by telecopy and by overnight delivery with delivery on December 31, 1990. The formal protest was filed in a timely manner. On or about January 14, 1991, Oscar Martinez, the Purchasing Director for Florida A&M issued a letter regarding Bid No. 5927 for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium. 7/ The letter rejected all seven bids. Phoenix Coating's bid was found to be nonresponsive because it did not meet the 15% minority participation requirements of Bid 5998 and because the company had not attended the December 6, 1990, mandatory pre-bid meeting. Because Phoenix Coating's bid was non-responsive, Petitioner became the lowest responsive bid on CTB 5998. The letter further advised that the other six bids, including Petitioner's bid, were rejected because all six bids allegedly exceeded the pre- existing construction budget estimate for the project. The letter did not contain any language affording Petitioner a clear point of entry as required by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The letter did indicate that the University would modify the scope of work. Attached to the same letter was a new invitation to bid. Clearly, at this point in time, FAMU knew or should have known that there was a bid protest filed with it which was unresolved and which required a formal administrative hearing. However, during this time instead of following its statutory duties under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, FAMU, at its peril, chose to re-let the project for bids. The new bid opening was set for February 28, 1991, and a new mandatory pre-bid meeting was also set for February 28, 1991. The bid deadline was extended to March 21, 1991. The scope of the work was not significantly altered in the re-bid. 8/ On or about January 16, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson sent a letter to the Florida Board of Regents. The letter was prompted by Robert Petersen's, president and stockholder of Petitioner, belief that something was not right about the monetary and funding claims that FAMU was putting forth as its basis for rejecting all the bids. In essence, the numbers Mr. Petersen was aware of, which did not include any of the Project Information Sheet figures referenced above, did not make any sense to him. The letter stated, in part, as follows: Re-bidding the Project is unfair to all bidders now that the results of the first bid have been made public. Each bidder now has a target . . . to shoot at which will override the customary free market environment. Rewriting the Specifications will not eliminate this effect. Be advised that Feimster-Peterson requests the opportunity to either see the estimates or negotiate with the Board to reach a mutually acceptable scope of work. I request that you delay re-bidding until this option can be explored. (Emphasis added). On January 23, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson again wrote to the Office of General Counsel at Florida A&M University and stated in relevant part: This letter is to reiterate our concern for the actions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department and regarding the painting contract for Bragg Stadium. We filed bid protest for the Florida Board of Regents filed on December 28, 1990 pursuant to paragraph B-22 of the bid documents. Neither the Florida Board of Regents or the administration of Florida A&M has acted upon our bid protest. The bid protest remains unresolved and we intend to pursue the administrative remedies provided to us through the bid protest procedure. Moreover, it is our position that the decisions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department subsequent to our filing may be included and adjudicated within the administrative procedures of the original bid protest . . . Mr. Martinez apparently takes the position that a new bid protest filing is necessary to formally dispute his decision [about the University's available budget]. As indicated, we disagree and intend to dispute this action within the existing, unresolved bid protest . . . By indicating the precise amount of the budget, Mr. Martinez has eliminated the basic purpose of competitive bidding, which is to achieve the lowest responsive price. All bidders now have a target price, and a minor modification of the specifications will not eliminate this effect. This serves neither Florida A&M's interest nor the interest of the original responsive bidders. Feimster-Peterson has requested that negotiations be commenced so that a mutually beneficial contract price be determined and the contract work commenced. To date, Mr. Martinez has refused to enter such negotiations and have given several oral, unsatisfactory reasons for this position. The Purchasing Department's refusal to negotiate with Feimster-Peterson, the lowest responsible bidder, should be clearly articulated in writing and sent to us. Feimster-Peterson believes such negotiations may prove successful, and work could commence without further delay or expense to Florida A&M . . . . (Emphasis added). Feimster-Peterson intends to pursue its rights under the bid protest originally filed on December 28, 1990. As low responsive bidder, Feimster-Peterson is entitled to an award of the contract . . This letter was sent by both telecopy and Federal Express to Mr. Holifield at the Office of the General Counsel and added the additional issues of whether FAMU's action in regard to this bid constituted bid shopping and whether Petitioner's bid, in fact, exceeded the estimated construction budget for Bid 5998. 9/ Significantly, the Martinez letter did not mention that Respondent was rejecting Petitioner's bid because the University believed that it could increase the number of contractors participating in a re-bid and could achieve a lower price by re-bidding the project. This issue was raised for the first time at the hearing. In that regard, the evidence clearly indicates that Respondent was attempting to shop its bid in order to obtain a lower price by re-bidding the project. Bid shopping is a process by which the general contractor or, as in this case, the owner of a project attempts to play off one bidder against another bidder in order to obtain a lower price. Bid shopping is done either by establishing a target figure which is represented to bidders to be a number which must be beaten in order to obtain the contract; or by the bid shopper relaying the amount of a competitor's bid to a bidder or group of bidders in order to encourage the bidder or group of bidders to lower its bid to below that of the competitor in order to secure the contract. A basic assumption in bid shopping is that the scope of the work is not significantly altered in order to lower the cost of the project. Bid shopping is considered to be unethical in a public competitive bidding situation and has been disapproved of by the Florida courts. In this case, Respondent established a target price in its letter of January 14, 1991, by communicating the amount of the alleged overage, enabling a bidder to calculate the budget figures to shoot for and, at the same time, keeping the scope of the work substantially the same in the re-bid. Additionally, the amount of the bids, as well as details involving those bids became public once the bids were opened, converting the possibility of unfair advantage accruing to potential bidders on the re-bid to a probability of such unfair advantage in this instance. 10/ Such a reason for rejecting the bids in this case strikes at the very heart of the bid process, which is to ensure that bidders have an equal and fair opportunity to have their bids considered and prevent an agency from picking and choosing among various bidders or potential bidders. There was absolutely no evidence which indicated that the number of contractors participating in Bid 5998 was non-competitive or was in any way fundamentally unfair. 11/ By rejecting all the bids in order to attempt to shop its bid, Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and therefore, its rejection of the bids in this case cannot stand. Additionally, Respondent's attempt to reject the bids in order to allegedly increase the number of bidders participating in the re-bid and thereby reduce the price, violated its own specification in the bid documents which states: The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. (emphasis supplied) By going outside the scope of its bid specifications, Respondent has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and may not reject Petitioner's bid on this basis. After the protest of Feimster-Peterson raised the issue of the amount of the budget/estimate and after its request to see the budget, Florida A&M began to review documents to determine its response to Feimster-Peterson. The basis underlying the figures cited in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 13, 1991, was arrived at by subtracting amounts spent by Florida A&M from the $682,000.00 appropriated by the legislature for the fire code and repainting projects. The overage of $55,000.00 claimed in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 14, 1991, was calculated by taking the "proposed budget" of $682,000.00 and subtracting the amount of $257,105.00 "in expenses for the stadium", for an "available balance" of $424,895.00. 12/ It was this account balance which was being claimed by FAMU to be the pre-existing construction budget referred to in the bid documents. Such an account balance does not constitute a pre-established construction budget because the balance was not established prior to the submission or opening of the bids. Additionally, an account balance is simply not a budget as that term is normally defined and used in the bid documents. Mr. Martinez did not identify the source of the expenses or the purpose for those expenditures. Mr. Martinez deferred all questions as to verification of the figures or the purpose of the expenditures to "Bob", which referred to Robert Goodwin, Jr. Mr. Goodwin was and still is, the Director of the Facilities Planning Office of Florida A&M and is responsible for the various purchase orders involved in this case. Mr. Goodwin took his instructions on which purchase order numbers to use from Dr. Murray and/or Dr. Humphries, Associate Vice President and President of Florida A&M University, respectively. For reasons outlined later in this Recommended Order, the expenditures claimed for the stadium are highly suspect. On or about February 6, 1991, Mr. Holifield, General Counsel of Florida A&M University, responded to Petitioner by enclosing a statement of budget estimate for Bid No. 5998. 13/ Attached to Mr. Holifield's letter of February 6th was a memorandum addressed "[t]o whom it may concern" dated February 5, 1991, from Robert Goodwin, Jr., the Director of Facilities & Planning for Florida A&M. The memo stated that the "budget estimate" for the Project was $367,351.00. Mr. Holifield's letter noted that Feimster-Peterson's bid "exceeded the budget estimate by $106,969.00." (emphasis added). He further noted that FAMU had chosen to re-bid the repainting project rather than accept the bid of the Petitioner. Mr. Holifield also addressed the pending bid protest by Feimster-Peterson as follows: Florida A&M University feels that it is the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers of the State of Florida to re-bid this Project rather than to award the job to your client. In view of the discrepancy between the bidder and the client and the estimated budget it would seem that now that you have been provided with the budget estimate, that you and your client would be willing to forego the bid protest which you are attempting to pursue. Rather, it would appear to be far more appropriate for you to simply join in the rebidding process. (emphasis added). Again, the basis for the decreasing budget figure was the legislatively appropriated funds available for the project less amounts which were supposedly attributable to the repainting and fire code projects, i.e. the account balance. However, what the evidence clearly showed was that, like the budget figures underlying Mr. Martinez's assertions in his letter of January 14, 1991, the latest budget figure of $367,351.00 was calculated by Florida A&M subtracting sums for expenditures which were made for projects unrelated to the fire code or repainting projects. In fact, several of the expenditures were for improvements to the public address system at Bragg Stadium. Similarly, some of the amounts claimed to have been expended for the repainting and fire code projects were expended for architectural fees on other projects. 14/ FAMU's officials were aware that such accounting was inappropriate. From this evidence, it appears that FAMU is attempting to spend or has spent money specifically appropriated for two certain purposes on projects unrelated to the appropriation and not approved for such use by either the legislature or the Board of Regents. Since these expenditures are all part of other projects separate and distinct from the fire code and repainting projects, they should not have been subtracted from the amount of money available to FAMU for the repainting project. 15/ There is no doubt that this "budget estimate" and the budget underlying the assertions made by Mr. Martinez in his letter of January 14, 1991, were false and were red herrings, developed after the fact, in an attempt by Respondent to throw Petitioner off the track of an otherwise valid bid protest. Moreover, beyond utilizing improper accounting, one of the most significant facts in this proceeding was that FAMU created no less than eight separate figures which it claimed to be the budgets for this project. Which figure FAMU used depended on who FAMU was dealing with at the time and the result FAMU desired to achieve. Such tactics by an agency are totally unacceptable and the use of such false figures to justify rejection of a bidder's bid is nothing short of bad faith on the part of an agency akin to fraud. Since Petitioner submitted the lowest and best responsive bid, Petitioner, at this point in time, was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. Another point not directly raised by FAMU in this proceeding, but suggested by the underlying facts and necessary to the resolution of this bid protest, is the question of whether bids may be rejected by an agency if the funds necessary to complete the project are no longer available, i.e. the agency has run out of money. On the surface, given the constraints of Florida's finance system, an honest lack of funds would appear to be an appropriate basis for an agency to reject all the bids. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. However, in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that the University no longer has the necessary funds to pay for the repainting project since the actual money from the trust fund has not been disbursed to FAMU and since FAMU's representations in regards to the status of the repainting project's account balance appear to be based on unlawful accounting and are less than credible. Since the evidence did not establish that FAMU no longer has the funds necessary to complete the project, Petitioner was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. However, because of FAMU's actions regarding Petitioner's bid protest which actions were highly prejudicial to Petitioner, time had moved on and, on February 25, 1991, FAMU discovered that there was lead in some portion of the paint on Bragg Stadium, in the amount of 1.9% by weight. The test was conducted by Professional Services Industries, Inc. on some paint chips from the stadium. The test utilized by Professional Services is known as the TCLP test. This discovery began a review by Florida A&M, in conjunction with Barnett, Fronczak Architects, of what changes, if any, needed to be made to the Specifications and what options were available for carrying out the repainting of the stadium. 16/ On March 19, 1991, the Project was "cancelled" by Addendum number 4 until the fall of 1991. Presently, it appears uncontradicted that the paint which is on Bragg Stadium contains lead. It is probable that the lead is contained in the primer coat, which is the first coat on the steel. In fact, the current specifications for the repainting project call for a red lead and oil primer coat to be placed on the steel structure of the stadium. Of the options which have been proposed by the architect, two of them assume that the lead paint will not be removed from the structure, but will essentially be sealed in by the new coatings. These options will avoid the creation and need for disposal of any hazardous waste containing lead and should result in either the same cost to perform the work or in a reduction in cost to perform the work. The third option is to completely remove all the paint and possibly create material which may be hazardous waste. This option is essentially the same type of sandblasting called for in Bid 5998, but may require more money to perform. Any possible increase in the cost of Bid 5998 would be due to the greater expense of disposing of any hazardous waste, if any such waste is created by the blasting operation, and whether the presence of the lead is an unforeseen condition as defined in the proposed contract which would entitle Petitioner to an increase of the bid price caused by the potential cost of disposal to it. In this case, the evidence did not demonstrate that the presence of the lead was an unforeseen condition. Article 3.15 of the proposed contract when compared to Article 10.1 appears to comtemplate the discovery of potentially hazardous materials. Additionally, as indicated earlier, the current specifications of Bid 5998 call for a lead primer coat. Under all the facts of this case, the presence of lead or lack of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium would appear to be a circumstance the risk of which is assumed by the bidder in bidding the project; and therefore, would not be a changed or unforeseen condition which would justify rejecting all the bids. Importantly, the scope of the work, i.e. sandblasting and structural repair, would not change. Sandblasting is the same whether the surface being removed contains lead or does not contain lead. The structural repair required by Bid 5998 is not effected by the presence of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium. The only differences would occur in the type of equipment used and the type of respirators worn by the workers. The equipment for lead removal has vacuums incorporated in its operation and uses a steel grit instead of sand. The steel grit actually reduces the amount of any potential hazardous waste by compacting it into a smaller volume. The respirators differ in the type of filters. Neither of these differences affect the cost of the work required in Bid 5998. Similarly, disposing of the end product of the blast operation would still be required under Bid 5998 whether the debris contains lead or does not contain lead. The only difference would be the ultimate disposal site of the barrels of debris, i.e whether at a regular landfill or at a disposal site for hazardous waste. All of these differences are already required under EPA, OSHA and DER rules regulating lead abatement, toxic chemicals and hazardous waste and are utilized by Petitioner when it encounters lead in its paint removal operations. Moreover, the bid documents contemplate that the bidder is familiar with all federal, state and local laws and regulations which affect the project in any manner. See Section B-3 "Instructions to Bidders." While it is uncontroverted that the paint contains lead, it is also not clear whether the end product created by a blasting operation would be hazardous waste requiring expensive disposal in a hazardous waste landfill and what amount, if any, would need to be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. The TCLP tests performed by Professional Service Industries were run on paint chips and not the abrasive debris that remains after a blasting operation. Therefore, the TCLP test results have no relevance as to what amount of hazardous waste, if any, would need to be removed from the site. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether the debris left over from the blast operation will be hazardous waste until the blast operation has begun and produced debris sufficiently representative of what may be expected during the course of the work and which is capable of being tested. The issue of lead arose long after the rejection of the bids on the basis of Feimster-Peterson's bid being over the budget and would not have become a potential basis had FAMU acted in a responsible manner in the award of this bid. It is understood that the University and its architects are still trying to determine what, if any, action needs to be taken regarding the presence of lead in the paint. The evidence established that at a minimum the architect would have suspended the project to give them time to study the lead and determine what course of action should be taken. At the most, the architect would have cancelled the project. Added to such an analysis is the fact that the Bid specifications appear to require a red lead and oil primer paint to be placed on the structural steel of the stadium and that under the facts of this case, the presence of lead in the paint on the stadium would not be an unforeseen condition. In either event, the discovery of the lead did not undermine the scope of the repainting project as it is comtemplated in the bid documents and may have only resulted in change orders under the terms of the proposed contract. 17/ The General Conditions of the contract provide in Article 3, Administration of the Contract, paragraph 4.3, Claims and Disputes, subparagraph 4.3.6, Claims for Concealed or Unknown Conditions, as follows: If conditions are encountered at the site which are (1) subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions which differ materially from those indicated in the contract documents or (2) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist and generally recognized as inherent in construction activities of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, then notice by the observing party shall be given to the other party promptly before conditions are disturbed and in no event later than twenty-one days after the first observance of the conditions. The Architect/Engineer will promptly investigate such conditions and, if they differ materially and cause an increase or decrease in the contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, will recommend an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time, or both . . . . Article 7, Changes in the Work, also provides a mechanism by which the Architect/Engineer and the Owner may order changes in the work after execution of the contract. Paragraph 7.3, Construction Change Directives, provides the mechanism by which the amount of a construction change directive is determined. A change order is simply a revision of the scope of the contract, requiring that something be done differently, that more be done, or that less be done, than what is within the original scope of work of the contract. Article 14, Termination or Suspension of the Contract, paragraph 14.3, Suspension by the Owner for Convenience, provides in relevant part: The owner may, without cause, order the contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the work in whole or in part for such period of time as the owner may determine. An adjustment shall be made for increases in the cost of performance of the contract including profit on the increased cost performance, caused by suspension, delay or interruption . . . . (Emphasis added). It is clear that conditions, such as the lead in this case, are contemplated by both the bid and the contract which is part of that bid. In this case, but for FAMU's actions, Petitioner would have been awarded the contract prior to the discovery of the lead. Had Florida A&M entered into a contract with Feimster-Peterson to perform the repainting project when it should have, it would have been guided by Article 14.3 of the specifications, "Suspension by the Owner for Convenience." The evidence did not demonstrate that the discovery of the lead would sufficiently change the scope of the repainting project to the extent that a new bid would have to be developed and that the contract terms of Bid 5998 were inadequate to handle any changes in the scope of the work for the repainting project. Such a result is especially desirable where, as in this case, the University has acted in such a way so as to undermine the fairness of the competitive bidding process and is attempting to spend appropriated money in a manner not authorized by statute. In essence, FAMU has undermined the competitive bidding process to the extent that it would be unfair to re-bid the project since it is impossible to remove FAMU's past conduct from any rebid on any re-vamped specifications. The only remedy, in this case is to award Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest and best responsible bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Florida A&M University enter, on behalf of the Board of Regents, a Final Order awarding Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest, responsible bidder on the repainting project. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of September, 1991.
