The Issue Whether Respondent's rejection of all bids for Lease No. 540:0920 was improper.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent published an invitation to bid seeking to lease approximately 9,907 net square feet of office space in Broward County (the Lease). There was no evidence of any irregularities in the preparation or the issuance of the invitation. The Petitioner, whose responsive bid was rejected by Respondent, timely and properly brought its protest and has standing to protest the Respondent's rejection of all bids for the Lease. Lynn Mobley was the statewide lease manager of the Respondent and had the responsibility to generally oversee the preparation of the bid package and the bid opening procedures. Barbara Lollie was a staff member under the supervision of Ms. Mobley and was in charge of the preparation of the request for bid proposals. Ms. Mobley's supervisor was a Ms. Barron. Five bids in response to the invitation to bid were duly received by Respondent. An evaluation committee chaired by Don Walker, Respondent's area administrator, was appointed to inspect the proposed properties and to evaluate the bids. The evaluation committee ranked the bids in the following order of preference: 1/ 1. In-Rel ($499,141.80) 2. Taft ($519,090.30) 3. Donlon ($541,119.90) 4. Procacci ($618,373.30) 5. Stirlingwood ($761,906.30) Thereafter the responses to the invitation were forwarded to Ms. Mobley's office for evaluation. Ms. Mobley's staff determined that the top two bids, those of In-Rel and Taft, were non-responsive. 2/ Ms. Mobley, who did not actively participate in the evaluation of the proposals, then advised Mr. Walker of that determination and advised him of two alternatives: to award the bid to the lowest responsive bidder or to reject all bids and re-advertise. The evaluation committee chaired by Mr. Walker had wanted to lease the property to either In-Rel or Taft. Mr. Walker told Ms. Mobley that he wanted to reject all bids and to re-advertise. Pursuant to the request for bids promulgated by the Respondent and Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bid proposals for the Lease. The request for proposal of bids specifically stated: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the State, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. Following the telephone conversation between Mr. Walker and Ms. Mobley, Ms. Mobley sent a letter dated March 23, 1992, to all bidders which notified each bidder that all bids had been rejected. That letter did not state the reasons for the rejection of all bids. Mr. Walker sent a memo on March 20, 1992, to Ms. Lollie recommending the rejection of all bids. Although this memo predated the rejection letter and was subsequently made available to Ms. Mobley, the memo was received by Ms. Mobley's office after the rejection letter had been sent. The memo gave no explication of Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting to reject all bids. The Department of General Services (DGS) published lease rate guidelines for Broward County to inform the Respondent of maximum acceptable lease rates. The purpose of these DGS guidelines was to advise the Respondent that proposed lease rates above the guidelines would be summarily rejected. At the time of obtaining bid proposals, the DGS lease rate guidelines were the only established guidelines which could be consulted by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent calculate a pre-bid estimate of what the Respondent felt was an acceptable range of lease rates in order to be used in determining whether lease rates were too high. The Petitioner's bid, along with the other responsive bidders, were within the DGS lease rate guidelines. Mr. Walker made the request for re-bid after he learned that the bids of Taft and In-Rel were non-responsive. Mr. Walker's decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was based only on the information that the two top choices of the evaluation committee had been found to be non-responsive and on his desire to reopen the bid process in the hope of attracting more bidders. 3/ Mr. Walker wanted to modify the specifications of the invitation to bid in two regards. First, he wanted to amend the specifications to permit the leased premises to be in more than one building. Second, he wanted the geographical boundaries in which the leased premises could be located to be expanded to hopefully attract additional bidders. Mr. Walker believed that a re-bid would provide a wider range of buildings at comparable prices from which to choose and would give him an opportunity to make changes to the bid specifications. His decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was not based on a lease bid analysis or on lease rate guidelines. The recommendation was not dictated by budgetary considerations, but by his desire to shop the bid. It was Mr. Walker's understanding that at the end of his telephone conversation with Ms. Mobley that the decision to reject all bids had been made and that all bids would be rejected. Ms. Mobley made the decision to reject all bids pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Walker after obtaining input from Ms. Lollie and Ms. Barron. Although Ms. Mobley had Ms. Lollie's analysis of the five bids, that analysis made no comparison of the rates contained in the bids with existing lease rates or the DGS guidelines. Ms. Mobley did not consult the DGS lease rate guidelines, although she was generally familiar with those guidelines, and she was unaware of any budgetary constraints that would dictate the rejection of all bids. When Ms. Mobley decided to reject all bids, she did not compare the bid proposals to the existing lease rates paid by the Respondent for leased office space in Broward County. The decision to reject all bids was not made on the advice of an attorney. Although Ms. Mobley testified that all bids on the Lease were rejected solely for price considerations, the evidence presented established that the decision to reject all bids was not based on price, price guidelines, or the Respondent's budgeting constraints. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Mobley rejected all bids because that was the action recommended by Mr. Walker. Respondent's invitation to bid did not contain any lease rate guidelines that would notify prospective bidders of a lease rate ceiling. There was no significant difference in the lease rates between the Taft and In-Rel bids that were favored but non-responsive and the third lowest bidder, the Donlon bid, which was responsive but rejected. Mr. Walker conceded that the Donlon bid was not rejected because of price considerations. Mr. Walker was of the opinion that the Donlon bid was at an acceptable price. He did not testify that the Petitioner's bid was at an unacceptable price and he did not testify as to what, other than the DGS guidelines, would be the maximum acceptable price. The DGS Lease Guidelines applicable to the bid for the Lease were as follows: A full service Lease (including electricity) -- $17.84 a square foot. 4/ Lease without electricity -- $15.18 a square foot. The present rate for the existing lease which was to be replaced by the Lease was $16.60 a square foot; this rate did not include electricity. If electricity was factored in at $2.50 a square foot, which was a factor regularly used by DGS, the present lease rate would be approximately $18.00 a square foot. The three responsive bids to the invitation were lower than the present lease after factoring in electricity. Ms. Goodman was of the opinion that Respondent's budget with respect to the Lease would be based on lease rates already in existence and consequently, that the responsive bids received and rejected were within the budget guidelines. Respondent offered no evidence to controvert that opinion. There was no evidence that the decision to reject all bids was based on economic considerations. All lease rates submitted by the rejected bidders were under the ceiling set by the DGS lease guidelines of $17.84. The Respondent acted arbitrarily when it rejected all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent accept and evaluate the responsive bids submitted for the Lease and determine the proper recipient for an award of the Lease. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Department of General Services should award state contracts for "walk-up convenience copiers" to Xerox Corporation in categories where Xerox was the only responsive bidder, or should reject Xerox's bid and solicit new bids on grounds that competitive bids were not received and there is no basis or excepting the award from competitive bid requirements; Whether the Department should disqualify Xerox's bid in one category for alleged material deviation from bid specifications where Xerox failed to initial a change in its bid price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DGS reject Xerox's single responsive bids and readvertise; and That Xerox's bid for category Group-I, Type 3, Class 12, monthly rental acquisition plan, be rejected as nonconforming. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intended decision to award contract T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements (Project) and other incidental construction on State Road 9A, in Duval County, to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. (ALS), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:1/ The contract being protested is T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements and other incidental construction for State Road 9A, in Duval County. The Department advertised the bid solicitation notice for the Project on July 27, 2012. The bid solicitation notice included a list of all of the pay items and estimated quantities for the project. DOT also posted all of the pay items online in two formats. One format was a downloadable file that could be used in software, and the other was similar to an Excel spreadsheet file. These formats could be used to formulate a bid. Changes to pay items are issued in an Addendum, and while two addendums were issued for this project, neither affected the pay items for the project. For several years, DOT has mandated that prospective bidders use an automated, online bidding process, by which prospective bidders request bid documents and submit their bids using the DOT's website. The letting date established as the deadline for submission of bids via electronic submission was September 26, 2012, and was set forth in the bid solicitation notice. In order to be considered, all bids were due by 10:30 a.m. on that day. Letting is the term used to indicate the date that the bids are due. The bid solicitation notice included a requirement that bidders for the Project attend a mandatory pre-bid meeting to be held on August 20, 2012. Hinson Electrical is a licensed electrical contracting company based in Jacksonville, Florida. The company has completed "hundreds" of projects for the State of Florida, including DOT, and is pre-qualified to bid on jobs with DOT. The mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 20, 2012, as scheduled. G. Christopher Ginn, Project Manager for Hinson Electrical, attended the pre-bid meeting, signed his name, and identified the company he represented (Hinson Electrical) on the sign-in sheet. Section 337.168(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) A document revealing the identity of persons who have requested or obtained bid packages, plans, or specifications pertaining to any project to be let by the department is confidential and exempt from the provisions of section 119.07(1) for the period which begins two working days prior to the deadline for obtaining bid packages, plans, or specifications and ends with the letting of the bid. As a business strategy, Hinson Electrical routinely orders bid documents within the two-day blackout period mandated by section 337.168(2), during which time DOT is required to take down its list of contractors who have requested bid documents concerning a particular project. Ordering bid documents within the blackout period prevents competitors from discovering whether Hinson Electrical is bidding for a particular project. The blackout period for the Project began at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2012. The deadline to order the bid documents for the Project was 10:30 a.m. on September 25, 2012. There is no requirement that contractors request bid documents prior to the pre-bid meeting (if one is required for a particular project), or at any time prior to the order deadline, which is 24 hours before the bid deadline. DOT acknowledged at hearing that it is Hinson Electrical's prerogative to order the bid documents within the blackout period during which the identities of bidders are kept confidential. Hinson Electrical ordered the bid documents for the Project at approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2012. The computerized system immediately provided access for Hinson Electrical to download the plans and specifications for the project at issue. However, four minutes later, at approximately 1:04 p.m., Hinson Electrical simultaneously received an email with a "Prequalification Failure Notice," and a second email stating that the bid document request for the Project was "pending." The Prequalification Failure Notice indicated that the bid document was not provided because Hinson Electrical had not attended the required pre-bid meeting for the Project.2/ Failure to attend the pre-bid meeting was the only basis stated in the Prequalification Failure Notice for DOT refusing to provide the bid document. As noted, Hinson Electrical's representative did in fact attend the pre-bid meeting for the Project, and he signed the sign-in sheet, attesting to his presence at the meeting. The sign-in sheet had been transmitted to DOT on August 21, 2012, the day after the pre-bid meeting was held. Thus, DOT's basis for sending Hinson Electrical a Prequalification Failure Notice was in error. The Prequalification Failure Notice also stated, "[Y]ou will be contacted by email or phone as soon as possible during business hours regarding requirements for obtaining the bid documents." However, DOT did not send an email or call Hinson Electrical after 1:04 p.m. on September 24, 2012, or at any time on September 25, 2012. Phillip Davis, a DOT employee in the Contracts Administration Office, was "blind copied" on the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice email, with a "high importance" tag. Mr. Davis' job responsibilities include following up on these types of notices, though he is not supervised to ensure this occurs. Mr. Davis' responsibilities also include checking sign-in sheets from pre-bid meetings to authorize release of bid documents to contractors. DOT admits that Mr. Davis did not read the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice; did not check the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid meeting; and made no attempt to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the notice. From September 20 through 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson and Chris Ginn obtained quotes from suppliers and subcontractors to prepare a bid for the Project. Hinson Electrical also secured a bid bond for the Project, and had everything necessary to submit a bid, except for the actual bid document. In the afternoon or early evening of September 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson sat down at his computer with the price lists and quotes he had obtained to prepare a bid for the Project. It was then that Mr. Hinson discovered DOT had not granted him access to the bid document for this Project, and that the failure notice he had received pertained to this Project, and was in error. Hinson Electrical was bidding on a total of eight contracts at that time, some of which did not have a mandatory pre-bid meeting. As of the close of business on September 25, 2012, DOT had still not made any effort to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the failure notice. At 7:55 p.m. on September 25, 2012, Hinson Electrical sent an email to the Contracts Administration general email address, stating that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting and asking why Hinson Electrical was being excluded from the bidding. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. the following morning (September 26, 2012, the bid deadline), Chris Ginn called the project inspector, Thomas Woods of HNTB Corporation, on Hinson Electrical's behalf, and requested that HNTB confirm that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting. At 7:32 a.m. that same morning, Mr. Woods sent an email to Juanita Moore notifying her of the error and confirming that Hinson Electrical's representative had indeed attended the pre-bid meeting. The Contracts Administration Office opened at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the bidding deadline. Within 36 minutes (by 8:36 a.m.), Ms. Moore reviewed Mr. Woods' email; checked the sign-in sheet; and instructed a subordinate, Colette Jackson, to send the bid document to Hinson Electrical. Ms. Jackson immediately sent the bid document to Hinson Electrical under a cover email. Ms. Moore testified that Phillip Davis could have easily gone through these same steps on September 24, 2012 (two days before the bid deadline), and timely transmitted the bid document to Hinson Electrical, if he had only read the Prequalification Failure Notice on which he was copied. Ms. Moore agreed that 24 hours would have been sufficient time for Mr. Davis to check the sign-in sheet and release the bid document. When DOT finally provided the bid document to Hinson Electrical, it was 1 hour, 54 minutes before the bid submission deadline. At 8:40 a.m. on September 26, 2012, (four minutes after receiving the bid document) Daniel Hinson spoke by telephone with Colette Jackson about needing additional time to complete Hinson Electrical's electronic bid submission. Colette Jackson testified that one of her responsibilities at DOT is to move bid deadlines, and that she can do so quickly upon receiving instructions from Ms. Moore to do so. However, Ms. Jackson did not have authority to provide the requested relief, so she transferred the call to Ms. Moore. Upon being transferred to Ms. Moore, Mr. Hinson asked for additional time to complete the Hinson Electrical bid for the Project. That request was refused by Ms. Moore. In her view, the fact that the pay items and estimated quantities for the project had previously been provided should have enabled Hinson Electrical to submit a bid within the two hours remaining prior to the deadline. In addition, Ms. Moore felt Hinson Electrical should have taken it upon itself to contact DOT immediately upon receiving the disqualification notification if it believed it had complied with all prerequisites. Contrary to Ms. Moore's opinion, Mr. Hinson testified that it would have taken him about four hours to go through the various steps to submit Hinson Electrical's online bid for the Project. DOT's position that Hinson Electrical could have completed and submitted its bid with less than two hours remaining is rejected as not credible. However, even if that were possible, it would have put Hinson Electrical at a disadvantage because every other bidder was able to download the bid document immediately upon request after the pre-bid meeting. Daniel Hinson has submitted bids for hundreds of DOT projects (including "dozens" using the current online system) and he reasonably believed there was insufficient time remaining before the deadline to prepare a competent bid and ensure its accuracy. Mr. Hinson's testimony regarding the amount of time necessary to prepare a complete and competent bid for the Project is more credible than the testimony of Ms. Moore. Considering the potential cost to Hinson Electrical of a mistake made in haste, it was entirely reasonable for Hinson Electrical to decline to submit a bid, and instead request a bid extension. Likewise, it was unreasonable for DOT to decline the extension request, given that it was DOT's mistake that necessitated the extension. DOT extends bid deadlines dozens of times each year, for various reasons, including computer issues, mistakes in the bid documents, or bad weather. Ms. Moore testified about bid deadlines that had been moved, three or four times in some cases, for reasons including computer glitches, website issues, and "technical problems." In one such instance, contractors could not obtain their bid documents on the Monday before a Wednesday letting (which is what happened to Hinson Electrical in this case), and DOT postponed the bid deadline. In another instance, a bid deadline was postponed for a third time "because the vendors couldn't download what they needed to bid." And in another example, the bid deadline was postponed with notice provided just 92 minutes before the deadline due to "server issues at the Department." In this final example, once the malfunction was identified, DOT promptly sent the notice of postponement to the bidders and later completed the other necessary steps to move the bid deadline. A postponement notice can be sent to bidders in less than ten minutes after the decision to postpone a bid is made. All other steps required to move a bid deadline are typically accomplished by DOT personnel in about an hour. DOT knows of no harm that would have come to the other bidders had DOT agreed to move the bid deadline to allow Hinson sufficient time to submit its online bid. At 9:22 a.m. on September 26, 2012, Daniel Hinson sent an email to Colette Jackson in response to her email, stating there was insufficient time for Hinson Electrical to prepare its bid for the Project and that a protest would be filed if DOT posted its intent to award the contract to one of the other bidders. The letting of the project occurred as scheduled at 10:30 a.m. on September 26, 2012. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 24, 2012, DOT posted notice of its intent to award the contract to ALS. This was the second posting date for the September 26, 2012 letting date. Thereafter, Hinson Electrical timely served its notice of protest, formal protest pleading, and the required bond. The advertisement for the Project reads, in part, "Bidders are hereby notified that all bids on any of the following projects are likely to be rejected if the lowest responsive bid received exceeds the engineer's estimate by more than ten percent (10%)." DOT does reject all bids for being too high in some cases. The bid submitted by ALS for the Project exceeded the proposal budget estimate of $4,183,958 by 19.9 percent (ALS' winning bid was $5,016,501.73). The Contract Award Committee (Committee) is the DOT body with discretion to reject all bids for a project. However, Ms. Moore never informed the Committee of Hinson Electrical's situation so that it could determine whether the Project should be rebid. Even after posting notice of intent to award the Project to ALS, DOT retained discretion to reject all bids, but Ms. Moore was unaware of that discretion and never discussed the matter with the Committee. Hinson Electrical credibly established that it would have submitted a bid of $4,973,361.99 for the Project had DOT provided the online bid document when Hinson Electrical first requested it. Thus, Hinson Electrical would have been the low bidder, and presumably awarded the contract. DOT had at least three opportunities to correct its mistake and allow Hinson Electrical an opportunity to bid. DOT could have (l) extended the bid deadline, as it has in many other cases; (2) rejected all bids and rebid the Project, before posting notice of intent to award the contract; or (3) rejected all bids even after posting notice of intent. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following: DOT has no policy statements, handbook provisions, internal memoranda, guidelines, or other documents regarding the following subjects: How a failure to timely transmit bid documents in response to a prospective bidder's request, whether due to a transmission error or otherwise, should be handled or what relief may be provided to the bidder; Acceptable grounds for extending a bid submission deadline; How an erroneous determination that a prospective bidder for a project was not qualified to bid should be handled, either before or after the bid deadline has expired; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some irregularity in the bidding process; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some error made by FDOT (including its computer system); and How to handle a situation in which all received bids exceed the budget for the project by more than 10%. (Prehearing Stipulation, pgs. 11-12)
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation that rescinds the Notice of Intent to award Contract T2442 to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 32,000 square feet of office space to house some of its indigent social services for southern Escambia County. Since the desired office space is greater than 2,000 square feet HRS was required to competitively bid lease number 590:1984. Towards that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety one building to house all its units employee morale moving costs traffic flow within the building public access Many of the above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 17,000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. Employee morale was important because of high employee burn out due to rendering aid to so many people who have so little and supplying a pleasant environment conducive to the work of the employees. Moving costs were important should HRS be required to find other space to operate in while necessary remodeling took place in the selected building, or be required to incur the expense of moving to a new building. 1/ All of the above areas were covered by one of Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task, Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure a cross section of input from people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space under the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individual who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as a persons familiar with the bid process. Ms. Schembera assigned to serve on the committee Charles Bates, Deputy District Administrator; Jim Peters, to provide a fiscal and overall administrative perspective as well as bid expertise; two citizens from the District Advisory Council to assure objectivity and to look at the properties from the perspective of a private citizen; Mamun Rashied, a program manager; Darlene McFarland, a program manager; Cherie Neal, a unit supervisor and program worker; and Stacey Cassidy, a clerical employee. Ms. Schembera did not personally know Cherie Neal or Stacey Cassidy. These staff members were designated by the supervisors upon Ms. Schembera's direction that she wanted persons who were both intelligent and respected by their peers. One private citizen member of the committee did not participate. The committee as constituted showed a great deal of thought on Ms. Schembera's part to ensure the objectivity of the bid process she was engaging in and to ensure the maximum amount of input from persons who had experience relevant to the overall review of the proposed real estate and to the decision they were being asked to make. The selection of the bid evaluation committee members was neither an arbitrary nor capricious act on Ms. Schembera's part. In fact, the evidence demonstrated the merit in constituting the committee as she did for the input she sought. The bid evaluation committee members, minus Mr. Bates, were briefed on their duties by Joe Pastucha, Facilities Services Manager. Mr. Pastucha is part of the staff responsible for the bid process at HRS. He provided these committee members with the weighted bid evaluation criteria found at page 15 in the bid package. He also gave the committee members a copy of Chapter 5 of the HRS manual containing guidelines for the bid process. His verbal instructions on specific procedures to follow in the evaluation process were limited since he did not wish to improperly influence the committee members. On July 20, 1988, HRS received three bids responding to its invitation to bid on Lease Number 590:1984. Bid A was submitted by Phillips and Company, the apparent second lowest bidder and Intervenor in this case. Its property consisted of one multi-story building located at 1740 North Palafox Street, Pensacola, Florida. Bid B was not responsive and therefore was not considered by HRS and is not a part of this litigation. Bid C was submitted by Petitioner Carmon S. Boone, and was the apparent low bid. Mr. Boone's property consisted of two buildings located at 401 and 411 North Baylen Street, Pensacola, Florida. The Boone property is the present location of Respondent's offices. Both Bid A and Bid C were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Once the bids were received the bid evaluation committee began its work. The committee members, minus Mr. Bates, visited the Phillips property. However, the members did not visit the Boone property. There was no need. Four of the members currently worked at the Boone property and the other members had previously visited the Boone property on various other occasions. Mr. Bates was likewise already familiar with both properties. All members were sufficiently familiar with the cogent aspects of each property to allow them to make a rational decision. The bid evaluation committee, minus Mr. Bates, met as a group to evaluate each property in accordance with the weighted bid evaluation criteria. Each individual scored their sheets separately and the general consensus was supportive of recommending the Phillips property. Five committee members scored Mr. Phillips' property higher than the Boone property. The one exception was Mr. Peters who felt that HRS could not support a bid awarded for other than monetary reasons, i.e., he felt the lowest bid had to be accepted. Mr. Bates later reviewed all the bid synopsis sheets of the committee members and discussed the bid award with Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha. Mr. Bates felt that the Phillips property was the lowest and best bid. At about the same time, the staff responsible for providing technical assistance to the committee and the District Administrator were made aware that the general consensus of the committee was leaning towards the second lowest bidder, Phillips and Company, as the lowest and best bid. The staff members, one of whom was a bid committee member, disagreed with the award of the bid to Phillips and Company because the Boone property was the lower bid. The staff members sought to head off the committee's intended recommendation. The staff personnel held a meeting with some of the committee members in order to get them to join in a recommendation to Ms. Schembera of the Boone property. Mr. Boone was invited and attended the meeting. He was allowed to improperly bolster his bid by agreeing to convert the two buildings to one and other lesser additions. /2 The potential decision was discussed, but no committee member changed his or her mind. However, through a total lack of communication, a run away staff somehow rationalized themselves into a position of being authorized to submit a letter for Ms. Schembera's signature which awarded the Boone property the lease. Ms. Schembera became aware of her staff's attempt to subvert the bid process she had established. She refused to sign the letter submitted by the staff. She removed the staff member of the committee as a voting member. The staff member had supported the Boone property. She also removed a committee member who supported the Phillips property as a voting member. Ms. Schembera feared that her staff had improperly influenced this member to such an extent that his objectivity had been affected. Both members could still participate in committee discussions. Ms. Schembera thereby reasonably ensured the ongoing objectivity of the bid evaluation committee. The committee was reconvened, minus one member. It recommended the Phillips and Company property. Every reason given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that the Phillips property was the better property for the money. The Phillips property allowed working units to be located in one area with each such unit having its own access. It provided flat safe parking areas and sidewalks, bigger and more elevators, wide halls and windows which presented a bright, happy and pleasant working environment. The Boone property was in two buildings which could not accommodate co-located working units with their own access no matter how much remodeling took place. Parking and sidewalks are on a hill which is slippery when wet. It had one small elevator and narrow halls which did not adequately accommodate more than one wheel chair, and one ground floor where no windows could ever be remodeled into the building leaving a dark, dingy and unpleasant environment. Importantly, every committee member except for the staff member came to the conclusion that the Phillips and Company property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a particular piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. After reviewing and considering information from the bid evaluation committee, the information on the bid synopsis sheet, and the oral recommendations of Mr. Bates, Mr. Peters and Mr. Pastucha, Ms. Schembera concluded that the Phillips property was vastly better, even considering costs. She found it to be materially superior in terms of construction, organization, client accessibility, handicap accessibility, repairability (in terms of walls), and maneuverability for clients and staff. She felt the Phillips' building's qualities would offer more "humanity" to the process of serving the Department's clients. Additional facts she considered when making her decision included the morale of the staff and their productivity; the ability of staff and clients to conduct their business in a reasonably pleasant, comfortable, safe, and easy to understand and comprehend environment; and the desire to provide a minimally adequate work space. In addition to other monetary costs, she considered energy costs and life cycle costs as reflected on the bid synopsis sheet. The bid synopsis sheet defined minimal energy and life cycle costs to be anything less than 55 BTU's per square feet per year. In this case, the Boone property reflected 39.5 BTU's per square feet and the Phillips property reflected 53.5 BTU's per square feet. Both properties were under the 55 BTU cutoff established by HRS. Translated into monetary figures (life cycle costs) the Boone property reflected a cost of $26,735.00 and the Phillips property reflected a cost of $41,160.00. It was the difference between the energy figures which caught Ms. Schembera's eye. In her layman's opinion, it was incomprehensible that the two buildings would have such a wide divergence of energy costs. /3 She learned from her staff that the information used to compute these costs was supplied by the bidders who had vested interests in the outcome. Ms. Schembera concluded the cost difference was minimal and not of overriding concern in relation to the physical characteristics of the two buildings and how they compared to each other. She quite correctly felt the two buildings were not comparable. In essence, the two buildings' differences in design location and construction rendered neither building comparable to the other building as a like facility under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. 4/ Based on that information she gave the energy figures relatively little weight. More importantly, however, before the final bid award was made by HRS, the Division of General Services within HRS in its failsafe role in reviewing bids considered the life cycle cost figures of the two bids. The minimal language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, has been interpreted by HRS to mean that anything under 55 BTU's is minimal and except in one instance not applicable here, numerical differences under 55 BTU's are immaterial. The Division, without getting into the issue of the likeness of the facilities, concluded that both bids met the Department's interpretation of the "minimal" language of Section 255.254, Florida Statutes, and the relative numerical difference in the energy costs was immaterial. Ms. Schembera is entitled to rely on other more expert HRS Division staff to ensure a proper analysis of highly technical bid specifications such as the energy cost analysis required under Section 255.254, Florida Statutes. It does not matter that the review took place after Ms. Schembera had made her preliminary decision. What is important is that the review be made either personal or vicariously through staff before the final award is made. A proper review of energy costs was, therefore, made by Respondent before the final award was made. Likewise, Ms. Schembera's ultimate decision that the buildings were not comparable like facilities was a proper review of energy costs even though that conclusion was arrived at through a layman's unsophisticated, but more accurate intuition and common sense. To that extent, the energy cost data had no impact on the ultimate choice made by the District Administrator and were properly considered by the District Administrator. 5/ A letter for Ms. Schembera's signature adopting the committee's recommendation was drafted by Mr. Pastucha. The letter was signed and sent to the Department's Division of General Services for review. The District was requested to provide additional justification for its choice by the Department's Division of General Services. Mr. Rashied was directed to draft the response. He simply reorganized the original memorandum into a format more compatible with the Division's direction, clarified a few points and without significantly changing the content, submitted the response as directed. The Division acquiesced in Ms. Schembera's decision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing Case NO. 88-4900BID, and awarding lease number 590:1984 to Phillips and Company as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of January, 1988.
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact During the month of March 1996, the Pinellas County School Board, pursuant to an advertised invitation for bids, (IFB), solicited bids for the construction of a new facility for John H. Sexton Elementary School (Sexton school). Each party submitting a bid was required to do so on a bid proposal form which was contained in the bid documents prepared by the project architect, Mr. Hoffman, and furnished to each prospective bidder who requested the bid package. One section of the bid proposal form related to "dewatering" potentially required at the construction site, and consistent with that potential two sentences were contained on the bid proposal form relating to dewatering of footings and of utilities, both of which provided for election by checking of an affirmative or a negative, and both of which had been pre-checked in the affirmative by the Board. It was the position of the Board that the pre- checked sentences as to dewatering on the bid proposal form constituted an acknowledgment by each bidder that that bidder's submittal included dewatering in the base bid. In addition to the check, the dewatering section also included blanks for the insertion by the bidder of figures representing lineal feet of header pipe and unit price per foot which figure would constitute a credit given by the bidder to the Board against the total bid price if dewatering were found not to be necessary, both as to footings and to utilities. Even further, the form also contained blanks to be filled in by the bidder for unit prices to be charged the Board in the event additional dewatering was required by virtue of the Board's later inclusion in the project of additional footings or utilities. Prior to the time for bid submittal, the Board conducted a meeting of all prospective bidders at which the project was explained and bidders given an opportunity to ask questions raised by the bid package. Johnson did not ask any questions regarding dewatering or that portion of the package relating thereto. Numerous bids were submitted in response to the proposal, including those from Johnson and Ellis. By stipulation at the hearing, the parties agreed that in all ways other than in that section of the bid proposal form for this project relating to dewatering, Johnson was and is a responsive and responsible bidder, as is Ellis. The bid proposals were opened by the Board at 2:00 PM on April 11, 1996 and the base bid prices on each proposal were read aloud to all in attendance by a Board representative. The project architect was present at the opening and tabulated and reviewed the bid proposals as opened. Johnson submitted the lowest base bid with a price of $7,965,000. The next lowest bid was that of Ellis, whose base bid price was $7,945,200. At the time of opening, no Board representative indicated anything was wrong with Johnson's bid Mr. Hoffman, the project architect, immediately noticed that Johnson had altered the Board's pre-checked bid proposal form by striking out the pre- checked "is" space regarding inclusion of dewatering in the base price of the two dewaterings, and making an X in each of the "is not" spaces. Mr. Hoffman considered that alteration by Johnson as a material alteration of the Board's solicitation which rendered Johnson's bid non-responsive. It must be noted that each change bears the initials, R. Y. Reza Yazdani is Johnson's president who initialed the changes and signed the bid proposal form for the company. In addition, Johnson also inserted a "0" in those spaces which dealt with amount of credit and cost of additional dewatering in the event additional work is required by the Board. In that regard, Hoffman opined that had Johnson not changed the check marks, but inserted the "0" figures as it did, the bid would have been responsive and Johnson would still have been lowest responsive bidder. The reason for this is that the bid form specifically notes that "the unit costs described in A & B above shall in no manner influence the School Board's selection of a firm to whom to award the Contract." The Board now recognizes that there is no part "B", as referenced in the proposal form. Since the "0's" would not influence the selection, use of an unmodified Board form, along with the lowest submitted base price would, in Hoffman's opinion, probably have meant that Johnson would have been awarded the contract. Johnson's representative, Mr. Mohme, who drafted the company proposal, specifically indicated he did not believe dewatering was a potential in this project. He recognized that such dewatering as was necessary was required by other provisions in the project specifications and he could not figure any way to recognize this and yet accurately reflect his belief that dewatering would not be necessary, other than to strike the pre-checked block and insert the check in the alternative block. He felt that by doing so, he was more accurately reflecting Johnson's bid. This reasoning is rather obscure. By letter dated April 12, 1996, written to the Board after the bids were opened, Mr. Mohme reiterated Johnson's position that dewatering is not necessary on this project, but further stated that if dewatering were to be necessary, Johnson would do so solely at its own risk and without any risk of additional cost to the Board. Bids may be clarified by a bidder, but such clarification must take place before the bids are opened. Bids may not be modified after bid opening. Before that letter was written, however, when the bids were opened and Mr. Hoffman observed what he considered was Johnson's alteration of the bid form, Hoffman consulted with a representative of the Board's purchasing department, Ms. Maas, who also reviewed Johnson's bid. Ms. Mass was of the opinion that Johnson may have attempted to qualify its bid, and she and Mr. Hoffman thereafter met with Mr. Rivas, the Board's director of facilities design and construction, to explain the problem. Mr. Rivas took the problem to two other Board personnel to see if there were some way Johnson's bid could be deemed responsive so that the Board could benefit by Johnson's low bid price. Within the context of those aforementioned discussions, Hoffman took the position that the alteration might leave the Board open to a possible change order and additional liability if dewatering were to be required and the Board had accepted Johnson's bid indicating that process was not included in the base price. Mr. Rivas, after consulting with the Board's attorney, also concluded that Johnson's alteration expressly excluded dewatering as an included factor and its exclusion constituted a serious and material deviation from the Board's solicitation. It was deemed material in that the deviation apparently gave Johnson a competitive advantage over other bidders who did not amend the form. This appears to be a valid conclusion and is adopted herein. The decision to recommend rejection of Johnson's bid and acceptance of Ellis's as the lowest responsive bid was ultimately reached by the Board's administrative staff. The Ellis bid was responsive to the solicitation whereas the determination was made that Johnson's was not responsive because of the alteration. It was not the actual act of alteration that caused that determination but rather the potential effect of the alteration. This was consistent with long standing Board policy not to accept a bid which does not conform to a bid solicitation and not to accept bids from bidders who alter the Board's bid proposal form or otherwise attempt to qualify their bids. It is the opinion of the Board personnel that such consistency in bidding procedure has resulted over time in more qualified bidders submitting bids for Board work which, in turn, has resulted in more competitive prices for the work let for bid. This is a reasonable policy. Mr. Gottschalk, Johnson's expert architect, who has designed schools for the Board, offered an alternative disposition to this dilemma. While admitting that Johnson's shifting of the risk of loss as a result of possible dewatering was a material matter, he suggested the Board could have disregarded the dewatering clause on every submittal and thereafter awarded the contract to Johnson, the lowest bidder, whose bid was responsive to the solicitation except for the dewatering provision. Recognizing this solution would have placed each bidder on an equal footing and allowed award to the lowest bidder at a substantial savings to the Board, he nonetheless also understood the decision made by Mr. Hoffman and the Board staff here and could not fault it. He agreed that reasonable men could differ on the issue of responsiveness here and how to deal with it. It is so found. After a review of the evidence submitted, including the testimony indicating the remoteness of the likelihood that extensive dewatering would be required, there appears to be no evidence that the Board, or its staff, acted dishonestly, fraudulently, illegally or arbitrarily in rejecting Johnson's bid on this project and recommending award to Ellis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order denying and dismissing G. H. Johnson Construction Company's protest and awarding a contract for the construction of Sexton Elementary School to Ellis Construction Company, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1942BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Johnson's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted but not a proper Finding of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. Rejected. Accepted but not a proper Findings of Fact. More a restatement of and comment on testimony. &11. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted as a literal statement of what appears in the specifications. Second and third sentences accepted but not probative of any material issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence accepted. Balance not Finding of fact but argument. Ellis' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3.-6. Accepted. 7.-10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted but word "certain" is changed to read "likely." 17.-21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23.&24. Accepted. 25.&26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27.-29. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not relevant to any material issue of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jawdet I. Rubaii, Esquire Clearwater Executive Suites, No. 213 1345 South Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34616 John W. Bowen, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Street S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942 E. A. Mills, Jr. Esquire Dale W. Vash, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal and Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601 Pinellas County School Board 301 4th Avenue, S.W. Largo, Florida 34649-2942
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Intervenor, V.I.P. Painting and Sandblasting, is the lowest responsible bidder on state project numbers 73906-9004 and 76906-9004. FIMDINGS OF FACT 1..Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. 2..Petitioner, C-Line Coating, and the Intervenor, V.I.P. Painting and Sandblasting, submitted bids to perform work for the above-referenced projects, which consisted of cleaning and painting all structural steel located in the scale pit areas of the Flagler Beach and Palatka Scales on State Roads 9 and 100, respectively, in Flagler and Putnam Counties. Sealed bids were to be received in the downstairs conference room of the District Office, Department of Transportation, 719 S. Boulevard, Deland, Florida, on February 14, 1985. The bid opening was scheduled to occur at 9:30 a.m. (Deland local time). On February 14, 1985, the bid letting occurred pursuant to notice in an advertisement to prospective bidders. Respondent received bids on said projects from Petitioner and Intervenor prior to 9:30 a.m.; however, the bid from Intervenor was not opened until after the scheduled letting. Intervenor's bid was opened, after notice to all bidders, on February 25, 1985. Of the bids opened by Respondent on February 14, 1985, Petitioner was the apparent low bidder; however, upon later opening the bids submitted by the Intervenor, that bid was deemed the lowest responsible bidder by the Respondent, and the Respondent gave notice of its intent to award the contract to Intervenor. Pursuant to the Notice to Contractors issued by the Respondent, bids or proposals were to be delivered to or mailed to arrive at the Department office designated in the Notice to Contractors prior to the deadline set out in the Notice, which, in this case as stated, was February 14, 1985. The Department office designated on the Notice was 719 S. Boulevard, Deland, Florida. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Intervenor mailed its bid by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the designated address on February 11, 1985. The U.S. Postal Service placed their first Notice of Receipt of Intervenor's certified envelope containing its bid in the Respondent's post office box on February 13, 1985 sometime after the morning pickup by the District office employee (Respondent). Respondent had Intervenor's bid in its possession on the morning of February 14, 1985, prior to 9:30 a.m., though it was not in the hands of the officer who conducted the bid letting (Thomas George) at the time the bids were opened. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) Lewis Santucci2 left the Deland District office at aprroximately 9:00 a.m. on February 14, 1985 to pick up the mail at the Deland Post Office. Santucci picked the mail up at approximately 9:15 a.m. and arrived back at the District office with the mail pouch at approximately 9':30 a.m. The mail, which contained the Intervenor's bid, was placed in the upstairs mailroom where all bids, etc. are placed at approximately 9:30 a.m. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) Petitioner contends that Intervenor's bid was not a responsible bid inasmuch as it was not placed in an outer envelope which designated the number of the project on the outside of the sealed envelope. In this regard, Mr. George related that Petitioner's bid also did not contain the number of the project involved when Petitioner submitted its bid. Mr. George, however, placed the project number of Petitioner's bid on the envelope which appeared to cure that minor problem. That minor omission, by both the Petitioner and Intervenor, did not cause any confusion in the bid letting and was, at most, harmless error.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent HRS published ITB 590:2306 for existing rental space in the central area of Brooksville, Florida. The bid solicitation specified a bid opening time and date of 2:00 p.m. July 17, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted sealed bids. They were the only two bidders. Neither they nor anyone else timely filed any protest of the bid specifications, and therefore the specifications are not subject to attack in this proceeding. Petitioner received a notice of intent to award the bid for lease 590:2306 to Intervenor by letter from Respondent dated August 27, 1991 and timely filed its notice of intent to protest and formal bid protest. Petitioner accordingly has standing to bring this proceeding. Intervenor is the intended awardee and as such has standing to intervene. Petitioner submitted the property located at 7348 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida, and showed in his bid submittal form that his proposed property contained 22,500 net square feet, with future expansion of 2,100 square feet available. When Petitioner submitted his bid, it included a floor plan, site plan, and a PUR 7068 form. A PUR 7068 form is a "Public Entity Crime Certification Statement," a sworn statement under Section 287.133(a) F.S. The ITB included two separate requirements for bidders to establish that they have control over the property that they submit to HRS. HRS' purposes in requiring bidders to demonstrate control are to prevent bids based on total speculation, to establish a reasonable expectation that the bidder can meet his obligations if awarded the bid, and to establish a reasonable expectation that the property can be occupied on time. Item 1 on page 3 provides as follows: Control of property - This pertains to both the structure(s) and proposed parking areas. To submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor must meet one of the following qualifications: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (submit copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documen- tation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas through the base lease term and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas. d.) Submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to in turn, sublease. Any lease must encompass the entire time period of the basic lease and any renewal option periods as required the state. e.) Submit form PUR. 7068 Sworn Statement of Public Entity Crimes (Attachment H). Page 12 provides, in part, as follows: In order for a bid proposal to be accepted the items 1 through 6 must be included in the bid proposal. Items 7 through 11 must be included, if applicable. [Items 11 and 13 state:] 11. Documentation showing bidder as controller of property. 13. Public Enemy [sic] Crime Certification Statement A pre-bid conference attended by Petitioner made clear that evidence of control and the PUR 7068 form were two different items. Petitioner testified that he attached the PUR 7068 form as his sole basis for evidencing control of the building and parking spaces he submitted for lease, and acknowledged that, in fact, the form did not provide any information with regard to his control of the buildings or parking spaces offered for lease. Petitioner's assertion that his name on some of his site plans, etc. constitutes evidence of control is not persuasive. Such assertion is not in line with the ITB requirements or even common sense. Petitioner Proctor owned the buildings he offered HRS in his bid submittal. Petitioner offered multiple buildings separated by parking areas and driveways. The property offered by Petitioner was to have built an awning- covered walkway between buildings but the walkway would have to be placed through the driveway area of the property. The expansion area for Petitioner's property designated in its bid submittal was composed of approximately 10 gated warehouse units which would be converted to office space. Petitioner had leased a portion of the same premises to HRS for 15 years, and HRS was still leasing that portion at the time of the bid opening. At the time of the bid opening, another portion of the property Petitioner proposed to be leased to HRS was also already rented to other tenants, including a lease to the Florida Department of Labor which was not scheduled to expire until December 31, 1991, one day prior to HRS' proposed first day of occupancy under the ITB. The space leased to the Department of Labor would require some renovation for HRS' use, at least to connect it on the interior with the rest of the building. The remainder of the second, adjacent, building to be rented under Petitioner's bid would require more extensive renovation to create office spaces to meet HRS' needs. In addition to the Department of Labor, Petitioner was also renting space in the second building to a beauty salon, a book store, an office supply store, a clothing store, and a barber at the time of bid submittal and opening and at the time of the formal hearing. These latter tenants were on month-to-month leases. In order to ensure that there would be time for necessary renovations before January 1, 1992 and further to ensure that the property would be available for occupancy on January 1, 1992, the ITB required in the following unequivocal language that all bidders file tenant acknowledgments of the bid/proposed lease with their bid submittal: Existing Tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date must be included with the bid submittal. [Emphasis added] Petitioner submitted no tenant acknowledgments from any of his tenants with his bid to HRS. Even though Petitioner failed to submit evidence of control in the form of a deed and further failed to submit the required acknowledgments from tenants occupying the premises on the bid date, HRS did not immediately disqualify Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive. Instead, HRS evaluated Petitioner's bid simultaneously with Intervenor TCC's bid. HRS relied on old leases in its files and actual knowledge that monthly rent was paid to Petitioner for its own currently leased space, and HRS ignored the absence of tenant acknowledgments with Petitioner's bid. HRS followed this course of action despite the requirement of the ITB on page 7, item 1 under EVALUATION OF BIDS which unequivocally provides: Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. This includes submittal on bid submittal forms, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, signatures and notarization, etc. Non responsive [sic] bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. The portion of the ITB designated, Documents Required To Be Submitted With Bid Submittal For Existing Buildings on page 12, item 4. required bidders to submit "Scale Floor Plans showing present configurations with dimensions." Page 3 of 22, Item 9.(b) further required that, as a part of the bid submittal, bidders were to provide "A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0") floor plan showing present configuration with measurements." Contrary to the ITB requirement, Petitioner submitted a floor plan scaled at 1/20" = 1', which also failed to reflect the present configurations with all measurements. Petitioner's scaled floor plan submitted with his bid was prepared prior to the present addition to one building and contained a hand- drawn configuration without accurate measurements for the northwest corner of one building. The term of the lease as shown on the ITB and Bid Submittal Form was 9 and one-half years with an option to renew for 2-5 year renewal periods. At the time of the bid opening on July 17, 1991, the bid submitted by Petitioner failed to have any proposed rental rates shown for "Renewal Options: Option II years 1 through 5." HRS permitted Petitioner to correct or supplement its bid after the bid opening (same date and place) to cover this material omission. Page 6, item 4 of the ITB provided for the property owner or other bidding entity to sign the bid submission. The pertinent part states: 4. Each bid submitted shall be signed by the owner(s) corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. ALL BID SUBMITTAL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS. [Emphasis appears in ITB] Petitioner Proctor signed his bid submittal in proper person. TCC's bid submittal was signed by Sharon K. Lane, "Executive Director," of TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc., Intervenor herein. At all times material, TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc. has been a Florida corporation. At the time of the bid opening, Ms. Lane was TCC's sole shareholder and "all officers." At the time of formal hearing, Ms. Lane remained the sole shareholder, but others had assumed some of the corporate offices. Her status at the time of the bid submittal was sufficient for her to bid on behalf of the TCC corporation and to execute the PUR 7068 form on that corporation's behalf. Intervenor TCC submitted the required PUR 7068 form, but TCC submitted as sole evidence of control an undated, unrecorded "Contract for Sale and Purchase" by and between Hernando Plaza Ltd. as Seller and Intervenor TCC as Buyer, for the property which Intervenor was offering for lease to HRS. The best date assignable to this document is April 29, 1991. It was executed on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves as general partners of the limited partnership. TCC's obligation to proceed to closing under the foregoing contract was contingent upon TCC's securing an anchor tenant. However, the contract requires TCC to take steps to secure an anchor tenant. By its terms, TCC may purchase the property with or without an anchor tenant, but the contract requires TCC, in seeking an anchor tenant, to set time limits for the lease arrangement with the proposed anchor tenant which do not necessarily accord with the timing of HRS' bid process. HRS accepted TCC's contract to purchase from Hernando Plaza Ltd., as evidence of TCC's control of the premises offered by TCC for lease, believing it to constitute an option to purchase and the necessary evidence of control as required by the ITB. (See, Finding of Fact 6, supra.) At the time of the bid opening, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with a legal entity other than the record title owner of the property, which record title owner was and is the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation (Brown Foundation). See, infra. Up to that date, at least, Hernando Plaza Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as the owner of the property. The ITB did not require that an abstract of title be submitted with the bid, and HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contains provisions for future disclosure from successful bidders. (See, ITB item 5 under Requirements for Bidders to Submit Bids.) Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS attempts to protect itself by requiring successful bidders to put up an irrevocable letter of credit for one-half of one percent of the proposed lease rental obligation over the basic lease term as a penalty in the event a successful bidder cannot perform. (See, ITB page 4, item 10.) Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s certificate from the Florida Secretary of State expired December 31, 1981. That fact was advertised and the certificate cancelled July 16, 1982. At that time, Edward M. Strawgate was listed as a general partner and Harold Brown was listed as a limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd. Hernando Plaza Ltd. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. Subsequent to the time that Intervenor submitted its bid proposal, but prior to formal hearing, Hernando Plaza Ltd. was reinstated by the Florida Secretary of State. Once reinstated, the limited partnership's ability to act related back and validated its prior actions. At all times material, the record title of the property offered by Intervenor TCC for lease to HRS was owned by "Harold Brown, Lillian Brown and Muriel Kahr as Trustees of the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation." This title is derived from a recorded June 30, 1967 warranty deed from Hernando Plaza Ltd., which deed was admitted in evidence at formal hearing. The warranty deed was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. Neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid to HRS on behalf of the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. There is also in evidence a recorded December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease between the Brown Foundation and City National Bank. That Amendment to Lease also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal to evidence control of the premises TCC was offering to lease to HRS. That Amendment to Lease also recites that Hernando Plaza Ltd. leased back the subject property from the Brown Foundation by a lease dated June 30, 1967. The June 30, 1967 lease was not recorded, was not part of TCC's bid submittal, and is not in evidence. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to recite that Hernando Plaza Ltd. has assigned its lessee interest under the June 30, 1967 lease to City National Bank by a March 14, 1978 assignment. There is also in evidence a recorded March 14, 1978 "Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease from Hernando Plaza Ltd. to City National Bank." This assignment was not part of TCC's bid submittal. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to further recite that the Brown Foundation has "agreed to give and grant to [Hernando Plaza Ltd.] an option to purchase the property." The remainder of the December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease details the terms or conditions of the option to purchase granted by the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza. For instance, in order to exercise that option to purchase the subject property from the Brown Foundation, Hernando Plaza Ltd., among other requirements, would have to demonstrate that all the terms of the unrecorded June 30, 1967 lease are "in good standing." One may reasonably infer that "in good standing" would at a bare minimum mean that the rents under the lease are paid current at the time the option is exercised, but what the other terms of the lease might be are subject to pure conjecture. TCC's bid submittal did not include documentation that the June 30, 1967 lease was "in good standing." There is also in evidence a recorded June 7, 1989 Trustee's Deed (quitclaim deed of the trustee's interest) from City National Bank's successor bank/trustee to Hernando Plaza Ltd. The Trustee's Deed also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. On the date of bid submittal/opening neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. or City National Bank's successor. At formal hearing, TCC submitted an October 24, 1991 written hearsay statement by Harold Brown as Trustee of the Brown Foundation to the effect that Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s December 18, 1985 option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation was "in full force and effect" and that the June 30, 1967 lease back from the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza Ltd. was "in full force and effect and that the lessee is in good standing thereunder." Assuming these items may be considered in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.58 (1) F.S. as supplementing or explaining direct evidence, they still do not clarify in any way what all the terms of the unrecorded 1967 lease are or that those terms will remain in good standing on the date in the future that Hernando Plaza Ltd. elects to exercise its option, if it elects to exercise its option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation so that Hernando Plaza Ltd. may, in turn, convey the property to TCC, pursuant to Hernando Plaza Ltd. and TCC's April 29, 1991 contract for sale and purchase. Oddly enough, there is further explanatory hearsay that on October 24, 1991, Harold Brown was a trustee of the Brown Foundation and that he also was the sole limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd., although TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza for sale and purchase previously indicated Harold Brown was one of two general partners. Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation must be exercised by Hernando Plaza Ltd. before Hernando Plaza Ltd. can honor its contract to purchase/sell to TCC. Since there is no record evidence that the June 30, 1967 lease from the Brown Foundation as lessor to Hernando Plaza Ltd. as lessee will be in good standing on whatever future date Hernando Plaza Ltd. attempts to exercise its option with the Brown Foundation, one may only speculate both as to when and if TCC will be able to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza Ltd. TCC has only an option to become owner of the subject property at some unspecified date conditioned upon Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s first successfully exercising its option from the Brown Foundation and further conditioned upon all the terms of TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. Apparently, TCC's only recourse to enforce its contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. is a Circuit Court action for specific performance. TCC also submitted a site plan and floor plan with its bid submittal. The ITB required that offices on outside walls must provide windows. TCC's plans did not reflect windows in two sides of the building, but given HRS' retaining the right to partially design and locate its own halls and offices during the building's renovation, TCC's failure to show windows in the two outside walls is not, in and of itself, a material, disqualifying deviation from the ITB so as to unilaterally render TCC's bid nonresponsive. HRS staff member Donald J. Cerlanek prepared a bid synopsis of each bid. This involved completing a form from the HRS leasing manual which illustrates the characteristics of each of the bids. The bid requirements included evaluation criteria and a maximum amount of points which could be awarded for each criteria item. Five HRS bid evaluation committee members executed no conflict of interest forms. These were: Thomas C. Little Jr., David Thomley, Sylvia Smoot, Harvey Whitesides, and Mary Hawks. All committee members were given copies of the bid synopsis form to use in evaluating the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Some of the committee members did not obtain or review the actual bid submissions of each of the bidders, but all of them had access to the bid submissions and read the bid synopsis forms for both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submittals. The bid evaluation committee members, except for Mary Hawks, made site visits to the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Ms. Hawks essentially acted only as a facilitator or conduit for the evaluations of the other four evaluators as set out infra. The four site evaluators took notes regarding each location. The four site evaluators each assigned numerical weights to each item of evaluation criteria except for the rent and renewal rent portions of the evaluation criteria. Although on their site visits some committee members visiting TCC's site may have seen a color version of an artist's rendering of what TCC's project could look like after renovation was complete, a black and white version of the same artist's rendering was attached to TCC's bid submittal to which all committee members had access, and it is found that this situation in and of itself presented no false or misleading information nor constituted any prejudice to a fair bid process/evaluation. Likewise, although some evaluators discussed expansion prospects with TCC's and/or Proctor's on-site representatives, the evidence is credible and persuasive that each evaluator who visited the sites assessed the projects' respective expansion prospects substantially upon what they saw on each site and had experienced in Proctor's existing facility. The points awarded and reasons for the recommendations of each evaluator who visited the sites were reasonably based on specific needs of HRS. These specific needs of HRS were reasonably articulated by the two evaluators who made on-site inspections and who also testified at formal hearing and were reasonably set out in writing in the written notes of the two other evaluators who did not testify. Thomas C. Little, Jr., testified that he found the Intervenor's property superior as a result of the security problems at Petitioner's locations, the closer proximity of the courthouse, hospital, and health department to Intervenor's property and the superiority of a single building offered by Intervenor versus multiple buildings offered by Petitioner. Additionally, he found the esthetics of Petitioner's buildings lacking and expansion offered by Petitioner limited and was concerned that HRS would outgrow the space due to the fact that their service area is one of the most rapidly growing in Florida. His contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Sylvia Smoot, also a member of the evaluation committee, testified that she found Intervenor's facility superior based on its proximity to the courthouse, hospitals, and other key locations, and its flexibility of design and concentration of space in one building. She further found Petitioner's location lacking as a result of the three separate buildings, its limited expansion room, and the necessity for redirecting clients between buildings, and the difficulty for elderly and handicapped clients accessing Petitioner's building. Her contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Evaluators Whitesides and Thomley made substantially similar contemporaneous notes justifying their scoring of the two bidders. Three of the four site evaluators met as a group following the site visits and discussed the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. All four of the site evaluators made recommendations to accept the property for lease proposed by Intervenor, but they did not all confer and jointly develop a single recommendation to the facilities manager. The points assigned by each of the four site evaluators for the properties proposed by Petitioner and Intervenor were as follows: Evaluation Committee TCC Number Member's Names Proctor's Points 3's Points Thomley 75 98 Little 78 93 Whitesides 74 95 Smoot 80 91 307 377 The rent portion of the evaluation criteria was ascertained by applying present value methodology as set forth in the HRS leasing manual to the annual rents offered by the bidders. The discount factor was 8.32 percent. The present value of Proctor's bid was $1,934,038 and the present value of TCC's bid was $2,028,316. The leasing manual is considered advisory only. It advises present values be made, a determination of the difference in amounts be calculated and a comparison of the difference be made to determine a percentage. Thereafter, the percentage is applied to the maximum amount of points allocated for rent in the evaluation criteria. The lowest present value receives the maximum number of points allocated, and, thus, Proctor was awarded 35 points. TCC received 33 points, based upon the fact that its present value of rent was close to the present value submitted by Proctor. No penalty is imposed to a bidder whose rental amounts is higher than the lowest bidder. No benefit is conferred upon the lowest cost bidder over the next lowest bidder. Mary Hawks, Manager for Administrative Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received each of the individual evaluation recommendations from Thomley, Little, Whitesides and Smoot. As a result of travel restrictions placed on the HRS, the four site evaluators and Ms. Hawks, who was also a fifth committee member, did not meet as a group following the site visits although three of the four site evaluators did meet collectively following the site visits. (See Finding of Fact 43-44, supra.) The committee members could have met by telephone conference call but Mary Hawks found it unnecessary to do so because there was such a clear evaluation in favor of Intervenor based on the total composite evaluation scores of 377 for Intervenor and only 307 for Petitioner, out of a total of 400 points. She assigned no points herself but approved their recommendations and forwarded a single recommendation in favor of TCC for ultimate approval by HRS management. Mary Hawks had spoken to the evaluation committee members subsequent to the evaluation and no member had expressed any reservation regarding his/her evaluation or a need to meet to discuss anything additional regarding the bid evaluation. The HRS Intent to Award to TCC subsequently issued. The evaluation process and formula for rent evaluation are not among the more commonly used methods but were reasonable and rational and fairly applied to the bids in this case. No conflict of interest in the evaluation committee members was demonstrated by Petitioner in these proceedings.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that: The bid of TCC Number 3 Ltd. is nonresponsive; The bid of Derick Proctor is nonresponsive; Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2306 to either bidder. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5963BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Proctor's 74 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted, except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the recommended order (RO). Unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized: 1-3, sentence 1 of PFOF 4, 5-6, 9, 11-12, sentence 1 of PFOF 13, sentence 1 of PFOF 16, 17-26, sentence 1 of PFOF 29, 30-33, 35-36, sentences 1 and 4 of PFOF 38, 39-41, 44-54, 56-57, 60-61, 63. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute a proposed conclusion of law (PCOL) or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 4, sentence 2 of PFOF 16, 34, 43. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 10, sentence 2 of PFOF 13, 14- 15, sentence 2 of PFOF 29, sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 38, 55, 58. PFOF 7-8 are accepted as modified because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found and other parts are mere recitations of unreconciled portions of the record and legal argument. The following PFOF are accepted in part but not utilized because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, and other parts are rejected as immaterial to the dispositive issues herein, although correctly quoted from the record: 68-73. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or not dispositive: 27-28, 37, 42, 59, 62, 65, 67, 74. The following PFOF are covered in preliminary material: 64, 66. HRS 21 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-19. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 5, 9-10, 14-15, 21. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 20. PFOF 13 is accepted as modified to correctly reflect the credible record evidence as a whole. TCC Number 3 75 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-31, 34-38, 42- 45, 47-48, 56, 58-60, 64-69, 71-75. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 32. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 33, 40-41, 53-55, 57, 61-63, 70. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or as not dispositive: 39, 46, 49, 51-52. PFOF 50 is not a sentence, but the subject matter is covered in the RO as understood. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire Sam Power, Clerk Bette B. Lehmberg, Esquire Department of Health and Suite 800 Rehabilitative Services One 4th Street North 1323 Winewood Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
