The Issue The issue presented is whether the bid submitted in the name of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., was non-responsive and, therefore, the lease should be awarded to Petitioner as the lowest and best bidder.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, published an Invitation to Bid for approximately 29,126 net square feet of rental space in the south central area of Dade County. The lease to be entered into with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is for a 9-year term with three 2-year options. On June 20, 1990, the Department received and opened three bids. Two of those bids were submitted on behalf of Petitioner, Intercontinental Properties, Inc., and Intervenor, Coliseum Lanes, Inc. The third bid was declared non-responsive and is not involved in this proceeding. The bids of Petitioner and Intervenor were declared responsive and were reviewed and evaluated by the Department's evaluation committee. It is stipulated that Coliseum Lanes, Inc., received a substantially higher score than Intercontinental Properties, Inc., and that Coliseum Lanes submitted a better bid than Intercontinental Properties. Based upon the evaluation committee's recommendations, the Department awarded the bid to Coliseum Lanes, Inc. Thereafter, Intercontinental Properties, Inc., timely filed its protest. The Invitation to Bid contains instructions for the preparation and submission of bids. Item 4 on page 6 specifically provides as follows: 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 ORIGINAL SIGNATURES AND MUST BE NOTARIZED. FAILURE TO NOTARIZE SIGNATURES WILL DEEM THE BID NON-RESPONSIVE. [Emphasis appears in the Invitation to Bid.) The Invitation to Bid also contains requirements for bidders to submit bids. Item 1 on page 3 specifically 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 provide evidence of one of the following qualifications with the bid: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documentation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas though the term of the base lease and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas ) 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 by the state. ) Submit documentation of notarized letter of agency detailed trust agreement. [Emphasis appears in the Invitation to Bid.] The Bid Submittal Form of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., was signed by Pamela A. Stewart. She represented her title to be Property Coordinator, Coliseum Lanes, Inc. Stewart has never been an officer or director of Coliseum Lanes, Inc. She has never been employed by that company, and Coliseum Lanes, Inc., has never paid any monies to her. Stewart is employed by Custom VP. Custom VP is a joint venture. The joint venture partners are Vine-Peal, Inc., and Custom Land, Inc. Coliseum Lanes, Inc., is not a partner of the joint venture. Custom VP is a tenant at the Coliseum building, the property which is the subject of Coliseum Lanes, Inc.'s, bid submittal. Custom VP is somehow involved in renting space at the Coliseum. No written agreement between Custom VP and Coliseum Lanes, Inc., was submitted with Coliseum's bid or offered in evidence at the final hearing. The bid submitted by Stewart on behalf of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., did not include any written evidence from Coliseum Lanes, Inc., the owner of the subject property, authorizing Stewart to act as the agent of that corporation or authorizing Stewart to submit a bid and/or enter into a lease on behalf of Coliseum Lanes, Inc. No such written authorization exists. Stewart had only been given written authorization to act on behalf of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., on one occasion involving a break-in at the Coliseum. No corporate resolution was passed by Coliseum Lanes, Inc., authorizing Stewart to act as its agent, to submit a bid to the Department, to enter into a lease with the Department, or to commit Coliseum Lanes, Inc., to any financial obligations regarding such a lease agreement. After the bids were opened, one of the Department's employees telephoned Stewart and requested her to provide something in writing setting forth her relationship with Coliseum Lanes, Inc. She typed a letter and had it delivered to the Department by courier later that same day. The entire body of that letter reads as follows: "To clarify my position with Coliseum Lanes, Inc., owners of the Coliseum. I am employed by Coliseum Lanes in their development venture, as the Property Coordinator for the Coliseum." This time, she identified her title under her signature as being the Property Administrator. The stationary on which she wrote that letter is not the stationary of Coliseum Lanes, Inc.; rather, it is stationary used by Custom VP in its marketing efforts on behalf of Coliseum Lanes, Inc. That letter does not establish an agency relationship between Stewart and Coliseum Lanes, Inc. Likewise, that letter does not establish authorization for Stewart to submit a bid on behalf of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., or to bind that corporation to enter into any contracts. Even if it did, it was provided after the opening of the bids and is not part of Coliseum Lanes, Inc.'s, bid submittal. Stewart did not submit a copy of the deed to the Coliseum property with her bid submittal, as required by the Invitation to Bid for a bid to be responsive. The only document submitted by Stewart to show ownership of the property forming the subject matter of the bid was a copy of a tax bill for 1989 real property taxes. A tax bill does not constitute proof of ownership. Caroline Weiss is the President of Intercontinental Properties, Inc. However, Intercontinental Properties, Inc., is not the owner of the Intercontinental Building, the property which is the subject of the bid submittal of Intercontinental Properties, Inc. The Intercontinental Building is owned by Royal Trust Tower, Ltd., a Florida general partnership. Weiss is one of the general partners. As part of her bid submittal, Weiss attached a Management Agreement between Intercontinental Properties, Inc., and Royal Trust Tower, Ltd., whereby Royal Trust Tower, Ltd., employed Intercontinental Properties, Inc., to manage the premises of the Intercontinental Building. That Management Agreement contains restrictions on the authority of Intercontinental Properties, Inc., to bind Royal Trust Tower, Ltd., the owner of the Intercontinental Building, as follows: - It is further mutually agreed that: * * * (c) The OWNER expressly withholds from the AGENT, any power or authority to make any structural changes in any building or to make any other major alterations or additions in or to any such building or equipment therein or to incur any expense exceeding $500.00, chargeable to the OWNER other than expenses related to the exercising of the expressed powers stated herein, without the prior written consent of the OWNER, except such emergency repairs as may be required because of danger to life or property or which are immediately necessary for the preservation and safety of the premises or the safety of the tenants and occupants thereof, or are required to avoid the suspension of any necessary services to the premises. * * * - The OWNER hereby expressly gives authority to the AGENT to sign and execute leases on behalf of the OWNER for the rental of space to tenants in the subject premises. Said authority, given by the OWNER to the AGENT, is limited to the execution of form leases substantially similar to the form that is attached to this Agreement and which has been previously approved by the OWNER. Said authority is further limited with regard to the minimum amount of rent and with regard to the duration of the lease which said minimum amount of rent and minimum duration of lease are attached hereto and have been previously approved by the OWNER. In addition to the foregoing, the AGENT'S authority to sign leases on behalf of the OWNER, where said leases require the OWNER to expend certain sums to finish the premises for the tenant, is limited to those expenses as attached to this Agreement and have been previously approved by the OWNER. In the event that a lease is presented to the AGENT for signature on form that is not substantially similar to the form attached to this Agreement, or at a rate per square foot that is less than the minimum specified on the attachments to this Agreement, or for a duration of time that is less than that specified herein or which obligates the OWNER to finish the premises for the tenant at a cost which exceeds that of previously approved herein, then, in that event, prior written approval of the OWNER is necessary before the AGENT has the authority to execute any such lease. None of the attachments to the Management Agreement was included with Intercontinental Properties, Inc.'s, bid submittal. Accordingly, the Management Agreement prohibits Intercontinental Properties, Inc., from incurring expenses in excess of $500 for structural changes and major alterations without the prior written consent of the owner. The alterations and changes required to be made to the structure of the Intercontinental Building attendant to this bid award will cost in excess of $450,000. Weiss did not include, as part of her bid submittal, written authorization from the owner to incur such expenses on behalf of the owner related to this bid submittal, and no evidence was offered that any such prior written consent exists. Similarly, the Management Agreement authorizes Intercontinental Properties, Inc., to execute leases on behalf of the owner using only the specific lease form previously approved by the owner. Yet, the Invitation to Bid requires that the bidder will execute a lease form utilized by the Department, which will also incorporate the bid submittal form. No prior written approval of the owner authorizing Intercontinental Properties, Inc., to execute the Department's required lease or to change the terms of the lease approved by Royal Trust Tower, Ltd., was submitted by Weiss as part of her bid submittal package. Further, no evidence was offered that any such prior written consent exists. There is no writing authorizing Intercontinental Properties, Inc., or Caroline Weiss to submit the bid she submitted or to bind the owner of the Intercontinental Building to the terms of her bid submittal. At the time of the final hearing in this cause, the Intercontinental Building property was the subject matter of a foreclosure proceeding. Both the bid submitted by Coliseum Lanes, Inc., and the bid submitted by Intercontinental Properties, Inc., failed to include written authorization from the owner of the property for which the bid was submitted authorizing the person submitting the bid to do so on behalf of the owner. Failure of an agent to show that the agent has written authority to bind that agent's principal in submitting the bid for the lease of real estate and in entering into an extended lease for the rental of real estate is not a minor irregularity. Such failure to show agency sufficient to bind the principal legally is a material deficiency and makes those bids non-responsive. The Management Agreement submitted as part of the bid submittal of Intercontinental Properties, Inc., specifically prohibits Intercontinental Properties, Inc., from signing the lease required by the Department and from making the alterations required by this bid award without prior written consent of the owner. Such prior written consent does not exist. That deficiency is not a minor irregularity but is a material defect. Accordingly, the bid of Intercontinental Properties, Inc., is non-responsive for this additional reason. Only a copy of a tax bill was submitted as proof of ownership of the subject property to be leased pursuant to the bid submitted by Coliseum Lanes, Inc. A copy of a tax bill is not proof of ownership. Further, the Invitation to Bid specifically requires a copy of the deed to prove ownership. Failure to prove ownership is not a minor irregularity but is, rather, a material defect. That failure makes the bid submittal of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., non-responsive for that additional reason.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that: The bid of Intercontinental Properties, Inc., is non-responsive; The bid of Coliseum Lanes, Inc., is non-responsive; and Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2197 to either Intercontinental Properties, Inc., or Coliseum Lanes, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of February, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5797BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14- 16, 23, and 25-27 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent, credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 21 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 13, 17-20, 22, 24, and 28-33 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 3, 15, 18, and 28 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 25, and 26 have been rejected as being irrelevant to this issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 7, 10, 16, and 27 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 17, 20, and 24 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent, credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 14, 19, and 21 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 22 and 23 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 16, 17, 27, 29, 31, 35, 36, 41, 44-46, 49, 50, 54-57, 60, 62, 64- 66, and 69 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 20, 26, 30, 33, 38, 42, 47, 48, 67, 68, and 70 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 9- 11, 13, 14, 19, 21- 25, 28, 37, 40, and 51-53 have been rejected as being unnecessary to determine the issues in this cause. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 15, 43, 58, and 61 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 32, 34, 39, 59, and 63 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent, credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Alexander D. Varkas, Jr., Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.A. 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Morton Laitner, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, S-424 Miami, Florida 33128 Michael Cherniga, Esquire Keith Hetrich, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department should award the contract for State Project numbered DOH 95209100 to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact State Project numbered DOH 95209100 commenced with an invitation to bid on a construction project which involved the restoration and adaptive use of the Gato Cigar Factory in Key West, Florida. The construction would rehabilitate that existing historic structure and construct internal office and clinic spaces for both Monroe County and the Department of Health. Since both agencies would use the building, the project was divided between them. Monroe County and the Department issued separate invitations to bid for their portions of the structure, and each will enter into its own contract with the winning bidder or bidders. It was not required that a bidder submit a bid for both the Monroe County and the Department portions of the work. Any bidder could bid on one or the other or both. Although the invitations to bid and the contracts to result therefrom were not interrelated, some of the construction work was interrelated as some of the systems being installed under one contract would directly affect the other contract. For example, both the air conditioning system and the roofing system, although being performed under one entity's contract, would be applicable to both projects. The Department's invitation to bid required bidders to submit a base price, plus specific prices on particular items. Alternate numbered 1 added to the base price the cost of a second air conditioning chiller. The base price plus alternate numbered 1, taken together, included all work to be performed under the Department's scope of work. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were deductions from the work included in the base price. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were included in the Department's invitation to bid to cover the possibility that all bids might come in over budget. In that event the Department could select Alternates numbered 2 through 5, sequentially, until sufficient items had been deducted from the Department's scope of work to result in bids under the amount budgeted by the Department for the project. Section 01030 of the bid specifications is entitled "Alternates." Section 1.2E of Part 1 provides, in part, as follows: Include as part of each Alternate, miscellaneous devices, accessory objects and similar items incidental to or required for a complete installation whether or not mentioned as part of the Alternate. Each Alternate Bid must interface with the work being constructed under a separate contract with Monroe County. Each Alternate Bid item is also applicable to the Monroe County work. An alternate which is deducted from one project will be added to the other. If bidding both projects, the Deductive Alternate price for one project must match the Add Alternate price for the other project. The prospective bidders were also given this information in the pre-bid meetings. The Department received a number of bids for less than the amount budgeted for its portion of the work. Accordingly, the Department was able to select Alternate numbered l, which taken together with the base bid, covered the entire scope of work allocated to the Department. The lowest bids through Petitioner's bid were as follows: Bidder Total Bid D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $1,418,744. McTeague Construction Co., Inc. $1,454,500. Lodge Construction, Inc. $1,501,500. Rovel Construction, Inc. $1,559,000. Neither McTeague Construction Co., Inc., nor Lodge Construction, Inc., participated in this proceeding to challenge the Department's intended bid award. For the lowest bidder, Intervenor Porter, discrepancies occurred in its first, third, and fifth alternative prices of $3,500, $375, and $l,497, respectively. For the second lowest bidder, McTeague, a discrepancy of $9,000 occurred in its first alternate price. For the third lowest bidder, Lodge, a discrepancy of $3,165 occurred in its fifth alternate price. For the fourth lowest bidder, Petitioner Rovel, there were no discrepancies in any of its alternate prices. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for the Department was $38,500. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for Monroe County was $35,000. Porter's estimating staff overlooked the instruction that the two numbers should match. The reason for the difference between the two Alternate numbered 1 amounts is that the bidders were instructed to prepare the two bids as two separate contracts. Alternate numbered 1 required moving one of two chillers from the Monroe County project to the Department's project. Porter could not assume that it could use the crane from the contractor on Monroe County's portion of the project to install this chiller in the Department's portion of the project. Therefore, the cost of a crane had to be added to the Department's project, but the cost of the crane could not be deducted on the Monroe County bid. Porter was the fourth highest bidder on the Monroe County project. Monroe County has not yet awarded its contract. If the Monroe County project is awarded based upon the bids submitted, Porter will not be awarded the Monroe County project. The Department's bid tabulation and notice of intended award were prepared without any reference to the bid opening for the Monroe County project and before the contents of the Monroe County bids were known by the Department. The deviation in price between Porter's Alternate numbered 1 bids did not give Porter an advantage over the other bidders, several of whom made the same error. It was a minor deviation, not a material one. The price submitted on the Department's bid reflected the actual cost of performing that portion of the work. Petitioner's bid listed Florida Keys Electric, Inc., as its electrical subcontractor, its fire alarm subcontractor, and its lightening protection subcontractor. That company is not certified by the State of Florida, but it is registered. The bid specifications provide in section B-14, in part, as follows: Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section 16010, Part 1, section 1.9, subsection A., of the technical specifications which form a part of the bid specifications involves supervision of the construction and provides, in part, that "At least one member of the Electrical Contracting Firm shall hold a State Master Certificate of Competency." Florida Keys Electric, Inc., would use Delor J. Ellis as its qualifying agent. Although Ellis is certified by the State, at the time of the bid submittal and through the date of the final hearing in this cause, Ellis' license was in an inactive status, and no application to activate his license was pending with the State of Florida. Fire alarm work and lightening protection work require a specialty license in the State of Florida. Florida Keys Electric, Inc., is not licensed to perform either type of work. When Florida Keys Electric, Inc., contracts to perform such work, it does so through its own subcontractor. Although the requirement for certification and/or registration contained in the bid specifications is not consistent with the requirement for State certification contained in the technical specifications portion of the bid specifications, Petitioner did not comply with either provision. Accordingly, Petitioner's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications. Porter, which submitted the lowest bid, is responsive to the bid specifications and is, therefore, the lowest responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive, dismissing Petitioner's bid protest, and awarding to D. L. Porter Construction, Inc., the contract for the restoration of the Gato Cigar Factory. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Robert A. Hingston, Esquire Welbaum, Guernsey, Hingston, Greenleaf & Gregory, L.L.P. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michael E. Cover, Esquire Morton R. Laitner, Esquire Department of Health Miami-Dade County Health Department 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 William G. Christopher, Esquire Brown Clark, A Professional Association 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236
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.
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Respondent's decision to rescind a previous notice of award of a bid to Petitioner First Master Lessors, Inc., on the basis that the original bid was nonresponsive, was appropriate. If rescission of that bid award was proper, a secondary issue is whether Respondent was also justified in rejecting the competing bid submitted on behalf of Petitioner DSJ Realty Company Inc.
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid in order to obtain a leasehold of 15,397 square feet of office space to house operations of its child support enforcement office in Lakeland, Florida, for a term of seven years with an option to renew the lease for two additional three year periods. The Invitation To Bid (ITB) states Respondent's reservation of the right to reject, if in the best interest of the State of Florida, any and all bids. Further, the invitation states a number of conditions that submitting bidders must meet in order for their bids to be deemed responsive. Among the stated conditions is the requirement that bids be submitted on the standardized bid submittal form enclosed in the ITB in compliance with conditions specified on that form. Further, bidders are directed to complete the bid submittal form providing acknowledgements requested by the form. Another stated condition of the ITB is the requirement that a bidder be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas offered for lease; or, if a lessee seeking to sublease, submit with the bid proposal documentation of authority to sublease the facility and parking areas. A further ITB condition requires each bid to be signed by the owner, corporate officers or legal representative of the bidding entity. Corporate, trade or partnership titles of the bidding entity are to be stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature. Bid submissions signed by an agent are required to be accompanied by written evidence from the owner of record documenting the agent's authority. All bid submittal signatures are to be notarized. Page 4 of the standardized bid submittal form enclosed in the ITB requires, in paragraph 11, that any bid offering premises for consideration (including parking areas), which are presently occupied or which will covered by other active leases on the anticipated lease effective date, must be accompanied by documentation executed by those tenants indicating their acknowledgement of the bid and their ability to vacate the premises by the proposed lease effective date. Submitting bidders are required to indicate whether this requirement is applicable to their bid. Page 4 of the standard bid submittal form contains a number of other conditions which require agreement by the submitting bidder. Proof of the bidder's agreement to those conditions is to be documented by the bidder's initials on each page of the bid submittal package and the bidder's notarized signature on page 16, the submittal form's concluding page. Among the conditions on Page 4 of the form is the agreement of the successful bidder to provide leased space to Respondent for exclusive use on a 24 hour basis, seven days per week during the term of any lease resulting from the bid. This condition further explicitly states that the space to be leased will be fully occupied during normal working hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. during the week and may be fully or partially occupied at other times as necessary in Respondent's discretion. Respondent's bid request specified that bidders must offer a minimum of 65 parking spaces in conjunction with premises proposed for lease. Of those spaces, two spaces were required to meet requirements of accessibility for handicapped parking. Of the remaining spaces, 52 spaces were required to accommodate full size automobiles. All parking was required to be provided as part of the lease cost to Respondent and under the "control of the bidder, off street, suitably paved and lined." On May 16, 1989, five bids were opened, including those submitted on behalf of Petitioner DSJ Realty Company Inc. (DSJ), and Petitioner First Master Lessors, Inc. (MASTER). Out of the five bids opened, only the bids of MASTER and DSJ were determined to be responsive. After evaluation of the bids by Respondent's personnel, the bid was awarded to MASTER on July 6, 1989. On July 11, 1989, and in response to the award to MASTER, a notice of intent to protest the award was filed by counsel for Dale S. Jones, as trustee; DSJ; and Elizabethan Development, Inc. (ELIZABETHAN). By letter dated July 12, 1989, Alan Taylor filed a protest of the lease award to MASTER. That letter simply stated its efficacy as a protest with the words "[w]e hereby protest the award of lease # 590:2087 to First Master Lessors, Inc." No particular factual or legal basis for the protest was stated. Taylor is associated with ELIZABETHAN and his letter is typed on stationary of that business entity. Taylor, designated the bidder on page one of the DSJ bid submittal, was authorized to act solely on behalf of DSJ in the submission of its bid by its president, Dale S. Jones, Jr. Documentation of that authority is contained in a May 8, 1989 memorandum attached to the bid package. There is no documentation in the bid submittal package of DSJ that Taylor was empowered to act on behalf of ELIZABETHAN, or that ELIZABETHAN was authorized to act on behalf of any entity in regard to the bid submittal. While not set forth in the bid package, testimony at the final hearing establishes that Jones is the sole owner of DSJ. Subsequent to the filing of the DSJ protest, Respondent determined to reject the bids of MASTER and DSJ as nonresponsive. By letter dated August 28, 1989, Respondent informed both counsel for DSJ and MASTER of this decision. As set forth in the August 28, 1989 letter, Respondent's decision to reject the bid of DSJ was based upon the failure of DSJ's bid submittal to reflect that its agent, Alan Taylor, or the proposed lessee designated in that bid submittal, DSJ Realty Company, had control of the property offered for lease to Respondent. The August 28, 1989 letter also stated Respondent's rejection of MASTER's bid due to a lack of control of the property sought to be leased, specifically control over parking spaces to be provided in conjunction with the premises to be leased. MASTER's bid submittal stated that the bid requirements in paragraph 11 of the bid submittal form requiring documentation of acknowledgements by any existing tenants of the premises (including parking areas) offered for lease, and ability of those existing tenants to vacate the premises, was not applicable. In response to the bid requirement for 65 parking spaces, MASTER's bid proposed 17 "exclusive" spaces on site and 48 "nonexclusive" spaces off site. An attachment to the bid response was a copy of a letter dated June 10, 1983, from the First Christian Church to a predecessor of MASTER, First Bank of Lakeland. The church, located across the street from the site proposed to be leased to Respondent by MASTER, granted "permission to the First Bank of Lakeland to use our parking lot for the convenience of their employees." Subsequent to the opening of bids and receipt of DSJ's bid protest, MASTER provided Respondent with another letter from the church reciting permission for MASTER to use 48 spaces within the church parking lot for the parking of Respondent's employees and clients, provided that the church reserved the right to use those spaces at any time upon the giving of one week's written notice to MASTER. The church also reserved the right to cancel the agreement at any time upon the giving of 60 days written notice. The letter was dated May 15, 1989. Also, as established at the final hearing, yet another letter was sent to MASTER's authorized agent from the church. That letter documents the rejection by the church of any "formalization" of a reciprocal parking arrangement with regard to the premises proposed to be leased by MASTER. However, the letter, dated July 20, 1989, restated the church's consent to the use of the parking lot by tenants of the premises proposed for lease by MASTER in accordance with its previous letter of May 15, 1989. Another letter attached to the bid submittal of MASTER, is also dated May 15, 1989. Directed to Respondent's facilities services manager, this letter is signed by an individual named Geneva Pettus as "[a]gent for First Master Lessors, Inc." The letter signed by Pettus references the 1983 letter from the church and states in pertinent part: We further guarantee your parking requirements during the term of the lease and will accommodate such spaces either within our own building or other locations if changes in the above parking facilities should occur. The MASTER bid submittal contains no documentation of authority of Geneva Pettus to act as agent for MASTER. Further, as established by the proof at final hearing, the vast majority of on site spaces controlled by MASTER are leased to present tenants or their employees. Remaining unencumbered parking spaces are inadequate to meet Respondent's bid requirements. The "guarantee" by Pettus, absent her lack of authorization to act for MASTER, is further invalidated by failure of MASTER to provide acknowledgements, as required by paragraph 11 of the bid submittal form, from the existing lessees of those parking spaces controlled by MASTER which would have to be vacated in order to comply with bid requirements. The proof establishes that MASTER did not have control of a portion of the property submitted for lease consideration by Respondent, specifically the proposed parking areas. Such lack of control is nonresponsive to Respondent's bid requirements. Notably, the May 15, 1989 date of Pettus' letter coincides with the May 15, 1989 letter to MASTER from the church. Respondent's facilities service manager, involved in evaluation of the bid submittals, was understandably concerned that this letter's existence was not disclosed to Respondent's personnel prior to August 17, 1989. The position of the church as reflected in the letter caused Respondent's personnel to reevaluate the issue of whether MASTER's bid demonstrated the requisite control over the property submitted for bid consideration and concluded that such control was absent. The DSJ bid submittal contains the notarized signature of Dale S. Jones, Jr., in the space on page 16 reserved for the signature of the bidder. His signature is followed by the title "PARTNER." That term is not further described, nor is a partnership or connection of that partnership with Jones identified in the bid package. At the final hearing, Jones confirmed his signature. However, the proof fails to establish that the required initials on each page of the DSJ bid package are those of Jones. Jones was unacquainted with the bid package submitted on his behalf, having merely looked through the package before affixing his signature. Further, the bid submittal form, on page 16, has a blank space for insertion of the name of the bidder submitting the bid package. The bid package submitted on behalf of DSJ contains no name in this portion of the submittal form. Page 16 of the bid submittal form also requires that the bidder indicate the name of the entity in whose name the subsequent lease is to be written, if that entity is one other than the bidder. The bid, signed by Jones and submitted by Taylor on behalf of DSJ, contains the statement that any future lease resulting from the bid should be titled in the name of "DSJ REALTY COMPANY as managing and Leasing Agent for Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." Also attached to the DSJ bid submittal package is a copy of an instrument entitled "DEED TO TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT." By terms of that instrument, the fee simple title to the property and appurtenances of the site of the building proposed to be leased by DSJ, was purportedly conveyed to Dale S. Jones, Jr., as "Trustee under Land Trust Agreement dated June 15, 1987". By terms of the deed, Jones is granted specific authority to convey, lease or otherwise exercise those rights to property which are commensurate with ownership. The grantor of the deed, dated July 7, 1987, is Florida Southern College. The bid package of DSJ contains no documentation that either Jones or DSJ is authorized to act as an agent on behalf of "Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." Further, the bid package of DSJ offers no explanation as to the identity of this entity. As established by Jones' testimony at hearing, the entities "Dale S. Jones, Trustee" and DSJ Realty, Inc., are not interrelated businesses. The DSJ bid submittal further contains no documentation of authority for ELIZABETHAN or Taylor to act as an agent on behalf of "Crystal Lake 301 and 302 Joint Venture." It is found that the bid submittal of DSJ is nonresponsive to the requirements of Respondent's ITB. In response to Respondent's letter rejecting the bids of Petitioners, counsel for both parties filed petitions dated September 8, 1989, protesting the decision and requesting administrative proceedings. The petition filed on behalf of DSJ, ELIZABETHAN, and Dale S. Jones, as Trustee, was entitled "PETITION FOR FORMAL HEARING AND FORMAL BID PROTEST" and alleges the submitting bidder to be ELIZABETHAN. The document, in support of the July 12, 1989 protest of the bid award to MASTER, sets forth specific grounds for that protest. Further, it is alleged in the petition that DSJ was appointed to act as the agent of Dale S. Jones, as trustee, in appointing ELIZABETHAN as his agent. It is found that these allegations, with regard to the identity of the submitting bidder, are not supported by any competent substantial proof; that Dale S. Jones, as trustee was not a submitting bidder; and that ELIZABETHAN was not a submitting bidder. Each petition filed in opposition to Respondent's August 28, 1989 rejection letter, was accompanied by a $5,000 cashier's check payable to Respondent. MASTER subsequently substituted this check with a surety bond. DSJ's July 12, 1989 protest of the bid award was not accompanied by any bond.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bids of MASTER and DSJ to be unresponsive; finding the cancellation of the award to MASTER to be justified; dismissing ELIZABETHAN and Dale S. Jones, as trustee, as petitioners in this proceeding; and rejecting all bids. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 14th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner Master's Proposed Findings. Petitioner MASTER's proposed findings consisted of 21 pages encompassing unnumbered paragraphs dealing with an intertwined mixture of legal conclusions, argument and proposed factual findings. Therefore, MASTER's submission cannot be treated by the Hearing Officer in this appendix on an individualized basis for each proposed finding. However, MASTER's submission has been reviewed and addressed, where possible, by the findings of fact set forth in this recommended order. Otherwise, all disputed issues of material fact have been addressed by the evidence adduced at the hearing held in this cause. Petitioner DSJ's Proposed Findings. Addressed in substance, remainder rejected as unnecessary. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Addressed in substance. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 7.-1I. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unsupported by the evidence. Addressed in substance. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. 16.-21. Not relevant inasmuch as Jones, in an individual capacity or the legal capacity of trustee or partner, was not a bidder. 22.-23. Adopted in substance. Rejected, legal conclusion, relevancy. Addressed in substance. 26 Rejected, not supported by the evidence. Taylor was authorized to act on behalf of DSJ Realty, Inc., by the corporate president. 27.-28. Rejected, not supported by the evidence; no evidence that Jones was a bidder. 29.-32. Rejected as unnecessary in view of result. 33.-42. Adopted in substance. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1-12. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Farley, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, FL 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Bruce Marger, Esq. 1700 66th Street, North Suite 501 St. Petersburg, FL 33710 David H. Simmons, Esq. 120 South Orange Avenue P.O. Box 67 Orlando, FL 32602 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact In November, 1990, the Respondent, the Department of State, sought proposals for the lease of office space for its Division of Licensing. On or prior to December 7, 1990, the proposal opening date, at least six proposals were received by the Respondent. Those proposals were designated by the Respondent as "Tallahassee Associates" (the Petitioner's proposal), "Crossland Agency" (the Intervenor's proposal), "Woodcrest A", "Woodcrest B", "T.C.S." and "DeVoe". On January 2, 1991, the Respondent posted a standard form Bid Tabulation indicating that the following scores had been awarded to the following proposals: Proposal Score Woodcrest A 82 Woodcrest B 82 Tallahassee Associates 73 Crossland Agency 85 DeVoe 54 The proposal of T.C.S. was not evaluated by the Respondent because it was determined to be non-responsive. The Respondent also posted a copy of a memorandum dated January 2, 1991, with the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The memorandum was from John M. Russi, Director of the Division of Licensing, to Ira Chester, Chief of the Bureau of General Services. Mr. Russi indicated in the memorandum that the Intervenor would be awarded the lease. Attached to Mr. Russi's January 2, 1991, memorandum was a Lease Evaluation Worksheet which indicated the scores which had been awarded by the evaluation committee to the responsive bidders for each of the criteria to be considered in determining the winning bidder. Printed at the top-center of the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation was the following notice: FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 120.53(5), FLORIDA STATUTES, SHALL CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES. . . . The January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation was posted at 1:00 p.m., January 2, 1991. Therefore, pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, any bidder desiring to contest the Respondent's proposed award of the lease was required to file a notice of protest with the Respondent no later than 1:00 p.m., January 5, 1991, and a formal written protest on or before January 15, 1991. T.C.S. filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest to the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation within the time periods prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. T.C.S. contested the Respondent's determination that it was not responsive. The Petitioner did not file a notice of protest or a formal written protest to the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation within the time periods prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, the Respondent reviewed the formal written protest filed by T.C.S. and agreed that T.C.S. was responsive. After agreeing that T.C.S. was responsive, the Respondent evaluated T.C.S.'s proposal and awarded points for each of the criteria to be considered. Toward the end of January, 1991, after deciding that T.C.S.'s proposal was to be evaluated, the Respondent notified all other bidders of its decision in a document titled Posting of Notice of Agency Decision. The Posting of Notice of Agency Decision was signed by the Respondent's General Counsel and was addressed to "All Responsive Bidders". The Posting of Notice of Agency Decision provided, in pertinent part: Notice is hereby given that the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, is reviewing the bid tabulation which was posted at 1:00 P.M., January 2, 1991 for Lease No. 450:0070. The revised bid tabulation will be posted at 8:00 A.M. on February 4, 1991 at the Purchasing Office of the Department of State . . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Any person interested in the new tabulation should contact . . . after the posting time listed above. The Petitioner filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the Posting of Notice of Agency Decision within the times prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The Respondent dismissed this formal written protest by final order dated February 22, 1991. On or about January 31, 1991, more than four weeks after the posting of the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, Ocie Allen spoke by telephone with Phyllis Slater, the Respondent's General Counsel. Ms. Slater told Mr. Allen that all proposals would be reevaluated as a result of T.C.S.'s protest. Mr. Allen was a lobbyist for the Petitioner in January, 1991. On February 4, 1991, the Respondent posted another standard form Bid Tabulation indicating that the following scores had been awarded to the following proposals: Proposal Score Crossland Agency 83 Woodcrest A 80 Woodcrest B 80 Tallahassee Associates 71 T.C.S. 71 DeVoe 51 The differences in the scores of the proposals which had been listed on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, which are reflected in the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation were caused by automatic changes in the scores resulting from the addition of T.C.S. and the fact that T.C.S. had the lowest priced bid. The points awarded for the "rental" criterion, which was worth up to 25 points, were determined by a mathematical formula by which the scores of each bidder are calculated based upon the proposed rental charges of all bidders. The award of points for this criterion was determined objectively based upon the mathematical formula. By adding another bidder, T.C.S., the points awarded to all the proposals automatically changed. The scores of the proposals which had been listed on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation, were not otherwise changed. Nor were the proposals of any bidder reevaluated. The Respondent also posted a copy of a memorandum dated January 24, 1991, with the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The memorandum was from John M. Russi, Director of the Division of Licensing, to Ira Chester, Chief of the Bureau of General Services. Mr. Russi indicated the following in the memorandum: Pursuant to the settlement stipulation signed by Counsel for T.C.S. Associates on January 23, 1991, in reference to the Bid Protest filed January 11, 1991, the attached "Lease Evaluation Work Sheet" is provided for you to re-post. After reevaluating six bid proposals, the evaluating committee concludes that Crossland Agency should be awarded this bid. Each bidder needs to be notified by certified mail of this action. . . . . Attached to Mr. Russi's January 24, 1991, memorandum was a Lease Evaluation Worksheet which indicated the scores of the responsive bidders which had been awarded by the evaluation committee for each of the criteria to be considered in determining the winning bidder. On February 6, 1991, the Petitioner filed a notice of protest to the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest, Request for Formal Hearing and Motion for Stay with the Respondent on February 18, 1991. These documents were filed within the time periods specified in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's Formal Written Protest was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Respondent on February 28, 1991. Crossland Agency, Inc., was allowed to intervene in the proceeding. On March 1, 1991, the Respondent and Intervenor filed a Motion to Dismiss. A motion hearing was conducted on March 6, 1991, to consider the Motion to Dismiss.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Respondent granting the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this case, with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3, 5 and 9. 2 12-13. 3 15-16 and 18-21. See 14. 15. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the scores of the bidders for the "option period" criterion reflected on the January 2, 1991, Bid Tabulation were modified or reconsidered on the February 4, 1991, Bid Tabulation. The suggestion that "the department had discretion to change scores in any of the remaining eight categories" is a conclusion of law and is rejected. These proposed facts are not relevant to the issue raised in the Motion to Dismiss. Nor was any evidence presented to support these proposed findings. 12. The last sentence is a conclusion of law and is rejected. Proposed Findings of Fact of the Respondent and Intervenor Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 3 and 7. 5-6 and hereby accepted. 4 8-12. 5 See 14. 6 15 and 17. 18. The last sentence involves an issue not raised in the Motion to Dismiss or at the motion hearing. Nor was any evidence presented to support these proposed findings. See the Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire 1589 Metropolitan Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Benjamin E. Poitevent Assistant General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid protest of Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a city pool known as the George A. Pierce Swimming Pool at the Ferran Park complex in Eustis. The pool is nearly 40 years old and is in need of renovations and repairs. Deciding to renovate the old pool and build a new one next to it, Respondent obtained plans for the intended work from Project Engineering. These plans, which are dated January 31, 1990, consist of seven pages of blue-line drawings of the site, the existing pool, a new training pool, and various details, such as gutters (Blue Drawings). The Blue Drawings formed the basis of a request for proposals that Respondent issued at some point prior to the events at issue in the present case. The offers submitted in response to the request for proposals were unsuitable because they exceeded the money that Respondent had available for the job. At this point, employees of Petitioner learned that Respondent was seeking to repair and renovate the pool. Bill West, who is responsible for sales for Petitioner, visited with Norma Showley, who is in charge of purchasing for Respondent. She showed him the Blue Drawings and informed him that the proposals that had been submitted were double the budget. Mr. West agreed, at no charge, to prepare a new set of drawings for Respondent. Ms. Showley did not agree that Petitioner's drawings would necessarily be incorporated into a new request for proposals or invitation to bid. However, Ms. Showley explained that time was critical, and she needed his drawings in a hurry. She gave Mr. West the original set of Blue Drawings for his company to use in preparing the new drawings. Mr. West asked Jack Arthur to prepare the new drawings. Mr. Arthur does estimates and drawings for Petitioner and is a registered professional engineer licensed to practice in Florida and several other states. He is also a Florida-licensed commercial pool contractor. Mr. Arthur met with Ms. Showley a few days prior to March 12, 1990. Also attending this meeting was Harvey Spears, who, although not an employee of Respondent, assisted Ms. Showley on this project. Apparently, Mr. Spears was the contractor in charge of other work in the pool area, such as the construction of a bathhouse. Working 40-50 hours over the next three days, Mr. Arthur finished the plans, which bear the date of March 12, 1990 (Black and White Drawings). Mr. West then delivered the plans to Ms. Showley. Ms. Showley discussed with the City Comission the possibility of using the Black and White Drawings instead of the Blue Drawings as the basis of a new bid solicitation. The Commission directed her not to abandon the specifications contained in the Blue Drawings, but revise them as appropriate. No decision was ever made to use the Black and White Drawings, except for the purposes expressly indicated in the later-issued invitation to bid, such as to indicate the location of the bathhouse relative to the existing pool and the details of an alternate gutter system. On April 13, 1990, Respondent issued an invitation to bid, which was identified as Bid NO. 026-90. The invitation to bid was accompanied by the Blue Drawings and the Black and White Drawings. The text, Blue Drawings, and Black and White Drawings are collectively referred to as the "ITB." Each of the pages of the Black and White Drawings were marked "Attachment `A,' `B,' `C,' or `D."' The ITB required that the bids, which had to be sealed, were to be delivered to a certain place, where they would be opened at a specified time on May 14, 1990. The ITB provided for a "bid evaluation period" of up to 30 days after opening. Other relevant provisions in the unlabelled introductory section of the ITB include: ACCEPTABLE FORMAT--Bid format provided by "the City is the only acceptable format on which a bidder may return his bid. Bids submitted, on any other format shall be disqualified. (Any additional information relative to the bid, should be submitted on a separate format.) * * * CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION OF BID ENTRY--The City of Eustis reserves the right to allow for the clarification of questionable entries and for the correction of obvious mistakes. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS--The City of Eustis reserves the right to reject bids containing any additional terms or conditions not specifically requested in the bid/proposal solicitation. * * * AWARD--This bid may be awarded in part or whole as best serves the interest of the City. All awards made as a result of this bid shall conform to all applicable ordinances of the City of Eustis. RESERVATION--The City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive minor technicalities or informalities in bids received. * * * For information regarding bid specification, contact Norma M. Showley, General Services, Coordinator [telephone number provided in ITB]. The Scope section of the ITB provides that this is a bid to provide all labor, materials, equipment, supplies and incidental necessary for the performance of all work required for the proper and professional renovation of the existing City Pool with an additive alternate for addition of a . . . training pool . . . The following are suggested methods of renovating the existing pool and constructing the new pool. Plans that differ will be considered for award if determined to be in the best interest of the City. The Scope section explains that the existing pool was built in 1951 and is a "poured-in place pool . . . with no flood inlets." This part of the ITB also informs the bidder that separate contracts have been executed for the construction of a new bathhouse, including a new chemical and filter room, and the work may be performed concurrently with the renovation of the existing pool. The bathhouse layout is shown on Attachment "A". NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. The Scope section continues with a description of the base bid and alternates. The alternates are provided "[d]ue to the time restraint involved with the funding for this project" and Respondent's desire to complete the project quickly. The Scope section of the ITB states that the base bid for the renovation of the existing pool includes replacement of the filtering system with a D.E. filter system, replacement of the circulation system, replacement of the existing guttering system with a one foot open face overflow gutter, replacement of the Marcite on the walls, and addition of underwater lighting "as per plans prepared by Project Engineering (i.e., the Blue Drawings). Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the overflow gutter system and adds a stainless steel facing overflow system as shown on Attachment "B." Additive Alternate B eliminates the recirculating system shown in the Blue Drawings and provides for a proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner. Additive Alternate 3 eliminates the D.E. filter system, as shown in the Blue Drawings, and adds a high rate vacuum sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates the underwater lighting. The Scope section of the ITB describes the base bid for the new pool, which in fact is not an additive alternate, as located west of the existing pool and having a D.E. filter system and underwater lighting. Additive Alternate 1 eliminates the D.E. filter system and adds a pressure sand filter system. Deductive Alternate 1 eliminates underwater lighting. The next section of the ITB is the Instructions to Bidders. Among the provisions listed under the "Submittals" subsection are: License--Bidders shall submit with the bid response a copy of their license from the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. * * * Bidder Qualification-- * * * References shall be furnished with bid response Other relevant subsections of the Instructions to Bidders section of the ITB provide: Visit to Site--The bidder/contractor shall visit the site of the work to become fully informed as to the conditions that exist and under which he/she must work, and by bidding, represents that he/she has read and understands the bid documents. * * * Evaluation and Award--Bids will be evaluated on the basis of cost, bidder's ability to perform, previous experience, experience of personnel and required completion time. It is the City's intent to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder. However, the City of Eustis reserves the right to accept any bid which in its opinion best serves the interest of the City, and/or to reject any or all bids or any part thereof, to make awards by individual items, groups of items, or a combination thereof, or to waive technicalities or informalities in bids received. NOTE: Funding for this project is from sales surtax which must be used for construction purposes and must be fully expended before the end of October, 1990. Negotiation of Contract--If deemed in the best interest of the City, the City may, either before or after receipt of bids, select one or more persons or companies and negotiate a contract for the proposed work. The decision of the City as to the firm or firms with whom the City will negotiate will be final. During the negotiations, the right is also reserved to change the plans and specifications as the City may at that time determine to be in the best interest of the City. The section of the ITB devoted to Requirements and Specifications restates the base bids and alternates set forth above in the Scope section. Under the subsection entitled, "Work and Products Not Included," the ITB lists, among other items, "Concrete decking--bleacher area, bathhouse area." Under the subsection entitled, "Description of Work--Existing Pool," the ITB includes the demolition necessary to remove the existing overflow system, install a new one, and provide a recirculation system. Under a similar subsection for the new pool the ITB provides: Provide decking around new pool to match height of existing decking, 4" thickness, 3000 psi concrete, as shown on attachment showing pool layout. Decking shall slope three inches (3") in ten feet (10') away from pool or to deck drains. Minimum unobstructed deck width shall befour [sic] feet (4'). This subsection also refers the bidder to the Black and White Drawings for the curing of the floor of the new pool. For the renovation of the existing pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, three additive alternates, and one deductive alternate. For the construction of the new pool, the bid form contains blanks for the bidder to include prices for the base bid, one additive alternate, and one deductive alternate. Two bid addenda were issued. The first concerned additive alternate 3 for the existing pool and additive alternate 1 for the new pool. This addendum adds, respectively, a vacuum sand filter (instead of a high rate vacuum sand filter) and a high rate pressure sand filter system (instead of a pressure sand filter system). The second addendum, which was accompanied by "a new bid form for prices, adds an automatic water level sensor unit, as described in the Black and White Drawings, to the base bids for the existing and new pools. For the existing pool, the addendum added alternate 4, which replaces the existing main drain with a stainless steel drain, as described in the Black and White Drawings. The Blue Drawings contain four special notes and ten general notes. The first special note is that the final location of "pool and configuration of deck to be determined by architect." The first general note is that the bathroom floors, pool deck, and first 15 feet of connecting walkway are to be concrete or other impervious material, positively drained, and slip resistant. Three unrelated items are noted in red handwriting to be "in bathhouse contract," and one unrelated item is similarly noted to be "by City." Notes on the Black and White Drawings indicate that the contract does not include pool decking around the new pool and a retaining wall beside the new pool, which is in close proximity to a lake. The new pool clearly has to be built to the elevation of the existing pool because, among other reasons, the lake contributes to a high water table in the area of the pool. In order to achieve this elevation, the construction of the decking around the new pool would require either a retaining wall (with some fill) or a larger amount of fill sloped down to the ground level. Due to the close proximity of the lake, it is not entirely clear that the latter approach would work. Even though Mr. Arthur detected inconsistencies between the Black and White Plans and the remainder of the ITB, neither he, Mr. West, nor any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Showley regarding the decking and retaining wall. Following the issuance of the ITB but before the submission of bids, Mr. West met with Ms. Showley, but the conversation involved only the replacement of the main drain and installation of the automatic water level sensor unit. Ms. Showley covered these matters by the addenda described above. They also discussed the possibility of alternate bids with one based exclusively on the Blue Drawings and one based exclusively on the Black and White Drawings. However, Ms. Showley's ability to deviate significantly from the specifications depicted in the Blue Drawings was limited by the lack of time and the earlier directive of the City Commission to revise, rather than abandon, the specifications in the Blue Drawings. Ultimately, timely bids were submitted by only Petitioner and Intervenor, ignoring one or two "no-bid" bids. Petitioner's base bid for the existing pool was $92,399. Additive alternate 1 added $22,897. Additive alternate 2 added $12,383. Additive alternate 3 added $18,500. Additive alternate 4, which was the replacement of the main drain, was included in the base bid and all alternates, even though the only alternate specifying that the main drain be replaced was Additive alternate In fact and as evident from the bid, Petitioner would not perform the job without replacing the main drain due to concerns about the durability of the existing main drain. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $2500. For the new pool, the base bid was $38,389. Additive alternate 1 subtracted $3103. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $798. Intervenor's base bid for the existing pool was $107,170. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Additive alternate 2 added $25,601. The bid was apparently incorrectly filled out. Additive alternate 2, which was the proprietary system manufactured by Petitioner, in fact was not bid, and Additive alternate 1 was bid. Additive alternate 3 added $22 927. Additive alternate 4, which called for the replacement of the main drain, added $5340, but Intervenor noted on its bid form that it did not recommend this alternative. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $3444. Intervenor's based bid for the new pool was $50,472. Additive alternate 1 was not bid. Deductive alternate 1 subtracted $920. Intervenor also bid three "Voluntary alternates." These alternates, which were not requested in the ITB, involved variations on equipment for the existing pool. Voluntary alternate 2, which totalled $143,253, included a full stainless steel gutter with grating and a high rate pressure sand filter with automatic backwashing feature. Petitioner's base bid for both pools was $130,788. Intervenor's base bid for both pools was $157,642. Intervenor's base bid for both pools, using Voluntary alternate 2, was $193,725. Both bid packages disclosed obvious problems. Petitioner had not bid on any decking or the retaining wall and fill. Ms. Showley and Mr. Spears called Mr. West and, after confirming these omissions, asked for a price. The additional labor and materials added $13,526 for the decking and fill, but apparently not the retaining wall as the slope approach would be used around the new pool. This would have raised Petitioner's base bid to $144,314. However, Petitioner still did not address the issue of the replacement of the main drain. Based on advice from Mr. Spears, Respondent did not want to replace the main drain. The process would require cutting the bottom of the pool. Due to the pool's location, age, and type (poured-in), Mr. spears felt, and Respondent agreed, that the main drain should not be disturbed. Intervenor's bid did not include a copy of its contractor's license or references. Ms. Showley obtained this information after the bid opening. She and Mr. Spears also spoke with Harold von Weller, owner and president of Intervenor, concerning the filtration and gutter systems described in Voluntary alternate 1 and where they had been used. In response to a question concerning the 2 approximate cost of the retaining wall and decking, for the purpose of making a deduction that would facilitate comparison with Petitioner's bid, Mr. Weller wrote a letter estimating the cost of these items as $7004.43. An informal committee consisting of Mr. Spears, Ms. Showley, the architect for the bathhouse, and the City Manager, Michael G. Steerman, considered the bids and determined, after consulting with staff, that Petitioner's bid was not responsive. The City Commission met on May 17, 1990, to award a contract for the renovation and construction of the pools. Mr. Steerman recommended that Respondent reject Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive and award the contract to Intervenor on its Voluntary alternate 2 bid for the existing pool and its base bid for the new pool less the Deductive alternate 1. The amount of $189,361 was derived by subtracting from the Voluntary alternate 2 amount of $143,253 the sum of $3444 for Deductive alternate 1, for a net amount of $139,809 for the existing pool. The new pool net of $49,552 thus generated a total figure of $189,361. It is not entirely clear whether Respondent viewed any of Intervenor's bids as responsive. Most likely, it was assumed by staff and the City Commission that the base bid and possibly the Voluntary alternate 2 bid were responsive. Petitioner and Intervenor are responsible bidders. They are highly qualified and experienced in the construction of commercial pools.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the City of Eustis enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner. ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1990.
Findings Of Fact By Invitation to Bid for Lease NO. 590:1944, Respondent invited lease proposals for approximately 15,206 square feet of office space "located within the following boundaries: On the North, Aloma Avenue/Fairbanks Avenue the East, Semoran Boulevard the South, Colonial Drive, and on the West, Mills Avenue." The geographic area includes as many as 100 office buildings, although the invitation only generated three bids. The Invitation to Bid announced a Pre-Bid Conference on December 22, 1987. Interested parties were directed to contact Linda N. Treml, whose telephone number was provided, for "bid specifications and information regarding the space." The Invitation to Bid stated that "[a]ny questions concerning this project are to be directed to [Ms. Treml]" and "prospective bidders are encouraged to consult with [Ms. Treml] beforehand in an attempt to enable as correct a bid submittal as possible." The Invitation to Bid required that certain attachments accompany the bid proposal and referred the prospective bidder to paragraph 9 of the Bid submittal Form. The required attachments included a scaled floorplan "showing present configurations with measurements," net rentable square footage calculations using floorplan measurements, and a preliminary site layout. The Invitation to Bid stated that Respondent reserved the right to waive any minor informalities or technicality and seek clarification" of bids received, when such is in the best interest of the state. Responding to Respondent's newspaper advertisement and direct-mail solicitation for bids, James W. Boyle, who is a real estate broker active in leasing and property management, requested from Ms. Treml an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form. Mr. Boyle regularly reviews announcements of forthcoming leasing activity by state agencies. If he is aware of a building that appears to meet the agency's requirements, he contacts the building's owner or manager and informs him or her that he may have a prospective tenant. After receiving the bid materials for Lease No. 590:1944, Mr. Boyle contacted Kathryn Doyle, who is the leasing manager of Petitioner, and learned that Petitioner could accommodate Respondent's space needs for the term sought in the Lakeview 436 office building. Mr. Boyle assisted Ms. Doyle in the preparation of the Bid Submittal Form for Petitioner. In his first conversation with Ms. Doyle, Mr. Boyle ascertained that Petitioner's building carried a Semoran Boulevard street address and in fact had direct access to Semoran Boulevard. Petitioner's building lies on the east side of Semoran Boulevard, which serves as the eastern boundary of the geographic area described in the Invitation to Bid. Three bids were submitted in response to the subject Invitation to Bid. When they were opened, Ms. Treml and her supervisor, George A. Smith, determined that bids of Petitioner and a third party were nonresponsive because their office buildings were outside the geographic area specified in the Invitation to Bid. These bids were not considered further. Mr. Boyle had previously represented the owners of the FARE building several months earlier in a bid for Lease No. 590:1895. The Invitation to Bid in that case, which was issued by Respondent and named Ms. Treml as the contact person, provided that the proposed office space must be located within the following boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of US 17-92 and Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the intersection of Edgewater Drive, then north on Edgewater Drive to the intersection of Kennedy Blvd. . ., then east on Kennedy Blvd. . . . to the intersection of US 17-92, then south on US 17- 92 to the point of beginning." Although Mr. Boyle's client was not awarded Lease NO. 590:1895 for reasons not relevant here, his client's bid, as well as the bid of another unsuccessful bidder owning a building on the east side of the highway serving as the east boundary of the geographic area, were considered responsive and thus within the specified geographic area. Ms. Treml interpreted the boundary description in Lease NO. 590:1944 differently from the boundary description in Lease NO. 590:1895. The description for Lease NO. 590:1895 defined the boundaries by "beginning" at a certain intersection, then proceeding "on" a highway, and so on. The description for Lease NO. 590:1944 defined the boundaries by identifying landmarks "on the north," then the "east," and so on. At the time of assisting in the preparation of Petitioner's bid, Mr. Boyle was also aware of an Invitation to Bid issued by Respondent for Lease NO. 590:1875. In this case, Respondent specified office space "in the following area of Brevard County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and State Road 50, then West on SR-50 to the intersection of 1-95, then North on 1-95 to the intersection of SR-406 . . . then East on SR-406 to the intersection of U.S. 1, then South on U.S. 1 to the point of beginning." In the case of Lease NO. 590:1875, the bid contact person, Lynn Mobley, issued a clarification letter stating that any building located on either side of the boundary road with an address on the boundary road would be considered to be within the boundary. Ms. Mobley and her supervisor, Ernest Wilson, who are Respondent's District 7 Facilities Services Assistant Manager and Manager, respectively, have consistently advised potential bidders that a building located on a boundary highway is included in the geographic area even though it would be outside the area if the dividing line were the centerline of the highway. Mary Goodman, Chief, Bureau of Property Management of the Department of General Services, testified that, in the course of her review of leasing activities by various state agencies, she has historically guided agencies that, if a building abuts a boundary highway but is not, strictly speaking, within it, the agency "could waive that as a minor technicality and consider it a responsive bid." Neither Mr. Boyle, Ms. Doyle, or any other representative of Petitioner spoke to Ms. Goodman prior to submitting the subject bid proposal. Ms. Treml customarily waives minor irregularities in bid submittals. However, she does not treat the location of a building outside the geographic area as a minor irregularity. To do so would be unfair to owners of other buildings outside the geographic area who took the geographic description at its face value and never submitted bids. Ms. Doyle received the bid materials from Mr. Boyle after the Pre-Bid Conference had taken place. However, Mr. Boyle elected not to attend the Pre- Bid Conference at which Ms. Treml explained, among other things, her interpretation of the specific geographic area. He chose not to attend because he felt that he would not learn anything relevant at the conference, which was attended by a representative of Intervenor. Neither Mr. Boyle, Ms. Doyle, or any other representative of Petitioner contacted Ms. Treml prior to submitting Petitioner's bid. Mr. Boyle, whose compensation in this case is entirely contingent upon a successful bid, estimates that he spent about 20 hours working on Petitioner's bid. Ms. Doyle estimates that she spent about 40 hours working on the bid. Petitioner also spent $800 in obtaining an "as-built" drawing of the space that accompanied its proposal. By letter dated February 22, 1988, Respondent notified the bidders of its decision to award the lease contract to Intervenor. Petitioner filed a notice of intent to protest the award by letter dated February 24, 1988. Ms. Treml met Mr. Boyle and Ms. Doyle on March 1, 1988, and cited the location of Petitioner's building as the only reason for the determination of nonresponsiveness. The attempt at mediation having failed, Petitioner filed a formal written protest of the award by letter dated March 3, 1988. Petitioner attached to its bid proposal an "as-built" drawing. Although drawn to scale, the drawing did not bear the measurements of the then- present interior tenant improvements, mostly walls, nor did it disclose on its face any calculations showing how the rentable area was computed from the gross area. These omissions were due to Mr. Boyle's advice to Ms. Doyle that such information would be unnecessary in this case. The omissions from Petitioner's "as-built" drawing were rendered less critical by the fact that Respondent would have the right under the lease to require the landlord, at its expense, to remove the present improvements and re- configure the space to Respondent's demands. However, one purpose of the floorplan is to show where the space is located within the building. Another purpose is to verify the rentable area calculation by showing the measurements of items, such as restrooms, that should not be included in the rentable area for which Respondent is charged rent. The drawing is supposed to show the rentable area computation. Additionally, even though Respondent could insist on a total renovation of the premises, Respondent might wish to evaluate whether it could use a portion of the existing space in order to reduce the possibility of construction delays. George A. Smith, the Senior Management Analyst for Respondent who reviewed Ms. Treml's determination of nonresponsiveness prior to the award of the subject lease, testified that the deficiencies in Petitioner's "as-built" drawing were not a "minor irregularity."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In or about the fall of 1993, the Department issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP") for Lease No. 700:0674. Through the RFP, the Department solicited the submission of proposals to lease to the Department 5,748 square feet + 3 percent of office space in St. Lucie County for use as a probation and parole office commencing "5/1/94 or within 105 days after notification of award of bid whichever occurs last." According to the RFP, the term of the lease would be "[f]ive (5) years with an option to renew for an additional five (5) years." The probation and parole office in question is currently located in space leased to the Department by Petitioners.2 It has been at this location, which is in close proximity to the City of Fort Pierce police station, for approximately the last six years. Section A. of the RFP contained the "General Specifications and Requirements." The subject of "parking" was addressed in paragraph 7. of Section A., which provided as follows: Parking: Approximately 30 off-street spaces for the exclusive use of the employees and clients at no additional charge to the lessee. Parking space must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, and bumper pads installed. A minimum of two spaces must meet the requirements of the Standards for Special Facilities for physically disabled, Attachment D. BIDDER RESPONSE: a) exclusive spaces available on-site at no cost to the lessee; b) exclusive spaces available off-site at no cost to lessee. Spaces located from proposed facility. (distance) As An Option c) non-exclusive spaces available at no cost to lessee. Space located from proposed facility. (distance) Bidder's Initials Paragraph 12. of Section A. provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he proposed space must be an existing building" and that the "[p]roposed use of this building must meet required zoning." Section B. of the RFP contained the "Space Requirement Criteria." Paragraphs 2. and 3. of Section B., which provided as follows, set forth the "Electrical requirements" and the "Telephone requirements," respectively: Electrical requirements Minimum of two duplex electrical outlets and one fourplex in each room or office including adequate additional fourplex outlets in each open clerical/file area. Facility complies with the National Electrical Code. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Telephone requirements Minimum of one telephone outlet in each room or office including additional outlets in each open clerical/file area. All wiring, existing or to be installed, complies with the National Electrical Code, Section 8000-3, Paragraph d. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The subject of "security" was addressed in paragraph 10. of Section B., which provided as follows: Security requirements: Security shall include but not be limited to the following: Locks on all outside doors and outside windows. Night lights on all outside doors. Night lights in parking area nearest building. Parking lot must be fully illuminated and create no dark shadows. Dead bolt locks on storage space doors. Convex detection mirrors in the lobby. Solid core doors swinging out into the lobby to separate lobby from secure areas. Electric pass-through buzzer locks (with keys) to be installed on solid core doors. Pass-through ports (similar to the Le Febure Model #BK-4431 walk up design window unit) to be used between the lobby and reception area. A two-way intercom system between reception area and the receptionist BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Paragraph 14. of Section B. listed certain "Miscellaneous requirements," including the following: PROTECTIVE ALARM SYSTEM The lessor shall, at his own expense, install or cause to be installed, maintain and arrange for 24 hours monitoring with a Certified Security Company during the term of this lease agreement the following equipment in regard to the alarm protective system: Burglar Alarm and Fire Alarm Door bugs and Window Tape Dual-Tech Motion Sensors for Computer and Typing areas Panic button with Silent Alarm Two 1/2" Bullet proof glass (lexan) in Reception and Cashier's windows . . . Staff of both sexes will be required to work in this facility during both daylight and evening hours. An environment in which staff can expect to be safe is essential. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" were enumerated in Section of the RFP, which provided as follows: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Rental, using Total Present Value methodology for basic term of lease (See #D, General Provisions Items 1 and 2) applying the preset value discount rate of 5.22 percent (Weighting: 40) Option period- rental rate proposed is within projected budgetary restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Conformance of and susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization and to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighting: 15) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Building should be located in a professional business neighborhood.3 (Weighting: 7) Offers providing space all on the same floor. (Weighting: 5) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within one block of the offered space. (Weighting: 3) Availability of adequate dining facilities within two blocks of the offered space. (Weighting: 2) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5) Proximity of offered space to other Department activities as well as other public services. (Weighting: 3) Proximity of adequate parking area to the building. Must be well-lighted. (Weighting: 10) Total award factors= 100 The RFP's "General Provisions" were set forth in Section D. of the RFP. Among these "General Provisions" were the following: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . The Department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the Department and the State. The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the state, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. . . . 10. Late bids, modification of bids, or withdrawal of bids: (a) Any bid received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered and will be returned unopened. . . . Sealed bids will be received until 11:00 a.m. on November 23, 1993 . . . at which time all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. Notification of award will be made within 30 calendar days, and shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Protests not filed within the prescribed time limit will not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the request for proposal within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten days after the notice of protest is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the Request for Proposal. Any questions concerning the specifications should be directed in writing to David Smith. . . Petitioners, Gulf and Hoyt C. Murphy submitted bid proposals in response to the RFP using the form provided by the Department. At no time prior to the submission of their bids did any of them protest to the Department concerning any of the provisions of the RFP. Gulf offered the Department 5,820 net square feet of office space in a shopping plaza it owns in the City of Fort Pierce (hereinafter referred to as "Gulf's plaza"). Petitioners offered the Department the same space they currently lease to the Department. Gulf's plaza consists of several buildings which, together, take up approximately 32,000 gross square feet of space. These buildings are not fully occupied. Vacancies exist. The plaza presently has approximately 117 on-site parking spaces.4 Adjacent to the plaza, on an out-parcel, is a Wendy's restaurant which also offers off-street parking. On the completed forms that they submitted, Petitioners and Gulf agreed to meet all of the specifications and requirements set forth in the RFP, including those relating to zoning,5 off-street parking,6 security, and electrical and telephone wiring, and, in addition, proposed the following per square foot rates for the basic lease and option periods: -BASIC LEASE Petitioners Gulf First Year $13.90 $14.35 Second Year 14.65 14.35 Third Year 14.90 14.35 Fourth Year 15.20 14.70 Fifth Year 15.50 14.70 Option PERIOD First Year $15.75 $15.05 Second Year 16.00 15.05 Third Year 16.25 15.05 Fourth Year 16.50 15.40 Fifth Year 16.75 15.40 The Department, through its bid evaluation committee, evaluated each of the bid proposals in accordance with "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. As part of the evaluation process, members of the bid evaluation committee visited each of the properties offered for lease. It appeared to the committee members, upon their visit, to the Gulf property, that Gulf would be able to provide the Department with "30 exclusive [parking] spaces available on-site," as it had promised it would in the RFP. On December 16, 1993, the chairman of the bid evaluation committee sent the following interoffice memorandum to Maria Cortes, the Department's Region IV General Services Manager, concerning the results of the evaluation process: The Lease Evaluation Committee has completed its review of the bid proposals and has conducted an on-site inspection of each subject building being offered for the above referenced lease [Lease #700:0674]. The average score for each evaluation criteria is listed below by bidder number for each bid. #1 [Petitioners] #2 [Gulf] #3 [Murphy] 1. 39.20 40 34.8 2. 9.40 10 7.70 3. 15 15 15 4. 6.3 7 6.3 5. 5 5 5 6. 1 1 1 7. 1.3 2 1.3 8. 5 5 5 9. 3 3 3 10. 9.6 10 9.6 TOTAL 94.8 98 88.7 It is the recommendation of the Lease Evaluation Committee that it would be in the best interest of the Department of Correction and the State of Florida to award this bid to bid number two (2), C.G. Gulf Property Associates, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership. This bidder received the highest evaluation score and was the lowest bid. In evaluating the three bids that were submitted, the committee members did not take into consideration the costs that the Department would incur if the Department moved the probation and parole office from its present location to either Gulf's property or Murphy's property, inasmuch as such moving costs were not among the "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. In any event, these costs would be minimal because the Department would utilize free inmate labor to accomplish the move. By letter dated December 22, 1993, the Department advised Petitioners of its intention to award Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf. Thereafter, Petitioners filed the protest that is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order awarding Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf over the protest of Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of March, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1994.
