Findings Of Fact Respondent advertised for bids for work to be performed on the Statewide Regional Juvenile Detention Center located in Pasco County identified as Project Number HRS 85-300000. In response to this advertisements Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted bids on January 23, 1966. According to calculations performed by Respondent, Petitioner was low bidder and Intervenor was the next lowest bidder. The construction budget for this job is $1.5 million, and both bids are considered by Respondent to be within budget. Depending on the alternatives chosen within each bid, Petitioner's bid is lower than Intervenor's by between approximately $6,000 and $40,000. Section B-14 of the advertisement for bids requires each bidder to submit a list of the subcontractors who will perform work on the job for him and specifies that only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. Section D of the advertisement for bids specifies the work areas for which a subcontractor must be listed and states that said list is an integral part of each bid submitted. The subcontracting areas include electrical plumbing, mechanical, roofing security control systems, food service equipment and fire protection. Petitioner's bid was rejected on February 4, 1986, because its bid failed to include a roofing subcontractor's name as required in the advertisement for bids. Petitioner does not dispute that its bid was incomplete when submitted since it failed to identify a roofing subcontractor. However, Petitioner contends this omission was a result of clerical error in typing the bide and that, in fact, it had selected Republic Roofing as its subcontractor. John Breen, Petitioner's project manager, testified that it was his intent to use Republic Roofing when he submitted the bide that he had a firm bid from Republic Roofing, and that when this omission was brought to his attention after bids were opened, he identified Republic Roofing in writing on January 24 and 29, 1986, to Brian Seufert an intern architect working for Respondent's project architect. Seufert confirms Breen's testimony through affidavit jointly filed by the parties. Seufert indicates that the project architect has no reason to believe that Petitioner could not perform the work required by the project. By affidavit jointly filed by the parties, Joyce Kleja secretary for Petitioners also supports Breen's testimony about her clerical error in omitting the roofing subcontractor when she typed the bid. Ray Scerbo, an estimator for Republic Roofing, disputes the testimony of Breen through jointly filed affidavit. Scerbo indicates it was not until a couple of days after the bid opening that he was told by Petitioner that Republic Roofing "had the job" if Petitioner was awarded the contract. This conflicts with the first written notice from Breen to Seufert dated January 24, 1986, as well as Seufert's affidavit that Petitioner told Seufert on January 24, 1986, that Republic Roofing had been selected. Scerbo is no longer employed by Republic Roofing. After considering all of the evidence, it is specifically found that Petitioner's omission of Republic Roofing from its list of subcontractors was through clerical error and that Petitioner had firmly decided to use Republic Roofing for subcontracting work prior to submission of its bid. The advertisement for bid required all subcontractors to be listed in any bid in order to allow Respondent to review prior performance and licensure of subcontractors, and also to prevent "bid shopping". Bid shopping is a practice which inflates a general contractor's bid and therefore the actual award by encouraging subcontractors to initially submit high bids to the general contractor and then negotiate a lower price with the general contractor who has received the award. The general contractor's bid remains inflated however and in this way the cost to the state is increased.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order awarding Project Number HRS 85-300000 to Intervenor. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April 1986. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 86-0495B1D) Petitioner has submitted a memorandum and a Proposed Recommended Order, both of which appear to set forth proposed findings of fact in unnumbered paragraphs. For purposes of ruling thereon, the unnumbered paragraphs which appear to set forth proposed findings have been consecutively numbered. Memorandum: Introductory material and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as simply a summary of testimony and evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 2 and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Proposed Recommended Order: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 3, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise rejected as contrary to Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rulings on Respondent's and Intervenor's jointly filed Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. , 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis R. Long Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 Sam Powers Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32301 William Page; Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Fons Esquire Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts Bids for State Project No. 86170-301 were accepted by Respondent on or about March 5, 1993. Eight companies provided bids. The bids were evaluated by a three person committee consisting of James Wolfe, Teresa Martin, and Ray Pippitt. Some of the bidders bid the job strictly according to plans, and some of them bid the job as already sleeved. The bid tabulation was posted on March 17, 1993, noticing Department intent to reject all bids. Petitioner filed a protest on March 25, 1993, and a formal protest on March 29, 1993. Additional facts proved at hearing The Petitioner is the low bidder in a field of eight responsive bidders who submitted bids for the subject project. The subject project included the placement of an irrigation system and landscaping items. Sleeving is part of most highway irrigation projects and is an integral part of the irrigation pay item for the subject project. The sleeving shown on the plans for the subject project were for paved areas. The sleeving process consists of jacking pipes underneath existing pavement and then inserting smaller irrigation pipes inside the pipes that were jacked under the pavement. Theresa Martin is the District Contracts Administrator for the Department in the District in which the subject project was proposed to be undertaken. Ms. Martin reviews each bid to insure completeness, to verify various prices, and to input the bids into a computer system, after which she provides recommendations for the awards committee. Only bids that the computer program shows to be either 15 percent above or 15 percent below estimate are required to go to the awards committee for review. On the subject project, the computer program showed that some of the bids were 15 percent below estimate. Ms. Martin followed all standard procedures in the handling of the bids on the subject project. She handled the bids on the subject project she same as she has handled any other project. After conducting her review of the bids on the subject project, Ms. Martin prepared a report which was given to the estimator, Mr. Ray Pippitt. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Martin received a telephone call from a representative of Reed Landscaping, Inc., as well as a telephone call from a representative of Siga, Inc., another bidder on the project. The caller from Reed Landscaping, Inc., a Mr. Bob Dalin, asked Ms. Martin if the sleeves would be constructed by the current contractor prior to Reed Landscaping, Inc., beginning work on the landscaping irrigation system. Mr. Dalin indicated that if the sleeves were not going to be constructed by the current contractor, then Reed Construction, Inc., had bid the job too low. Mr. Larry Hughes of Siga, Inc., told Ms. Martin that he had heard that the job would be sleeved prior to work beginning on the subject project and that if that were true, then Siga had bid the job too high because it thought it would be responsible for sleeving. Mr. Hughes indicated that this would add ten to twelve thousand dollars to Siga's bid. Mr. Ray Pippitt, the Deputy District Design Engineer, reviewed the bids and the computer program for the subject project, as well a the report prepared by Ms. Martin. There was a difference of over 200 percent between the low and high bids on the irrigation pay item for the subject project. This was a substantial discrepancy from what would normally have been expected. The irrigation pay item comprized approximately 19 percent of the overall bid price. Page 16 of the plans for the subject project contained another potential source of confusion; namely, a note calling for both lump sum and unit pricing for the irrigation pay item, which includes the sleeving. Based on conversations with bidders on the subject project and with the project manager on an existing project that was in the course of being performed, Ms. Martin and Mr. Pippitt formed the opinion that sleeving would be done by the roadway contractor who was already on site. Ms. Martin and Mr. Pippitt both recommended rejection of all bids based on the apparent confusion as to the sleeving item and based on the apparent differences between the plans and actual field conditions at the time of letting bids for the subject project. The possibility of internal confusion in the bid language, the possibility of inconsistency between the bid plans and actual site conditions, and the possibility of other confusion among the bidders regarding the need for sleeves were not apparent to the Department of Transportation prior to the opening of the bids.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petitioner's bid protest and denying the relief requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-1944BID The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: The Petitioner has divided its proposed findings of fact into two groups; one group under the caption "Preliminary Statement Of Fact," which contains five numbered paragraphs, and another group undet the caption Finding Of Fact," which contains eleven unnumbered paragraphs. Attention is addressed first to the "Preliminary Statement Of Fact." Paragraph 1: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as consisting primarily of statement of position or argument, rather than proposed findings of relevant fact. Attention is addressed now to the unnumbered paragraphs following the caption "Finding Of fact." First, second, and third unnumbered paragraphs: Rejected as consisting primarily of statement of position or argument, rather than proposed findings of relevant fact. Fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh unnumbered paragraphs: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the parties' stipulation that "[s]ome of the bidders bid the job strictly according to plans, and some of them bid the job as already sleeved." Eighth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and also rejected because the second sentence is not fully supported by the evidence and contains inferences which are not fully supported by the evidence. Nineth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as irrelevant and as subordinate and unnecessary details. Tenth and eleventh paragraphs: Rejected for several reasons, including the fact that these paragraphs constitute subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, there are conflicts in the evidence regarding portions of the findings proposed in these paragraphs and I have resolved those conflicts in favor of the Department of Transportation's version of the facts. And as a final matter it is noted that under either version of the facts, the facts as found by the Hearing Officer or the facts proposed in these two paragraphs, the ultimate conclusion would be the same because neither version of the facts is sufficient to show that "the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly," Findings submitted by Respondent: Except as specifically noted below, the substance of all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent has been accepted. Paragraph 8: The difference between the high and low bids on the irrigation pay item appears to be slightly more than 200 percent. Paragraph 10: Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Albert Laskow Reed Landscaping, Inc. 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325-3807 William H. Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the Department acted illegally, arbitrarily, dishonestly, or fraudulently when it rejected all of the bids submitted in response to Invitation to Bid No. 97-023-OR. See Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost, a manufacturer of mailing equipment. Petitioner is also a Certified Minority Business Enterprise, pursuant to Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. Prior to the subject Invitation to Bid, the Department issued a similar Invitation to Bid. That bid was initially awarded to Pitney Bowes, Inc., but Pitney Bowes, Inc., was unable to meet delivery requirements of that bid, and the Department decided to re-bid. The Department issued the subject ITB No. 97-023-OR on March 10, 1997. Pursuant to its terms, the bid opening was held on April 29, 1997. The subject ITB provides, in pertinent part, as follows: At page 3 of 11 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS The state has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidders. The use of "shall", "must", or "will" (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Invitation to Bid/Request for Purchase indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. The words "should", or "may" in this /Request for Purchase to Bid [sic] indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Deviation from, or omission of, such a desirable feature, will not in itself cause rejection of a bid. (emphasis supplied) At page 6 of 11 MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE Bidder must provide proof of authorized dealership for equipment specified and the beginning and ending term of authorization. (emphasis supplied) SERVICE . . . Service is to be provided direct from the manufacturer. Third party service is acceptable only if it may be demonstrated that the location that is to provide the service can demonstrate 36 months experience in servicing the model proposed. Failure to receive this certification will be sufficient cause for rejection of this bid. (emphasis supplied) The manual signature of Ms. Klusmeier on ABS's April 1997 Bid certified that the bid was in compliance with all requirements of the ITB, "including but not limited to, certification requirements." ABS is not a manufacturer of the mailing equipment it bid. In its Bid, ABS enclosed a certificate issued by the Department's Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office certifying that ABS was a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) under the provisions of Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. However, ABS failed to specifically include proof of authorized dealership for the equipment specified with its bid. At all times material, the Department's MBE office had a copy of ABS' manufacturer-dealer agreement with Neopost (the manufacturer) and an ABS catalogue displaying all the Neopost bid items and stating that ABS is an authorized dealer for Neopost. However, this information was not part of the subject bid response package. Rather, it had been previously submitted by ABS to obtain MBE certification. It was not re-submitted as part of ABS' ITB response package. ABS has manufacturer's (Neopost's) authorized service centers in Florida. ABS intended that ABS and another authorized dealer would provide service in the State of Florida for the equipment it bid. However, ABS failed to include with its Bid a demonstration that either ABS or the other dealer had a minimum of 36 months' experience servicing the Neopost equipment. The November 1996 ITB had requested the same manufacturer and service information as the subject April 1997 ITB, and ABS responded in the same way to both ITB's. ABS was not ruled unresponsive in November 1996 on that basis. In April 1997, ABS also initially was treated as a responsive bidder. On May 1, 1997, the only two bids (ABS and Pitney Bowes, Inc.) were opened by one of the Department's Purchasing Specialists, Oradell Rollins. The Department posted its intent to award the bid to ABS. On May 5, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., the only other bidder for the subject ITB, filed a timely Notice of Intent to Protest with the Department. Pitney Bowes, Inc., is a manufacturer and bidder which services its own products. The Department's Purchasing Office has never established a pattern of accepting an MBE Certificate in lieu of specified bid elements. The Department afforded Pitney Bowes, Inc., an informal protest procedure without notification to, or participation by, ABS. On May 16, 1997, upon request from the Department's Director of Purchasing, ABS immediately forwarded a letter to the Department from Neopost advising that ABS was an authorized Neopost dealer; that ABS and others had been certified by the manufacturer to service the mailing equipment ABS had bid for the subject ITB; and that ABS had been servicing Neopost equipment for more than 36 months. Ms. Rollins had previously requested this information just after bids were opened but had not indicated it was urgent. This type of information is not normally requested after bid opening. The Department's Purchasing Office considered waiving the missing information because its personnel had dealt satisfactorily with ABS on other contracts for a number of years, but such waiver is not the Department's usual procedure. On May 15, 1997, Pitney Bowes, Inc., timely filed with the Department its Formal Written Protest. Petitioner faults this letter's recitation that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative saw the alleged flaws in the ABS bid on the day that bids were opened. Petitioner proved that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., representative could not have seen ABS's bid on the day of the bid opening, but the same information could have been derived subsequently. Pitney Bowes' April 1997, Notice of Protest is not in evidence for comparison with its Formal Written Protest. No nefarious dealings or collusion necessarily flows from the foregoing findings of fact. Based upon a review of the Formal Written Protest of Pitney Bowes, Inc., and upon advice of the Department's General Counsel, the Department determined that ABS's bid on the subject 1997 ITB was, in fact, nonresponsive because, when opened, it had failed to contain "proof of authorized dealership," and also had failed to include the required "certification" on "Third Party Service." On May 22, 1997, the Department sent a letter to ABS advising ABS of the Department's decision and further advising that the Department intended to re-bid for the equipment. ABS received the Department's letter on May 27, 1997. The Department's decision to re-bid instead of to award to Pitney Bowes, Inc., was in part determined by its desire to avoid situations in which there is only one responsive bidder. It was also influenced by Departmental concerns that the Pitney Bowes, Inc., bid was much higher than the disqualified ABS bid. Departmental personnel believed that a re-bid would secure a lower cost to the Department. ABS timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest. Pitney Bowes, Inc. was given notice of the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings and chose not to intervene. ABS established that it currently provides mailing equipment for the Department all over the State of Florida and that it coordinates service for that equipment through a Neopost network in all those locations. However, ABS did not establish that it has provided or serviced exactly the same type of equipment for the Department at each of these locations, as ABS bid in April 1997. Over time, ABS has dealt with Purchasing Specialist Oradell Rollins on these other Departmental Contracts. Prior to the subject 1997 bid opening, Mr. Bowls, ABS's "Neopost Government Specialist," had informed her that ABS covered the State of Florida for Neopost. Ms. Rollins had received an ABS catalogue and ABS's MBE Certificate in connection with ongoing business prior to the April 1997 bid opening. ABS does not perceive that ABS using other dealers certified by the manufacturer (Neopost) constitutes ABS using "Third Party" service agents, nor does ABS consider itself to be a "Third Party," as that term is used in the subject ITB. However, the Department has consistently interpreted "Third Parties" to include any dealers who are not simultaneously manufacturers and bidders, and its ITBs require bidders who are not also manufacturers to demonstrate within their Bid that each service location is certified and has 36 months' experience at the time of bid opening.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a Final Order dismissing the protest of American Business Systems and establishing a time frame in which its Invitation to Bid may be relet. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Klusmeier, Qualified Representative American Business Systems 8638 Phillips Highway, Room 12 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, South East 303 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Sometime before January, 1989, The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide for social services in Haines City, Florida. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease of 9041 square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3%. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given by advertisement in four central Florida newspapers. HRS had prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS' requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of % (Weighting: 30) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 5) Associated moving costs i.e. furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc. (Weighting: 0) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 5) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 20) Facility Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 20) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 15 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100% The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: rental rates environmental factors efficient space layout The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to several hundred people every month. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the influx of people. Because of servicing so many people, factors two and three received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by Intervenor, Unirealty Services, Inc. (bid A), and Petitioners, Messrs. Matthews and Walker (bid B). The bids were opened February 20, 1989, and Mr. Michael T. Akridge, former Facilities Services Manager, District VI HRS, determined both bids were responsive. At the time the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had an option contract to purchase the subject facility, and an authorization from the optionees (two principals of Intervenors) for Unirealty to act as their agent. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committee's choice of lowest and best bid. The purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Six individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. The bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Unirealty was the "lowest and best." The bid evaluation committee consisted of six representatives of the Department who visited each bidders' site and questioned the bidders' representatives. Each of the committee members worked with or supervised HRS programs that were to be located in the leased space. The solicitation for bids provided each bidder, among other things, with the bid evaluation criteria, a 100 point scale, which the committee used to evaluate the bids. Each committee member's evaluation scores were averaged and totaled to score Petitioners at 90.8, and Unirealty at 83.9. Each committee member gave a higher score to Unirealty. The three major bid evaluation criteria were FISCAL COSTS, LOCATION and FACILITY. Under the FISCAL COST criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioners received 30 points out of 30 possible, and Unirealty got 23.1. For Renewal Rates, Petitioners got 5 out of 5 possible points, and Unirealty received 3.7 points. No points were awarded for Moving Costs. The evaluation committee did not assess points for Rental or Renewal Rates. These were scored by Michael T. Akridge, bid manager, based on a present value analysis of bidders' proposed rates. Mr. Akridge did not give the Committee the points for Rental and Renewal Rates until after they had completed their evaluations of the LOCATION and FACILITY criteria. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Central Area-- 10 points--with both bidders receiving 9.3; Public Transportation--5 points-- which both bidders received; and, Environmental Factors--20 points--out of which Petitioners received 12.8 points and Unirealty 20 points. The Environmental Factors sub-category included building physical characteristics and surrounding area and their effect on the efficient and economical conduct of Department operations. Unirealty received a higher score than Petitioner because the committee believed its building had a better appearance, and was in better shape. The area surrounding the building was more open, while Petitioners' building was in a less desirable neighborhood with a bar or liquor store and bus station nearby which could create problems for clients because of transients. It had far more window space which creates a better work environment, and allows staff to be watchful of clients and their children outside, and the windows would be tinted. The windows at Petitioner's site were limited and no more could be added. Unirealty had more adjacent parking spaces, with handicapped parking closer to the building, and part of it was fenced which provided added protection to clients and staff. Petitioners' site had adjacent businesses whose patrons were using some of the parking spaces which the committee felt could create a problem. The Unirealty building could have an outside food stamp issuance facility which would be far more accessible to clients and to make the lobbies less crowded. It had an existing alarm system. It did not have side streets adjacent to the building, thus there would be less traffic congestion and therefore safer for clients; and, it had outside gathering areas where clients could go to smoke. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, Petitioners received 11.8 points out of 20 for Layout/Utilization and Unirealty received 19.7 points; for Single Building, both bidders received 10 points out of 10 possible. For the Layout/Utilization sub-category Unirealty received more points because its building configuration was more flexible and conducive to design of interior space, with less maze effect. The members of the committee each testified that it was important that the Unirealty building had no support poles to get in the way as they did in Petitioners' building. The support poles in Petitioner's building created a safety problem for clients and inhibited the location of desks and corridors. At Unirealty's site each worker could have a window, and mechanical and service areas could be put in the center of the building, with a playroom for clients' children. It provided a better restroom location near the front of Petitioner's building and lobby areas, and clients would not have to wander through work areas to get to the restrooms. Unirealty's building provided better control of clients' movements and thus better security. Members of the committee also upgraded the Unirealty building because its pitched roof was less likely to leak and its air conditioning was zoned thus providing better air quality and temperature control. At Unirealty there was better ingress and egress, and entry ways could be added. This could not be done at Petitioners' site. The Unirealty building could have different entrances for each HRS program, with separate lobbies for each program with less client congestion and better control. During the Committee members inspection of the sites they were told of an existing security alarm system already in place at the Unirealty site and were told that system would remain in place. When asked, the Petitioner's representative was unsure if his client would install a similar system at their site. A security system for the entire building was not included in the bid specifications, and it was improper for the committee to give Unirealty extra points for this unsolicited item. The proposed lease agreement calls for 9041 square feet of office space and a minimum of 66 parking spaces. Unirealty offered 72 parking spaces and Petitioner offered 75. The committee awarded more evaluation points to the Unirealty site based on future expansion capability of the building and the existing additional on-site parking spaces which were visible at the site at the time of inspection. The committee erroneously believed that the extra square footage of building space and extra parking spaces would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was not in the bid specifications and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The evaluation committee included the improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the Unirealty property. The two improper factors cannot be considered here. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was clearly to award the lease to the Intervenor. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Petitioners presented greater problems for design and flexibility due to the rectangular configuration of the building. The other consideration was that the physical characteristics of the Unirealty site and the surrounding area were considered far superior to the Petitioner's site. A close review of each evaluation sheet and the testimony of each committee member at the hearing shows that the improper factors were not so heavily weighted as to invalidate the committee recommendation. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after inspection of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Intervenor's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Intervenor's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. Over an eight year period the Petitioner's rental cost was significantly lower than the Intervenor's. However, it is clear the legitimate considerations of the committee were crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder. The conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. After the committee recommendation was scored and tabulated, Mr. Akridge requested the committee chair, Ms. Gail Newell, to prepare a draft letter of the proposed bid award. This was done in collaboration with the other committee members. Mr. Michael T. Akridge then prepared the bid award letter for the signature of the Administrative Services Director based on the draft letter. In it the two improper considerations were mentioned. The authority to award the lease to Unirealty was approved on March 8, 1989, by King W. Davis, Director of General Services for HRS based on the bid award letter, dated February 26, 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:2057 to Unirealty Services, Inc., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 39 (in part), 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 81, 83 (in part) are adopted in substance in so far as material. Paragraphs 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 33, 36, 37, 73, 74, 80 are rejected as conclusions of law. Paragraphs 13, 19, 20, 44, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 72, 75, 778, 82, are rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 43, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 66 are rejected assubordinate or immaterial. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: The facts contained in paragraphs 1-17 are adopted in substance in so far as they are material. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward D. Matthews, Jr. 2405 Hideaway Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire HRS District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Neal A. Sivyer, Esquire Paul J. Ullom, Esquire Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings and Evans, P. A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33601 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Kelly Services is the lowest responsive bidder on Bid No. 89-23 and should be awarded the bid.
Findings Of Fact On June 2, 1988, the School Board of Bay County issued Bid Request No. 89-23 for garbage collection services at thirteen locations. A quotation sheet was included in the bid package. The quotation sheet indicated the thirteen locations with a blank next to each location and a dollar sign in front of each blank where each bidder was to indicate its average monthly total charge for each location. There was also a quotation schedule where the bidder was to indicate the calculations which went into the total bid for each location. The bid request provided: The Board reserves the right to waive formalities and to reject any and all bids or to accept any bid or combination of bids deemed in the Board's best interest and the decision of the Board will be final. Bidders desiring that their bid be considered on an all-or-none basis, either in whole or part, shall so indicate. It is the intent of this bid request to secure prices and establish contracts for garbage collection services for the twelve schools specified herein and the District Maintenance Department. Awards will be made by location and will be based on an average monthly total charge as calculated on the quotation sheet. The bids were opened at 10:00 am., June 13, 1988, at the offices of the Bay County School Board. Three completed bid packages were submitted. Kelly Services, Argus and M&O each submitted a completed bid quotation sheet containing the bid for each location. M&O also submitted a letter which stated: We would like to submit this bid on an all- or-nothing basis as specified in paragraph four of the cover letter to the bid. For an estimated cost of $3,391.84. The quotation sheet and quotation schedule submitted by M&O did not reflect the all-or-nothing bid amount. Instead, the quotation sheet and quotation schedule showed a total bid of $3,738.24 when calculated by location. Based on the bids submitted by each bidder as shown on the quotation sheet add quotation schedules, Kelly Services was low bidder on five locations (Callaway, Tyndall, Waller, Southport, and Cedar Grove) ; Argus was low bidder on six locations (Parker, Hiland, Haney, Mosley, Beach and Merritt Brown); and M&O was low bidder on two locations (West Bay and the District Maintenance Department). Prior to the deadline for submitting bids, John Harrison, Purchasing Agent for the Board, responded to an inquiry from M&O by advising M&O that it could submit two bids, one as specified in the Bid Request by location and one as an all-or- nothing bid. No other bidders were advised that they could submit two bids. At the bid opening, M&O did not submit a quotation sheet or schedule for its all-or-nothing bid. A bid which did not have a breakdown per dump per container per facility would not be acceptable to the Board and does not meet the specifications in the Bid Request. The breakdown per dump per container per location is necessary to verify proper invoicing for specific locations on months when there is a change in the number of dumps or containers at that location. After opening the bids, the Board compiled the low bid for each location and then totaled that list. That total of $3,606.09 was greater than the all-or-nothing bid by M&O. Because M&O's all-or-nothing bid failed to meet the specifications by not having a location breakdown the Board contacted M&O to determine if its "estimated" bid was firm and to request a breakdown on the quotation schedule form for the all- or-nothing bid. On June 15, 1988, two days after the bid opening, M&O submitted a letter to the Board clarifying that its all-or- nothing bid was a firm bid for each location and M&O submitted a quotation schedule for each location per dump per container (see page 7 of Joint Exhibit 1 and the last page of Joint Exhibit 2). The charge for each location in this quotation schedule is different than the quotation schedule submitted by M&O at the bid opening and is for the most part lower per location than either M&O's first quotation schedule or the low bids taken from the quotation schedules submitted at the bid opening. Based on the letter and all-or-nothing quotation schedule filed by M&O on June 15, 1988, the Board determined to award the bid for garbage collection services to M&O for the all- or-nothing bid of $3,391.84.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that The School Board of Bay County enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and readvertising the bid request for garbage collection services as specified in Bid Request No. 89-23. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 13th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3768BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Kelly Services: 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 4-6(3); 7-11(7-11); and 12 (9) Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, School Board of Bay County: Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 3(10&11); and 5(8). Proposed findings of fact 6, 7, and 9 are irrelevant. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 2 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. The remainder of proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 3. Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected as being argumentative, conclusory and unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Argus Services, Inc.: Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1-3); 6-8(5); 9 & 10(6) 11(3); and 12(11). Proposed findings of fact 1 and 5 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 13-17 are rejected as constituting argument and not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey P. Whitton Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1956 Panama City, Florida 32402 Franklin R. Harrison Attorney at Law 304 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Scott W. Clemons Attorney at Law Post Office Box 860 Panama City, Florida 32402 School Board of Bay County Post Office Drawer 820 Panama City, Florida 32402-0820 M&O Sanitation, Inc. 266 N. Star Avenue Panama City, Florida 32404
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1994, the Respondent received and opened bids for its Project No. HSMV 92044000, Repairs, Art Sutton Drivers' License Office, Miami, Florida (the Project). The bid specification documents (the Specifications) for the Project included requirements for a Base Bid and for specific alternate proposals with respect to three defined items of alternate work. Section 01100 of the Specifications stated that "[a]ll Alternates described in this Section are required to be reflected on the Bid Form as submitted by the bidder." Part 2 of that section provided: ALTERNATE NO. 1 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the removal of existing window units and the installation of new units as indicated in plans and specification Section 08520. ALTERNATE NO. 2 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the provision of communications conductors see specification Section 16400. ALTERNATE No. 3 A. Provide a deductive price to the base bid for the installation of all landscape materials as indicated on plans and as per specification Section 02960. Also included in the Specifications as Exhibit 4 was a Proposal Form. The Specifications required each bidder to submit this form in triplicate on the bidder's letterhead. With respect to alternates, the Proposal Form required: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ The Respondent's architect received four bids on August 31, 1994. As recorded on the Bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation, three bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates, as well as a Base Bid. The Bid Tabulation shows that two bidders provided specific prices for the three alternates and included the alternate prices in their Base Bids. The Petitioner provided specific prices for the three alternates, but excluded the alternate prices from its Base Bid. The fourth bidder provided a specific price for only one alternate and excluded that alternate price from its Base Bid. (The fourth bidder was disqualified as non-responsive for failing to submit prices on all three alternates.) In pertinent part, the Petitioner's proposal read: With the foregoing as a Base Bid, the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications: Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct . . . $4,400.00 Alternate No. 2 Add or Deduct . . . $1,158.00 Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct . . . $2,084.00 These Alternates were in addition to the Petitioner's Base bid of $204,322.00. The proposal form submitted by the Petitioner comports with Exhibit 4 to the Specifications, which was the mandatory Proposal Form. On August 31, 1994, William Phillip Austin, Peitioner's President, wrote the architect: Per our telephone conversation this date regard- ing the confusion relating to the Add/Deduct for Alternates 1, 2 and 3 for the above project, please be advised that our base bid did not include the work described in the Alternates. As stated if you want work described in Alternates 1, 2 and 3, you must add the cost to our base bid. The base bid including Alternates 1, 2 and 3 would, therefore, be $211,964.00. If we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. The Respondent's architect completed and submitted the bid Tabulation and Notice of Award Recommendation to the Respondent in early September. The document clearly discloses the amounts of each bidder's Base Bid and Alternate proposals. Using plus (+) and minus (-) signs, the Bid Tabulation further shows each bidder's method of calculation. The record is devoid of evidence that the Respondent had any problem in evaluating the bids and identifying the lowest bidder. The Petitioner was the lowest bidder on any combination of base bid plus or minus any or all alternates. Subsequently the Petitioner received a NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION dated October 4, 1994. The Notice informed the Petitioner that the Respondent "has recommended that the contract be awarded to your firm in the total amount of $211,964.00, accepting the Base Bid and Alternates #1, #2 & #3. The Administrator of Contracts Design and Permitting, Division of Building Construction, Department of Management Services, State of Florida will consider this recommendation." Larry R. Coleman, Construction Projects Administrator, signed the letter. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt. A representative of the second lowest bidder, Kalex Construction, then contacted the Respondent, complaining of the Award Recommendation. The grounds for the Kalex complaint are not in the record. However, on October 14, 1994, H. R. Hough, the Respondent's Contracts Administrator, sent the Petitioner a letter "to notify you of the State's decision to reject all bids on the above referenced project due to ambiguities in the specifications." Mr. Hough's reasons for the rejection are "other than those stated by the protestor," Kalex. The Respondent's Rule 60D-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, states: Determination of Successful Bidder. All projects except where competitive bidding is waived under the provisions of Rule 60D-5.008 will be publicly bid in accordance with the provisions in the project specifications bidding documents. Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder, determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents, that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract, taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Under the above-quoted rule, the Respondent compares bids beginning with the lowest "base bid." The Respondent is of the view that for this comparison to be fair and equal, all bidders must include the same scope of work in the "base bid." The Respondent does not interpret the above-quoted rule to allow deductive alternates from some bidders and additive alternates from others. (For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, the Respondent's interpretation and application of the above-quoted rule is erroneous.) The Specifications contain some ambiguous and inconsistent language regarding whether alternates should be treated as additive or deductive. The ambiguous and inconsistent language did not provide any bidder with an advantage or a disadvantage, nor did it otherwise affect the fairness of the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services issue a Final Order in this case awarding a contract for the subject project to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1994. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1994. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner Paragraph 1: This is primarily a statement of position and is addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Paragraphs 2 through 10: Accepted in substance with a few unnecessary details omitted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. Third sentence is accepted as an accurate statement of how Respondent has been interpreting the subject rule, but is not accepted as constituting a correct interpretation of the rule. Paragraph 8: Rejected as misleading and confusing because the "scope of work" to be performed under the contract can only be determined after the Respondent decides which alternates to include and which to exclude. Paragraph 9: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion which is not warranted by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy J. Armstrong, Esquire Armstrong & Mejer Suite 1111 Douglas Centre 2600 Douglas Road Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 312 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Department of General Services Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is the lowest responsive bidder with regard to an invitation to bid for Project Number KD-05/NG-05 (The ITB). Specifically the issues involve whether the Petitioner adequately complied with specifications regarding submission of a check list with the bid and whether the site plan submitted by the Petitioner was sufficient in accordance with the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Koblar Constructors and Engineers (Koblar) is a sole proprietorship owned by Andrew Koblar of Gainesville, Florida. The Respondent (Department) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the operation of the Florida prison system including the installation and maintenance of sanitation systems for Florida Prisons. The Intervenor is Elkins Constructors, Incorporated, a Florida corporation, (Elkins) which in the initial intended agency action was recommended to be awarded the contract involved in this proceeding. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Order on November 26, 1990 finding that the Waste Water Treatment Facility at the Starke Prison operated by the Department violated Section 301(a) of the so called "Clean Water Act" as amended at 33 U.S.C. Subsection 1311(a). The violation allegedly related to the system's failure to meet final effluent limitations concerning BOD, suspended solids and nutrients, as stipulated in the NPDES permit Number FL0038245 issued by the EPA to the Department with regard to that Waste Water System at the Starke Prison. Being aware of the EPA Order and the need for corrective action in order to avoid severe civil penalties, the Department issued Invitation to Bid Project Number KD-05/NG-05 (ITB) on September 30, 1990, in order to install a facility and equipment which would correct the violation of the sewage effluent limitations as stipulated in the Department's NPDES Permit. The upgrading of the Waste Water Plant involved in the ITB included installation of new aeration tanks, final clarifiers, final filters, and appurtenant equipment and facilities. In order to prepare the ITB and then to evaluate the bid responses to it, the Department selected William M. Bishop, Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Bishop) as the consulting engineer on this project. Bishop's duties included the drafting of the ITB specifications and conditions, evaluating the proposals submitted in response to it and recommending the award of the contract. At various times after the preparation of the initial ITB Bishop also prepared four addendums to it. The ITB stated that the contract would be awarded to the lowest, responsive bidder. The proposals were to include bid quotations, used to determine lowest price and other documents and data to determine the responsiveness of the proposals. Koblar timely submitted a base bid of $1,390,000.00 with additional costs for Alternative No. 1 involving a "Traveling Bridge Filter" for $328,400.00; for additive Alternative No. 2: "Emergency Generator" for $65,223; and additive Alternative No. 3: "Communinutor" for $38,584.00. Elkins submitted a base bid of $1,520,000.00, with additional costs for additive Alternative No. 1: The Traveling Bridge Filter, for $375,000.00; additive Alternative No. 2: The Emergency Generator, for $53,000.00; and additive Alternative No. 3: The Communinutor for $20,000.00. Five bids were received by the Department, including Koblar's and Elkins' Bids. The bids were evaluated by Mr. Murphy of Bishop Engineering. The Bishop representative found Koblar's bid nonresponsive and rejected it. It was deemed nonresponsive because it allegedly failed to include the required information on the submittal check list as well as an adequate site plan. Mr. Michael Murphy, the Engineer evaluating the bids maintained he was unable to evaluate Koblar's bid because it lacked that information. After evaluation of the bids, Bishop recommended awarding the bid to Elkins as the lowest responsive bidder. On December 5, 1990, the bid results were posted with Elkins as the announced winner. The ITB consisted of a package containing instructions to prospective bidders and specifications for the construction of the project which primarily consisted of a Waste Water Treatment Plant. The ITB required a pre-engineered package Waste Water Treatment Plant which would meet the Performance Criteria set out in the Specifications. Bidders were required to submit a base bid for the plant itself and prices for three additive alternatives as delineated above. After the Department issued the ITB on September 30, 1990, the engineer met with representatives of Smith and Lovelace, Inc., a Wastewater Treatment Plant Manufacturer. These representatives provided to the Engineer, Mr. Murphy, calculations for the performance of the Waste Water Treatment Plant it wished to make available for bidders. As a result of that meeting, the Engineer approved Smith and Lovelace's Plant as a manufacturer of the Waste Water Treatment Plant sought. The Engineer then issued an addendum to the ITB notifying bidders that the Smith and Lovelace plant was approved for the project. The Engineer issued the addendum because he determined that the Smith and Lovelace equipment and materials could meet the project specifications. Section 11395 paragraph 1.5.1 provided that bidders submit the following materials: Site plan showing arrangement of treatment units and yard piping and any modifications required to match the piping arrangements shown on the plans. The performance and operating characteristics for the plant including the electrical load requirements and the oxygen transfer efficiency of the diffusers proposed for the aeration tanks. A listing of tank volumes and surface areas. A list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least five (5) owners of plants using the proposed treatment arrangement and equipment for verification of operation and maintenance considerations. The calculations submitted to the consulting engineer by the Smith and Lovelace firm and the proposal provided him contained all the information requested by paragraph 1.5.1. Addendum 2 to the ITB included a "submittal check list" form. The submittal check list form listed the categories of technical information and provided a space for inserting the results of calculations which were requested by paragraph 1.5.1. In response to this, Koblar wrote the following notation on its check list form: "See enclosure or prequalification on file with engineer." The enclosure consisted of a technical scale drawing of the Smith and Lovelace plant reflecting a directional north arrow. This was Koblar's site plan pursuant to Item 1 on the submittal check list. The prequalification information referred to by Koblar consisted of the design and calculations submitted by Smith and Lovelace which had induced the consulting engineer, Mr. Murphy, to approve that company as a manufacturer and issue the addendum to Paragraph 1.4.4. Engineer Murphy knew that the notation on the check list form referred to that same information, accordingly to his testimony. Nothing in the instructions to bidders with the ITB precluded bidders from referencing information already in the consulting engineer and bid evaluator's possession, which was done by Koblar in this case. On December 5, 1990, the Department posted the bid results which reflected that the Respondent rejected Koblar's bid as nonresponsive. That posting announced the intent to award the contract to Elkins. Koblar timely filed a notice of intent to protest and a formal written protest pursuant to Section 120.53 of the Florida Statutes and the case was ultimately transferred to the undersigned hearing officer and tried on January 18 and 22, 1991. The Department's position was that the Koblar bid contained certain omissions which constituted material major irregularities such that they could not be cured or waived in the view of the Department. The two objections to Koblar's bid involved Koblar's failure to fill in all blank spaces on the submittal check list with the calculations contained in the Smith and Lovelace presubmitted information and its position that the Koblar's site plan submitted was insufficient to comply with its view of the bid specification. Mr. Michael Murphy of Bishop Consulting Engineers, the Engineer assigned to prepare the Invitation to Bid, evaluate bids and recommend selection of a bidder, acknowledged in his testimony that the information previously submitted by Smith and Lovelace of the Department contained all of the information required by the checklist and that that information met the specifications contained in the ITB. Mr. Murphy had notified Smith and Lovelace that its design calculation's meet the specifications prior to the date bids were submitted. He was of the opinion, however, that he could not properly refer to the Smith and Lovelace information to which his attention had been directed by Koblar in its bid submittal. According to the Department that would have provided Koblar a competitive advantage over other bidders. The evidence showed that if Koblar had transcribed the information onto the check list from the Smith and Lovelace data and provided a site plan which precisely met the consulting engineer's view of what the site plan should depict, particularly with regard to location of and connection of yard piping and relationship to existing infrastructure (buried pipes), the Department would have found its bid responsive and awarded the contract to Koblar since it was the lowest bidder by a significant amount (approximately $146,000). There were certain irregularities in the bid of Elkins as well, as shown by the testimony of Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy opined that these irregularities were not material because they were obvious ones and easily correctable. There was evidence that certain information provided by Elkins on its check list did not meet the minimum specifications for the contract but that those deficiencies could be corrected by adjusting certain calculations. Because Mr. Murphy concluded that Elkins' bid could meet specifications, depending on how the calculations were done, Elkins' bid was considered to be responsive. There was also testimony that perhaps one of the criteria on the check list, Item 2b, was not met by the calculations submitted by Smith and Lovelace. This testimony is inconsistent with the extensive testimony and evidence to the contrary and is rejected. However, if any such deficiency had existed, it could be cured or eliminated by applying the same standards or differing calculation procedures which the engineer applied to make Elkins' submittals acceptable. The Elkins' bid did not meet the minimal standard for the aerobic digester. The minimal requirement was a 207,000 gallon capacity tank. Elkins' bid reflected a 180,000 gallon tank. This also rendered its bid proposal more than $18,000 cheaper than the Koblar bid as to this particular item. During the first day of the hearing, Engineer Murphy testified that he considered this to be a minor error and that Elkins could be required to provide a 207,000 tank and would not be entitled to a change order and (more money) for doing so. Four days later in his testimony, the Engineer testified that the bid was not necessarily in error at all because the minimum design criteria were flexible. According to Mr. Murphy, the specifications minimums as originally issued were firm ones, but as a result of changes of Addendum 2, the minimum requirements were only guidelines. Therefore, if Elkins' 180,000 gallon tank proposed was based on calculations using an industry standard, rather than the minimum requirement called for in the specification its calculation for the tank capacity would have been acceptable. In other words, with a smaller capacity tank, if Elkins proposal made provision for enhancing the oxygen feed rate, then the same performance standard could be achieved possibly even with the smaller capacity tank. Similarly, on the first day of the hearing Mr. Murphy testified that he rejected Koblar's bid because he did not feel it was appropriate to incorporate by reference the design calculations previously submitted by Smith and Lovelace, but that those calculations did meet the specifications. On the second day of the hearing, he indicated that Koblar's calculations did not meet the specification for oxygen transfer with regard to the aerobic digester. However, if the calculations testified to by the engineer as establishing acceptability of the Elkins' Bid were applied to Koblar's Bid, Koblar's bid would also be acceptable. Under Elkins' calculations using 20 MG/L effluent BOD (instead of the 5 MG/L specified), the minimum required oxygen rate would be 361 pounds. Koblar's bid provided for 398 pounds oxygen feed rate per hour and therefore would exceed the minimum requirements. In summary, if the justification for allowing Elkins to disregard the specifications in arriving at the tank capacity requirement held true, then the specifications relating to the requirements on the check list were not rigid requirements were performance related and were nothing more than guide lines and therefore cannot serve as a basis for rejecting either bid. The testimony of Mr. Murphy taken in its totality establishes that Koblar's bid would have been accepted as responsive if it had transferred the calculations from the Smith and Lovelace pre-submitted information onto its actual physical check list and if Koblar had submitted a site plan which the engineer felt met his own expectations. The engineer testified that Koblar site plan was nonresponsive and unacceptable because he himself contemplated a plan which would show precisely where the plant would be located, oriented and how its piping would connect or relate exactly to the piping of the existing facility. Koblar's site plan indeed provided a directional arrow showing how the plant would be placed on the site, direction-wise, and the specification plans themselves in the ITB provided only a limited area for its location so it could not be placed in any other location. Therefore, because of the directional arrow, it was clear how the plant would be placed and connect to the existing facility, in reality. The plant could only be moved a few feet in any direction within the geographically limited area or location contained in the ITB plan depiction part of the specifications. Because the limited area for location provided in the specification plans precludes placement of the plant at any other location on the entire site, and because the directional arrow provided in Koblar's site plan shows how the plant would be oriented, it becomes obvious how the connections to existing piping and the existing facility would be made. The fact that the site plan submitted by Koblar does not show the final precise location or the actual "foot print" of the plant to be installed is, at most, a minor irregularity. It is obvious how the connections would be made. They could only be made one way. In fact, the engineer testified that if Koblar had submitted a drawing showing the precise location anywhere in the specified area in the ITB plans it would have been acceptable. Yet the engineer also testified that he felt the site plan was insufficient because he feared Koblar would request a "change order." He feared Koblar would request a change order if he ordered Koblar to place the plant somewhere different in the specification area from where originally contemplated, possibly because of additional piping, etc. The engineer's stated fear that a change order might result in additional costs under these circumstances is not acceptable. The same result would occur if Koblar had submitted a drawing showing the location of the plant closer than that which the engineer ultimately ordered. Yet he acknowledged that if Koblar had done so its submittal would have been acceptable. The Department's own engineer, Mr. Scott, testified that it was clear how Koblar intended to connect the two facilities, that is, the existing one and the new one proposed and that the arrangement would work. Therefore, the supposed fear of a change order was not shown to well-founded. The asserted fear of a change order request from Koblar is inconsistent with the engineer's own discussion and evaluation of Elkins' Bid. The Elkins' submittal showed an intent to use a 180,000 gallon aerobic digester. The engineer intended to require Elkins to provide a 207,000 gallon aerobic digester (the so called "muffin monster"). When a bidder places the owner or his engineer on notice that he has based his bid on a specific assumption and the engineer demands something different, it is logical to anticipate a change order dispute. It is not logical to anticipate a change order dispute when the bid order provides that the project will be constructed within the limitations provided in the plans. Therefore, the asserted fear that Koblar would request a change order does not justify rejection of its bid when considered in the light of the engineer's rationale regarding the Elkins' Bid. If the possibility of a change order dispute could be considered in determining irregularity of a bid, it would be considerably more of a factor in the Elkins' Bid Evaluation, which was actually deemed responsive by the engineer, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy's rejection of the Koblar's site plan was based on a subjective expectation of what the site plans should look like rather than what the specifications actually required. The specifications in fact included a drawing showing the limits in which the new plant would be located. Both Mr. Murphy and Mr. Scott, the Department's own engineer acknowledged that Koblar's drawing of the new plant which was submitted with the bid could be fitted into the limits shown on the specification drawings and the north directional arrow showed the manner in which the plant would be oriented, at which point the manner in which the piping had to be connected became obvious. That was what was required by Paragraph 1.3.1 of the specifications and Koblar's submittal complied with that. Further, Koblar's testimony shows that the he has bound himself to submit no additional costs as change orders based on the final precise placement of the plant in the relation to existing infrastructure and the ultimate connection to the existing facilities. The Department did not present evidence or explanation to justify its assertion that Koblar had actually gained unfair competitive advantage by the manner in which it submitted its bid. Both engineers testifying for the Department were repeatedly asked to explain the advantage which Koblar received. Initially Mr. Murphy responded that Koblar would have been advantaged if the bid had been accepted because the other bidders did not incorporate by reference the pre-submitted information. Mr. Scott, the Department's own engineer, acknowledged that there would have been no economic advantage to Koblar by incorporating the pre-submitted information by reference in its bid, although, conceivably, time savings to Koblar in bid preparation might have been helpful. On the last day of the hearing, however Mr. Murphy elaborated on Mr. Scott's theme in testifying that he felt that there might be a certain amount of time involved in filling out the bid form which could have been saved by Koblar by relying on the pre-submitted information, which might have allowed Koblar to take advantage of a last minute, lowest price from his supplier before making the bid submittal. This conjectural, competitive, economic advantage has not been established however and has been shown to be incorrect. Even Mr. McMurray, the President of Elkins, acknowledged in his testimony that any bidder can change its bid up to the very last minute as to any item. His testimony about the ability to change a bid or a bid item up to the last minute before bid opening shows that ability to make last minute changes in bids is not affected by the amount of time the contractor had already put in the bid preparation prior to bid opening. There was no showing that Koblar gained any last minute price knowledge from any manufacturer or other source or any other advantage which he could put in his bid at the last minute and make use of any purported time gained by submitting a bid which incorporated pre-submitted information by reference rather than a more time consuming preparation of the bid "from scratch." Moreover, any bidder involved could have referred to the pre- submitted information on file with the consulting engineer in lieu of preparation, from "scratch," of all the calculations and other information referenced in the above bid specification paragraphs at issue, including the fact that any bidder could have submitted a site plan similar to the one submitted by Koblar because that was all the specifications required. In summary, it was not established that Koblar received any unfair economic advantage over other bidders by merely incorporating by reference design calculations which had been pre-approved and were in the possession of the engineer. The information was such that any engineer could look at it and insert the numbers and calculations onto the submittal list at issue with no room for variation in the result. The numbers say what the numbers say and there is no opportunity for a variation such that Koblar would gain a competitive advantage over other bidders thereby. The same consideration is true of the site plan controversy. The information required by the relevant specification regarding the location of the new plant and its connection to the old plant could be derived from the drawings submitted by Koblar. There was no opportunity for Koblar to change the results of that information. Therefore, the assertions by the Respondent's witnesses that allowing Koblar to rely on the pre-submitted Smith and Lovelace information, and accepting its drawing as responsive to the site plan specification somehow provided Koblar an extra opportunity at responsiveness and "lowest best bid," to the competitive disadvantage of the other bidders, is simply inaccurate and not supported by the evidence of record.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the contract for construction of Project No. KD/5-ND/5 to Koblar Constructors and Engineers. ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-28 Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-10 Accepted. 11 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 12-19 Accepted. Rejected as immaterial to the dispositive material issues presented and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted generally speaking, but subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter as to the specific dispositive material issues presented. Accepted. 24-29 Accepted. 30-34 Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected for the same reason as number 35. 37-38 Accepted. 39-43 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. 44-48 Rejected (same reason). Accepted only to the extent that it demonstrates the Department's position in this proceeding and not accepted for the truth of the reason for the initial award decision. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 52-54 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 54 is rejected addi- tionally as being not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 55-57 Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 12-13 Accepted, except as to paragraph (b) which is rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 14-15 Accepted, but not necessarily dispositive of material issues presented. COPIES FURNISHED: Drew Koblar 2009 Northwest 67th Place Gainesville, Florida 32606 Deanna Eftoda, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 B. Thomas Whitefield, Esquire Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Taylor 1600 First Union Building Post Office Box 479 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
