The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Background The procurement of private legal services by the Department for child support enforcement is exempt from the competitive bidding requirements set forth in Chapter 287, Florida Statutes. In July 1992, the Department published notice that it was soliciting proposals from interested attorneys to provide intrastate and interstate child support legal services in HRS District VI, including Hillsborough, Hardee, Highlands, and Polk Counties. These services were to be provided from October 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993. Separate proposals were solicited for each of the following: the Hillsborough County Interstate Contract, the Hillsborough Intrastate Contract, the Polk County Contract, and the contract for Hardee and Highland Counties. The solicitation package does not incorporate any of the Florida Statutes or the agency's own rules regarding solicitation and award procedures in competitive bidding situations. Instead, the solicitation purports to be a self contained package of reasonably definite specifications with its own evaluation criteria and award procedures. The Petitioners in all four of the consolidated cases timely filed written protests which challenge the contents and requirements of the package. Evaluation Criteria In addition to the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation package, the Department adopted and distributed to its employees additional criteria to be used in evaluating the proposals submitted. The additional criteria are set forth in the following documents which were entered into evidence as Belveal Exhibit No. 7: Work Sheet for Evaluating Criteria and Determining Relative Value to be Applied to Technical Information, Evaluation Criteria, Scoring Matrix for Structured Interview of Offerers, Work sheet for Scoring Oral Interview, and Questions for Use at Interview. The additional criteria set forth in these documents were intended for use to award points in the evaluation of offers, and to make the award of the contracts. They were not revealed to potential offerers. Such a procedure affords opportunities for favoritism, whether or not any favoritism is actually practiced by the Department. Once the representation is made in a solicitation package that it contains the evaluation criteria, the offerers should not be subjected to an additional evaluation process. Anne Donovan, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, admitted during hearing that the additional criteria which was not included in the solicitation package are intentionally biased to give existing legal services contractors an advantage in obtaining renewal of their contracts. This is contrary to the representation made in the solicitation package which states, "Through this solicitation for offers to provide legal services, the department seeks to obtain the highest possible standard of legal representation... while ensuring free and open competition among prospective offerers." Specifications The proposed contract to be executed at the conclusion of the bid solicitation and contract award process was to provide for compensation to the contractor based on (a) the number of cases referred to the contractor during the contract term, and (b) the number of final orders obtained by the contractor in these cases referred for action. The solicitation package contains a document identified as Attachment VI, which sets fort numbers purporting to be the Department's estimates of the number and type of cases which would be referred to the successful bidder during the course of each of the contracts, the number of payable orders to be expected, and the maximum fees which would be paid for each type of order obtained pursuant to the contract. Separate estimates have been given for the following contracts: Hillsborough County Intrastate, Hillsborough County Interstate, Polk County, and Hardee and Highlands Counties. The actual numbers set forth in each of the four separate contract proposals were estimates made by the field office staff of the Department and compiled by the headquarters office. Rosemary O'Neil, the contract manager in District VI, estimated the number of functions for each of the four contracts in District VI. In identifying the direct cost amount for each individual contract, she used automated and manual statistics or the tracking of functional activities for the past year. During the preparation of her projections, Ms. O'Neil tracked only nine activities, as originally required by the Department. Later, she was required to break these down into twenty-two functions, which may have adversely affected the estimates. Ms. O'Neil and other Department personnel testified that the estimates for District VI might be too low based upon past estimates and current needs. Ms. O'Neil completed the estimates in good faith and in accordance with the Department's stated requirements. Attachment VI also contains a fee schedule based upon a functional cost survey devised and carried out by the Department between April 15, 1991 and March 31, 1992. The survey randomly selected 3,800 cases throughout the state for tracking to determine the average cost the Department paid over the stated time period for each legal activity represented in the survey. During the survey, only 2,100 of these cases were actually tracked. In October 1992, the functional cost survey was changed to include 22 instead of 10 categories of legal service activity. The implementation of the survey was faulty in that different districts tracked attorney time and paralegal time in different ways. In addition, the administrative procedures utilized by judges and hearing officers in different districts directly affected statistics in ways which were not contemplated in the survey. Without uniform procedures, the legal services performed and attorney fees charged in different counties cannot be effectively reviewed on a comparable basis to create a true average cost per function. Many of the fees allocated to different functions in the specifications were illogical. For example: Fees paid for stipulated matters were, in many cases, higher than the fees paid for contested matters of the same type. Fees paid for simple matters, such as contempt hearings, were substantially the same as fees paid for more complex litigation involving the establishment of paternity and support. Certain orders obtained by the attorney, such as bankruptcy matters, required the expenditure of time by the contractor, but did not pay any fee. The functional cost survey used to establish the terms in the solicitations for estimated number of cases, types of cases and the maximum fees to be paid is defective as it relates to District VI. Proposals cannot be comparatively reviewed because the data upon which the proposals are created is inaccurate. After the contract award, it is reasonably anticipated that the Department would be required to make modifications to the contract which would afford opportunities for favoritism.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: The previously undisclosed evaluation criteria should be included in the solicitation package if the Department intends to use them in the evaluation process. The current specifications on the projected number of cases to be referred in each contract in District VI should be revised to more reasonably and accurately reflect potential referrals within the District. The designated attorney fee for each function should be revised so that the charges are reasonably related to the work expected by the specifications in the proposal. The contents of the functional cost survey should be reevaluated based upon the evidence presented during the protest proceedings. The current specifications should be rejected as they are so flawed as to be arbitrary, in violation of state standards regarding the competitive bidding process. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1992. VERONICAL E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner Carlton's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 5 Accepted. See HO No. 7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. See HO No. 19. Accepted. See HO No. 17. Accepted. See HO No. 18. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 - No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. See HO No. 15. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 22. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. - 81. Rejected. Without jurisdiction to determine. 82. - 87. Rejected. Beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer under the Grove-Watkins review standards. 88. - 100. Rejected. Beyond the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer. Petitioner Redman's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 3. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 7. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 8 - No. 9. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 and No. 22. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 17. Accepted. See HO No. 18. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 19. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20. The word "misleading" should be replaced by the "faulty". Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20 and No. 22. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 22. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Rejected, except for the determination that the specifications are arbitrary. All other allegations were not proved at hearing. Accepted. See HO No. 11. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO No. 13. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. See HO No. 13. Accepted. Accepted. - 105. Rejected. Beyond the hearing officer's jurisdiction. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to findings, except the determination that the specifications were arbitrary and unreliable. Rejected. Beyond subject matter jurisdiction. Rejected. Competency not determined. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 20. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. - 128. Rejected. Beyond subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner Belveal's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 1. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 2. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement & HO No. 4. Accepted. See HO No. 11. Accepted. See HO No. 3. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 5. Accepted. See HO No. 5 - No. 6. Accepted. See HO No. 7. Accepted. See HO No. 10. Accepted. See HO No. 12. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 16. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO No. 21. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. COPIES FURNISHED: CHARLES L CARLTON ESQ 2120 LAKELAND HILLS BLVD LAKELAND FL 33805 CECELIA M REDMAN ESQ 2124 W KENNEDY BLVD - STE B TAMPA FL 33606 DONALD W BELVEAL ESQ 100 W KENNEDY BLVD - STE 600 TAMPA FL 33602 JACK EMORY FARLEY ESQ HRS DISTRICT VI LEGAL OFFICE 4000 W DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD TAMPA FL 33614 JOHN DAVIS ESQ 1170 NE CAPITAL CIRCLE TALLAHASSEE FL 32308 JOHN SLYE ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent invited bid proposals for a "collocated service center" in Manatee County, providing approximately 25,500 square feet of office space. The invitation sought a "turnkey lease" for an initial period of 15 years and permitted the bidder a choice of providing "full services" (option 1) or "full services without electrical" (option 2). Petitioner submitted his bid under option 2, while the successful bidder, Dr. Kenneth R. McGurn, selected option 1. Their bid proposals, along with others not relevant here, were forwarded to a bid review committee. Committee members were generally knowledgeable as to Respondent's operations and bid evaluation procedures, but were given no specific instructions on how to conduct their evaluations. Each of the four committee members evaluated the bids and assigned points in 12 separate categories. The evaluation criteria to be utilized were set forth in the bid proposal (page 12, Joint Exhibits 3 and 4). The greatest weight was to be given in category number 1, "Rental rate including projected operating expenses to be paid by lessee." The testimony of the bid evaluation committee members established that McGurn, rather than Petitioner, was the successful bidder primarily because his proposal included electrical service. The committee members did not individually or collectively seek assistance in projecting future electrical costs when making their determination as to the award of points in bid category number 1. Rather, they used their own judgment and experience to estimate possible costs and award rental and service expense points accordingly. Three of the four evaluators generally felt that known electrical costs were preferable to unknown costs for budget purposes even though Petitioners's proposal may ultimately have been less expensive. Site characteristics were factors in several of the categories for which points were to be assigned. Committee members visited the proposed sites and rated Petitioner's site somewhat higher than McGurn's. Proper zoning of the site was not included in the bid criteria. 1/ Petitioner's site is properly zoned while McGurn's is not. McGurn's potential difficulties in obtaining a zoning change and with utility service to his site led him to inquire of Respondent whether he would be permitted to change sites if he received the contract award. Respondent advised him that he could do so if there was a persuasive reason for the change. Petitioner obtained an option on the site he proposed to utilize and renewed it for 30 days when Respondent did not act on its bid within the announced period. 2/ This extension cost Petitioner the forfeiture of his $2,000 deposit but did not carry him through to the actual bid award date, November 4, 1982. Respondent's memorandum (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) dated September 14, 1982, indicates that Respondent had already decided to award the contract to McGurn by that date. Had Petitioner been advised of this decision, he could have saved the $2,000 expended to extend his option. During the period prior to the official announcement of bid award, McGurn became aware that he was the probable successful bidder and acquired Petitioner's site after the latter's renewal option expired. McGurn obtained this property for the purpose of substituting it for his proposed site after he received the contract. He has not yet requested site substitution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a Final Order setting aside the award of the subject contract and reissuing its bid proposal. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1983.
The Issue Whether the bids of Unisys and NCR were responsive to the Invitation to
Findings Of Fact Overview Invitation to Bid VH-2 (ITB) sought bids for full service hardware maintenance for approximately 3,500 computer terminals, printers, microcomputers and associated components and peripheral devices, located throughout the state. Upon acceptance of the lowest responsive bid, the State would enter into a six- month contract, renewable for two twelve-month periods. HRS officials considered whether to acquire the services through a Request for Proposal process or through an Invitation to Bid. The decision was made to pursue an ITB. The ITB was prepared by Harriet Parker, who, at the time, was the administrator of the HRS Data Center in Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Parker's employment with HRS ended after the bidder's conference and after she had answered bidder's questions which came in after the bidder's conference. Ms. Parker was not employed by HRS when the bids received in response to the ITB were received. HRS issued the ITB on January 22, 1988. After a bidder's conference was held, HRS, on March 1 and 9, 1988, issued addenda to the ITB, which contained changes to the ITB. Additionally, the addendum issued on March 1, 1988 contained written responses to questions submitted by potential bidders. The ITB and addenda were reviewed by the Information Technology Resource Procurement Advisory Council. Five companies submitted bids: RAM Systems, Inc., Data Access Systems, Inc., Instrument Control Services, Inc., NCR, and Unisys. The bid of RAM Systems, Inc. was rejected as untimely. The remaining four bids were timely filed. Ms. Parker appointed three HRS employees to serve on the bid evaluation committee which reviewed the bids received in response to the ITB. The three employees were: Vincent C. Messina, a Data Communications Specialist III, James R. Hall, a Data Processing Manager II, and Hilda Fowler Moore, an administrative assistant. All three committee members were employees at the HRS Data Center in Jacksonville, Florida. At its first meeting, the committee reviewed the four bids to determine if they were in the format requested in the ITB. This review was solely as to form, instead of content. After the meeting, each committee member prepared cost extension sheets for each bid, in accordance with the method set forth in the ITB, to determine which bidder was the lowest. At the next meeting, the committee members compared the cost extension sheets each had prepared. While there were differences between them, each member had the bids ranked in the same order. The committee determined that Data Access Systems, Inc. was the lowest bidder, NCR the next lowest, then Unisys and, finally, Instrument Control Services, Inc. After further review, the bid of Data Access Systems, Inc. was rejected as nonresponsive. The committee then decided to concentrate their review on the bids of NCR, now the lowest bidder, and Unisys, now the second lowest bidder. The bid of Instrument Control Services, Inc. was laid aside, since it was the high bidder. After reviewing the content of the NCR and Unisys bids, the committee determined that both bids were responsive. Since NCR was the lowest bidder, the committee decided NCR should be awarded the bid. The Notice of Intent to award the bid was posted on April 5, 1988. Unisys timely filed its notice of intent to protest, and its formal written protest and request for a hearing. Review Standards Used by Committee The committee was not given any direction on how to evaluate the bids, and no instructions on how to determine a bid was responsive. The committee members never discussed the meaning of the terms "minor irregularity or "material deviation" and were never told the meaning of these terms. Finally, the committee members neither sought nor received legal advice on how to evaluate certain provisions contained in the bids. Mr. Messina interpreted his role on the committee to be to compare the items in each bid with the ITB. Reviewed his role as determining whether the wording of the bid would be sufficient to supply the State with a viable service agreement. His determination of whether a bid was responsive was not based on a word for word comparison of the bid with the ITB, but on an overall impression of what each bid contained. Mr. Hall reviewed the bids to make sure that each bidder was meeting what the ITB required. His main focus in reviewing each bid was whether the wording of the bid gave that bidder an advantage over another bidder. At the time of reviewing the bids, Ms. Fowler Moore's understanding of what constituted a "material deviation" was that it would be a major change which would affect an issue or an item in some way. She understood a "minor irregularity" to be a lesser difference. The committee as a group believed that there would be further review of their decision and that some differences between the bids and the ITB would be worked out later by others. The committee members did not think that their decision would be the final decision. The ITB, General Provisions The ITB, including attachments and the two addenda consisted of over 150 pages. The ITB contained a number of mandatory requirements. The ITB explained these as follows: MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Introduction 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 indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State. A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this (sic) Invitation To Bid requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potential significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the State. Material deviations cannot be waived. The words "should" or "may" in this Invitation To Bid 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 in original) On page 5, the ITB provided that "any Bid which fails to meet the mandatory requirements stated in this Invitation to Bid shall be rejected." On page 1, the ITB provided that "Bids containing terms and conditions conflicting with those contained in the invitation to bid shall be rejected. On page 6, the ITB, in describing the format to be used, provided that "there is no intent to limit the content of the Bid. Additional information deemed appropriate by the bidder should be included." The addendum issued on March 1, 1988, contained the following: Q. Can a bid contain options that HRS will consider, providing all mandatories are met? If all mandatories are met, bidder may submit options for HRS consideration. These need to be clearly identified in a separate section of the bid. The bid price should not be based on HRS acceptance of options. The ITB contained the standard language that "Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing . . . for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening," and gave bidders the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness, necessity and competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the ITB. On page 3, the ITB provided: Contractual Mandatories A bidder's response to this Invitation To Bid shall be considered as the bidder's formal offer. The signing of the contract by the Department shall constitute the Department's written acceptance of the successful Bid and a copy of the signed contract shall be forwarded to the successful bidder. The contract for services required by this Invitation To Bid is contained herein. The contract included in the -ITB incorporated and made part of the contract both the ITB and the successful bidder's bid. Comparison of the NCR Bid with the ITB The NCR bid contained numerous changes to the provisions of the ITB. These changes are set forth below. Supplemental Bid Sheets Pages 146 and 147 of the ITB consisted of a form which each bidder was to complete and return as part of its bid. The form stated that "each designated paragraph in this Invitation to Bid must be addressed. The bidder must initial the designated item indicating concurrence." The form set forth 47 items. The layout of the form, showing the first two items for illustration purposes, was as follows: TITLE RESPONSE INITIALS Introduction Understood and Agreed Mandatory Requirements Understood and Agreed The NCR bid contained initials in the appropriate place for all items. On thirteen of the items, NCR's bid contained the words "as per Bidder's Proposal" typed under the words "Understood and Agreed" as shown in the following example: TITLE RESPONSE INITIALS Introduction Understood and Agreed as per Bidder's Proposal Mandatory Requirements Understood and Agreed as per Bidder's Proposal The words inserted by NCR related to the items in the line directly above the inserted words. The committee members interpreted the insertion of the words "as per Bidder's Proposal" in different ways. Mr. Messina interpreted it to mean that NCR was agreeing to the terms of the ITB and was offering the State something better and different which the State could accept or reject. He thought the differences would be worked out later; that the differences were more a "legal matter" than something the committee could solve. Mr. Hall interpreted it to mean that NCR agreed to the provisions of the ITB as some of the provisions had been changed by NCR. Ms. Fowler Moore interpreted it to mean that the items for which "as per Bidder's Proposal" was added were qualified and the ones where nothing was added were not qualified. Limitation of Remedies The addendum issued on March 1, 1988 contained two new pages which became part of the contract section of the ITB. These new pages were numbered 23A and 23B. In its bid, NCR changed the wording of page 23A. The relevant portions of page 23A of the NCR response are set forth below: Limitation of Remedies Contractor's entire liability and the State's exclusive remedy shall be as follows: In all situations involving performance or non-performance of machines or programming maintained or serviced [furnished] under this Agreement, the State's remedy is (1) the adjustment or repair of the machine or replacement of its parts by Contractor, or, at Contractor's option, replacement of the machine [or correction of programming] errors, or (b) if, after repeated efforts, Contractor is unable to install the machine or a replacement machine, model upgrade or feature in good working order, or to restore it to good working order, or to make programming operate, [all as warranted,] the State shall be entitled to recover actual damages to the limits set forth in this Section. * * * Contractor's liability for damages to the State for any cause whatsoever, and regardless of the form of action, whether in contractor or in tort including negligence, shall be limited to the greater of $100,000 or the actual amount laid by the State to the Contractor for the services provided under this Agreement [appropriate price stated herein for the specific machines that caused the damages or] that are the subject matter of or are directly related to the cause of action.... Contractor shall hold and save the State harmless for any and all suits and judgements against the State for personal injury or damage to real or personal property up to the value of the Agreement at the time this Agreement is terminated caused by Contractor's tortious conduct in the performance of this Agreement.... (Underlined words were added by NCR, brackets indicate words NCR struck through). The committee members felt that these changes either were necessary, enhanced the language in the ITB, or would not have much of an effect on the contract. From a legal standpoint, however, the committee was not sure what the changes meant. The committee members felt that they were not qualified to determine whether the changes constituted a material deviation and believed that decision would be made by someone else after the committee was finished. The changes made by NCR to the first paragraph help to clarify the document to meet the provisions of the ITB. The ITB was not for the purchase of machines or programming, but for the servicing of hardware. The changes made to the second paragraph enhance HRS's position and help to clarify the language. HRS's position is enhanced because under the ITB language the limitation would have been the greater of $100,000 or $0 since the ITB did not contain prices for specific machines. Again, the stricken language would apply to a purchase agreement and not to a service contract. The change to the third paragraph has the effect of nullifying the hold harmless clause, since "the value of the Agreement at the time this Agreement is terminated" is zero. Bid Bond On page 3, the ITB required bidders to submit a bid bond or bid guarantee in the amount of $10,000. If the successful bidder failed to execute a contract within ten days after notification of award, the bid guarantee was to be forfeited to the State. The bid bond submitted by NCR contained the following language: NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of the obligation is such that, if the said principal shall be awarded the said contracts and shall within (*) days after receiving notice of the award enter into a contract. . . *to be negotiated between said principal and said obligee. Since NCR's bid bond left the period of time within which to enter into a contract to be negotiated, the bid bond was not in compliance with the ITB's requirements. Invoicing On page 21, the ITB set forth certain requirements for invoices. One of the requirements was that "the invoice will include a detail list of costs for parts replaced listed on each malfunction incident report." This information was important to Ms. Parker in order for HRS to know what it was paying for, even though the contract price included both parts and labor. NCR's bid had the quoted language stricken through. On page 12, the ITB required that "Invoices for payment must be submitted to the State monthly, with at least the same level of detail found in Attachment A." Page 13 of NCR's bid, under the caption "Invoices," stated that "NCR agrees to conform with the existing payment plans as established in previous agreements between NCR and the State of Florida Comptroller's Office." The committee members did not think that the requirement that the invoice contain the cost of replacement parts was important. They assumed that they would not receive this information from the winning bidder, since they were not receiving it from the existing contractor. The committee members did not know what the previous agreements were between NCR and the Comptroller's Office. The committee assumed that NCR's response would be sufficient to meet HRS's needs. Configurations The addendum issued on March 1, 1988, contained a new page 26 for the ITB, which contained the following language: Full service maintenance for microcomputers will include the following configuration: Up to 768KB RAM plus up to one memory expansion card, up to two 5 1/4 inch 360KB or up to two 1.2MB floppy disk drives, up to 20MB hard disk, enhanced graphics capability, monochrome or color monitor, and an ICC card if required for network communications. This full service maintenance configuration was developed to include features that are basic to microcomputers connected to the HRS Data Communications Network and are, therefore, the maintenance responsibility of the Data Center. Machine features that are not included in this configuration are not covered by the maintenance contract resulting from this ITB. Enhancements that may be on a microcomputer covered by the maintenance contract but would not themselves be covered include, but are not limited to: local area network (LAN) cards, 40MB hard disk, 3 1/2 inch floppy disk drive and Bernoulli Boxes. Maintenance of these enhanced features are the responsibility of the user. (emphasis added) NCR, in listing its price for servicing certain equipment, assumed configurations that are less than those stated in the ITB. For example, NCR did not include hard disks in its configuration for some equipment. Hard disk drives are some of the more expensive items to repair and replace in computers. The committee members did not compare the configurations in the NCR bid with those in the ITB. Therefore, they did not take into account the differences between the two in determining that the NCR bid was responsive. Termination of the Contract Page 11 of the ITB provided that: The State reserves the right to cancel maintenance coverage for any single piece of equipment or any number of pieces of equipment or the entire contract upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Contractor. NCR in its bid provided that: Withdraw/Termination Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of this agreement, or of any contract entered into pursuant to it unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the other party shall have first given written notice describing with reasonable detail the condition which it perceives to be a default as outlined in Attachment D and the Bidder's Proposal, and within sixty (60) days following receipt thereof, the party receiving such notice shall have failed or refused to correct such condition. Both parties shall make all reasonable efforts to correct any problems which may lead to termination of the agreement. The evaluation committee noticed this difference, and felt that this was an area to be looked at by other persons who would do a final review. Engineering Changes The ITB, on pages 12 and 13 stated that: Cost of maintenance shall include installation of all announced engineering changes applicable to any piece of equipment covered by this contract. All engineering changes which the manufacturer considers mandatory or engineering changes which the manufacturer or the Contractor considers necessary for safety reasons must be installed as soon as possible. Contractor shall notify the State in writing of all mandatory and safety related engineering changes. Engineering changes which the manufacturer recommends but which are neither mandatory nor for safety reasons must be installed within a reasonable period of time after the Contractor has notified the State of such changes and the State has authorized the installation of such changes . . . It is the Contractor's responsibility to determine what engineering changes are available, whether they are mandatory changes, safety changes, or other changes. Furthermore, it is the Contractor's responsibility to initiate the installation of all such changes. (emphasis added) Page 9 of NCR's bid provided that: Engineering Changes should a reliability modification released from an OEM be deemed necessary by NCR, the modification will be performed during the prime shift of maintenance at no additional charge to the State of Florida. The original equipment manufacturers with whom NCR has agreements are responsible for providing notification to NCR on any engineering changes. NCR will make HRS aware of engineering changes when the necessary. information becomes available to NCR. (emphasis added) The committee assumed that if a manufacturer considered an engineering change to be mandatory, NCR would deem it to be necessary and would make this change. Therefore, the committee determined that the NCR language was responsive and would result in the State receiving the service it expected. Malfunction Incident Reports Page 10 of the ITB required that the winning bidder furnish HRS with a written--malfunction incident report upon completion of each maintenance call. The ITB went on to describe ten items which had to be included in the reports. Page 12 of the NCR bid provided the following: Reports NCR has the ability to provide monthly service reports to HRS which summarize the maintenance activity of the account. Such records may include a listing of all equipment covered in the maintenance agreement accompanied by the dates of service calls, number of service calls received per equipment type, description of problem and solution, and the time spent for repair. NCR maintains a comprehensive equipment history file to meet your reporting needs. Reporting procedures will be jointly defined by NCR and HRS. (emphasis added) One member of the evaluation committee did not consider the reports to be an important item. Another member of the committee assumed that HRS would get the information it needed from the reporting procedures to be jointly defined by NCR and HRS once the contract was awarded. Additional Equipment Page 11 of the ITB required that the contractor would be responsible for maintaining all the equipment owned by the State which is of the type set forth in the ITB, regardless of whether the specific piece of equipment is listed in the ITB or subsequently purchased. Equipment of a type not described in the ITB is not part of the agreement. NCR's bid is consistent with this requirement. Also, NCR's bid gives HRS the option of adding equipment of a type not described in the ITB, after NCR evaluates the equipment and agrees to accept it. Principal Period of Maintenance Page 9 of the ITB provided that the "Principal period of maintenance shall be at least from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., local time at each site, Monday to Friday, exclusive of holidays observed by the Department." Also, page 17 of the ITB provided that, "Principal Period of Maintenance (PPM)" shall be defined as at least nine consecutive hours per day (usually between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; local time at the site) as selected by the State, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays observed at the site." Finally, page 19 of the ITB contained language similar to the language in page 9 of the ITB. In the industry, "principal period of maintenance is that period of time during which a customer is buying services, including parts and labor, at a flat rate under a contract with the service provider. Page 8 of NCR's bid provided that "NCR's Principal Period of Maintenance (PPM) is Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., including a one hour meal period." NCR's bid did not change the language contained in page 19 of the ITB, noted above, which became part of its bid. Finally, in its Attachment to the contract provided in the ITB, NCR's bid stated that "the 'Principal Period of Maintenance' shall be defined as Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., exclusive of a one hour meal period, excluding holidays." The evaluation committee discussed the differences in the language between the NCR bid and the ITB dealing with principal period of maintenance and decided that the NCR bid was responsive. Response Time, Loaner Equipment and Penalties Page 9 of the ITB required the following: 5. Contractor must provide on site response within four (4) hours in metro areas and six (6) hours in all other areas at a 95 percent response level. Metro and non-metro locations are listed in Attachment B. If the response level falls below ninety-five percent (95 percent) overall for the State on a monthly basis, the Contractor will forfeit ten percent (10 percent) of the monthly maintenance cost per unit for each incident in the month of the occurrence. 7. The Contractor will have the equipment repaired and accepted by HRS Data Center staff or the Contractor will install an equivalent substitute device within six (6) hours after the maintenance begins. Maintenance begins when the Contractor arrives at the site and takes control of the equipment. If the equipment is not repaired or the Contractor does not install equivalent working equipment, the Contractor shall forfeit ten percent (10 percent) of the monthly maintenance cost per unit for each incident in the month of the occurrence. The NCR bid, on pages 8-9, provided the following: Response Time A firm commitment to response time and a stringent set of escalation procedures will be an integral part of NCR's service program for HRS. NCR has a commitment to arriving on-site within four (4) business hours of receipt of call during NCR's Principal Period of Maintenance, for equipment located within metropolitan areas. For non- metropolitan equipment sites, the average response commitment is six (6) hours. NCR understands the State of Florida's objectives to make system availability as high as possible, and we have an internal commitment to help the State meet the goal. Should NCR fail to meet its response and escalation standards as outlined herein, NCR will entertain future negotiations relative to credits and penalties. Because of NCR's response time, repair and escalation procedures, NCR generally does not provide loaner equipment. (emphasis added) The NCR bid then continues, on pages 10-12, under the heading "Escalation/Problem Resolution," to explain the procedures NCR personnel will follow when a machine cannot be restored to good operating condition within set periods of time. The evaluation committee interpreted NCR's bid to mean that NCR would respond within six (6) hours in the non-metro areas, even though the NCR bid stated that "the average response commitment is six (6) hours." The evaluation committee believed that the ten percent (10 percent) penalties set forth in the ITB were irrelevant and not necessary, since the penalties were too low. Therefore, the committee felt that NCR's proposal to negotiate a system of penalties and credits made sense. The committee also believed that, under NCR's escalation procedures, coupled with the statement on page 8 of the NCR bid that "Periodically, a whole unit swap philosophy may be utilized to maximize system uptime," the machines would be fixed within six (6) hours or an equivalent working device (loaner) would be installed. Probationary Period Evaluation Page 145 of the ITB set forth the evaluation criteria which HRS would use to evaluate the contractor's performance during the initial 6-month term of the contract. NCR's bid added language to five of the criteria, as follows: Is the response level of ninety-five (95 percent) maintained consistently each month in all major areas of the State? On the average. Are adequate spare parts available for equipment repair within six (6) hours? Spare carts are generally available within six (6) hours; maximum of twenty- four (24) hours. Is an equivalent substitute device installed if parts are not available or if repair is expected to require more than six (6) hours? Compliance in the following manner: NCR's repair and escalation procedures may result in utilizing a substitute device to maximize system uptime. Are the changes in priorities easily accomplished? As stated, not a quantifiable standard; would prefer substitute language. Are malfunction incident reports received on a timely basis? Compliance defined in Reporting section of Bidder's Proposal. (Underlined words were added by NCR) The committee noted that the NCR bid contained changes to the evaluation language. Implementation of Contract The NCR bid, in Appendix C, contained an implementation schedule calling for service to certain equipment to begin five weeks after the contract was awarded and to the remainder of the equipment nine weeks after the contract was awarded. The ITB, while not explicitly stating when the new contractor was to begin services, appears to contemplate that full service would begin immediately, since it provides for HRS to begin paying maintenance charges on the effective date of the contract. Under the terms of the ITB, the effective date of the contract would be no later than ten days after the award was posted. One member of the evaluation committee, Mr. Hall, believed the new contractor would begin service immediately, which to him meant within a month after the award was made. Execution of Contract The ITB contemplated that the successful bidder execute the contract provided in the ITB within ten days of notification of the award. The NCR bid provided that "Upon mutual agreement of the terms and conditions between our organizations, NCR agrees to execute a contract within ten (10) days." Also, the implementation schedule set forth in Appendix C of the NCR bid provided for the contract to be negotiated and executed between the second and fifth week after notification of the award. Assignment of Contract Page 22 of the ITB provided that "This Agreement is not assignable without the prior written consent of the Customer. Any attempt to assign any of the rights, duties or obligation of this Agreement without such consent is void. In its bid, NCR struck through the word "Customer" and inserted the word "parties." Site Rules and Regulations Page 23 of the ITB stated that: The Contractor shall use its best efforts to assure that its employees and agents, while on the State's premises, shall comply with the State's site rules and regulations. The NCR bid in its attachment to the contract, under the heading "The Rules and Regulations," provided that "Execution of a contract by NCR is contingent upon NCR's review of the State's site rule and regulations." REVIEW OF THE UNISYS BID As stated earlier, the Unisys bid was found to be responsive by the evaluation committee. Unisys agreed to all the performance mandatories of the ITB. The Unisys bid did not contain any deviations from the ITB and was consistent with all the terms and conditions of the ITB. Bid?
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS issue a final order finding NCR's bid to be nonresponsive and awarding the contract under the Bid No. VH-2 to Unisys. DONE and ENTERED 26th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 26th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-22525Bid The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO " UNISYS' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1.-14. Accepted. 15.-18. Accepted as set forth in RO34. Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion. But see Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 21.-45. Accepted. 46. Rejected as irrelevant. 47.-52. Accepted. 53. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 54.-58. Accepted. 59. Accepted except for last two phrases which are rejected. The evidence is inconclusive on whether NCR would have an advantage over other bidders and whether the price of the contract was affected by this provision. 60.-63. Accepted. 64.-65. Rejected. The evidence is inconclusive as to the effect the NOR bid's language would have. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 66.-69. Accepted. Rejected. Since, there is no way of knowing the result of the negotiations, one cannot determine if this would result in an unfair advantage or would have an economic impact. Rejected. Delay can occur in any contract. Under the ITB, undue delay would be penalized. 72.-75. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. The statement may be true, but that is not the situation here. 78.-79. Accepted. 80. First phrase, rejected. NCR did not agree to anything. Second phrase, accepted. 81.-83. Accepted. 84. Rejected as a conclusion and an assumption, since no one knows what the jointly defined procedures would be. 85.-86. Accepted. Accepted as what the committee felt. However, the provisions of the NCR bid dealing with additional equipment are consistent with the ITB. Rejected as contrary to facts found. 89.-90. Accepted. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. Accepted. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law section of this Order. 94.-97. Accepted. 98. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected; the evidence does not show what is included in the payment plans with the Comptroller. 99-102. Accepted. Rejected. The evidence is inconclusive on whether this item affected the price of the bid. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. The NCR bid states that NCR would prefer substitute language. 108.-112. Accepted to the extent they restate the ITB and the NCR bid. However, the implicit conclusion that this is at variance with the ITB is rejected as not supported by competent evidence. 113.-119. Accepted. 120. The introductory paragraph is rejected as a conclusion of law. Subparagraphs A. through are accepted. HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1.-7 Accepted Accepted. Accepted. True but unnecessary. Accepted generally. Accepted. Accepted generally. Accepted generally. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. First sentence accepted. Second sentence is true as to what the evaluation committee believed. However, the overall service to the State is affected by the NCR bid. True that this is what the evaluation committee determined, believed and concluded. However, the findings of fact made in this RO differ from what the evaluation committee believed. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. While the cost of the services may be the same, less services are provided for in the NCR bid than are called for in the ITB. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. HRS may wish to accept the NCR bid; if it does so, however, it will agree to a different agreement than called for in the ITB. There can be no meeting of the minds when items are left to be negotiated and where the evaluation committee members did cot understand all the provisions of the NCR bid. Rejected. See RO41. Rejected as irrelevant. See also Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Supported by competent evidence, but unnecessary to the decision reached. Also, the fact that this was the first ITB that Ms. Parker ever prepared does not mean that HRS can now disregard its mandatory provisions. Rejected as irrelevant. NCR's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1-6. Accepted Subparagraphs a) through s) are accurate representations of what the ITB contained. However, the first phrase to the effect that the ITB recognized and incorporated concepts of variability is rejected. The ITB was rigid and precise. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence, true but irrelevant. Second sentence accepted. RO2. Third sentence, true but irrelevant. Fourth sentence rejected; the ITB is neither ambivalent nor flexible. Fifth sentence rejected as irrelevant and not supported by competent evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Third and fourth sentences rejected as argument and conclusions. First three sentences are accepted as what they are: the evaluation committee's views, beliefs and understandings. Fourth sentence is rejected. The ITB reserved the right "to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." It did not reserve the right to waive any proposed additions or changes which are unacceptable, regardless of how material they may be. Also, the ITB did not provide for further negotiations prior to contract finalization. Fourth sentence rejected; the evidence is inconclusive on what the NCR language means. Rest of paragraph accepted. First, second and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and the words of the ITB. Fifth sentence rejected as irrelevant; while the NCR proposal may be more beneficial to the State it is inconsistent with the ITB. First, second, fourth and seventh sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant. Fourth sentence accepted. Fifth sentence rejected as irrelevant; while NCR's view may be useful, the ITB did not contemplate it. Sixth sentence accepted, but this only refers to controlling and installing the engineering change and not to deciding whether the change should be made. First, and seventh sentences accepted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Third through sixth sentences reflect what NCR proposed, but this is contrary to the requirements of the ITB. Seventh sentence rejected as argument. First three sentences accepted. Fourth sentence rejected as argument. First and second sentences accepted, noting that the four week training period ended eight weeks after the notice of award. Third sentence accepted, but ITB appeared to contemplate immediate service under the contract since it provided for payments to begin upon execution of the contract. Fourth sentence accepted, but the ITB language speaks to ongoing training of the contract and not training specific to this contract. Fifth sentence accepted. Sixth sentence accepted; however, it is unclear whether the ITB contemplated a nine week delay for full implementation of the contract. First, third and sixth sentences accepted. Second, fourth and fifth sentences rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Last sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. The evaluation team considered the malfunction incident reports unimportant and did not know what the existing payment plans with the Comptroller's office were; therefore, the committee could not know if these plans met HRS's needs. Rest of paragraph accepted, except to note that there is no evidence to show that the payment plans with the Comptroller's office would meet HRS needs, and that, while HRS may now decide that parts costs are not needed, this was a mandatory requirement of the ITB. Rejected as irrelevant. If NCR or any other bidder had a problem with the ITB they could have asked for clarification or could have challenged the ITB for restricting competition. Rejected as irrelevant. 21.c. First and second sentences accepted. Third, fourth and fifth sentences irrelevant; NCR could have asked for clarification or challenged the ITB. Fourth sentence irrelevant. Sixth sentence rejected as irrelevant. Seventh sentence irrelevant and not supported by competent evidence; it is impossible to now determine what NCR would have bid. Accepted. Accepted. The first sentence being the one following the quoted material, which is accepted. First sentence rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. Second sentence accepted. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant; this is the number of calls made in the past. Fourth and fifth sentences rejected as assumptions. Fifth sentence accepted. First, second and third sentences accepted. Fourth and fifth sentences rejected as irrelevant; while these statements may be true, the NCR bid's provisions conflict with the ITB. First sentence accepted. Rest of paragraph rejected as argument and conclusion. First and second sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant. Fourth sentence rejected; while the addendums issued to the ITB maintained February 8th as the last day for submissions and inquiries, the ITB's general conditions stated that inquiries could be sent in 10 days prior to bid opening. The limitation of remedies form was sent to bidders on March 1, 1988; bids were not due until March 29, 1988. Fifth through ninth sentences accepted. Tenth sentence rejected; the language in the NCR bid is clear and does limit NCR's liability. Eleventh and twelfth sentences rejected as irrelevant. Thirteenth sentence rejected; the NCR language does not refer to the value of the remaining contract but to the value at the time of termination, which is zero at all times. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the person was licensed at the time the bid bond was countersigned. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The evidence shows that Unisys agreed to the ITB provisions requiring a Jacksonville office. Rejected as irrelevant. Unisys agreed to the provisions of the ITB and will be penalized for failure to comply with them. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; this is clearly a proper option under the terms of the ITB. Rejected. See ruling on proposed finding of fact 21e. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles R. Holman, Jr., Esquire Unisys Corporation 4151 Ashford, Dunwoody Road, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30319 Elaine New, Esquire Assistant General Counsel, HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building I, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gary P. Sams, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Robert J. Beggs, Esquire NCR Corporation 1700 South Patterson Blvd. Dayton, Ohio 45479 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides services to the residents of Immokalee from office space which it is currently leasing from Sunburst. The lease of the present facilities expires on August 31, 1985. DHRS is in need of more office space than it currently fills in order to meet the growing demand for its services in the Immokalee area. Therefore, DHRS issued an invitation to bid, inviting interested persons to submit bids for its required office space. Three bidders responded: Badcock Furniture Corporation, Sunburst Urethane Systems, Inc., and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. Badcock Furniture Corporation is not a party to these proceedings in that it did not seek an administrative remedy under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The bid acquisition has been designated by DHRS as Lease No. 590:1590. DHRS formed a bid evaluation committee to evaluate the bids which were submitted. The committee, consisting of William Samford, Residential Service's Director for Development Services, Frank Last, Senior Human Services Program Manager for Economic Services, Frances H. Clendenin, Administrative Services Director, John S. Cato, General Services Manager, and Ed Gauthier, Human Services Program Administrator for the Immokalee programs, visited the three prospective bid sites and evaluated the bid proposals. Each member individually reviewed and rated the bids and recorded his or her ratings on a form entitled Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors). The individual ratings were admitted into evidence as HRS Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. After the individual review, the committee met together for purposes of reaching a consensus evaluation. Based on that consensus, the committee generated a memorandum to the Department of General Services outlining the twelve evaluation criteria used and the points awarded to each bidder. On or about March 7, 1984, DHRS published its notice of intent to award Lease No. 590:1590 to Chuck Bundschu, Inc., as the successful bidder. By stipulation, only four of the evaluation criteria are in dispute as to the points awarded to each bidder. Those criteria resulted in the following ratings: Criteria 1 - Rental rate including projected operating expenses to be paid by lessor. Out of a total rating of 30 points, Sunburst received 30 points because it had the lowest rental rate during the term of the lease and the option years. Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received 27 points based on a formula designed by the committee. Under the formula, the maximum of 30 points was awarded to the low bidder if that bid was below the rent that had been set as the area rate and the other bidders then received points based on a ratio between their bid and the low bidder. Criteria 2 - Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid. A total of 20 points was available to each bidder in this criteria. Sunburst received 18 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received the entire 20 points. The basis for the lower point award to Sunburst was that some of the proposed office space was in a residential building and the second floor of the two-story building was being and would be used for migrant farm housing. The property of Chuck Bundschu, Inc., was totally suitable and was well located. Criteria 4 - Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposal 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 100 yards of each other. Both Sunburst and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. would provide space in not more than two locations. However, Sunburst's buildings did not have a covered walkway connecting the buildings and the Bundschu property did. Therefore, Sunburst received 8 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. received the maximum 10 points. Criteria 6 - The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Sunburst received two points and Bundschu received the maximum of five points because the characteristics of the neighborhood and the actual layout of the property was more conducive to the conduct of Departmental operations. Specifically, Sunburst's property had a congested parking lot where many people gathered including some undesirable persons. These people and their activities resulted in a higher crime rate in the area. Further, migrant housing would exist on the floor above the offices that would house valuable food stamps, thereby creating a security threat. Finally, a proposed additional parking site would result in cars traveling across a walkway where clients and employees might be injured. Bundschu's property had none of these drawbacks. The memorandum from the bid evaluation committee to the Department of General Services stated the committee's findings and point award totals for the twelve criteria. That memorandum indicated that Badcock Furniture Corporation received a total of 59 points, Sunburst received 79 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received 93 points. It is undisputed that a clerical error occurred in the memorandum and the totals as reported were incorrect. At hearing, testimony was given that the corrected totals should have been 91 points for Sunburst and 95 points for Chuck Bundschu, Inc. However, even these totals do not agree with simple addition of the points as they are listed separately by criteria. It is found that the correct totals for the separate points awards as stated in the memorandum is 90 points for Sunburst and 95 points for Chuck Bundschu, Inc. Despite the discrepancy in the actual point totals is reported in the memorandum, a review of the individual evaluation forms shows that each evaluator independently awarded Sunburst fewer points than Bundschu. While there was contradictory evidence regarding the actual total points awarded and the method by which the consensus was reached, the clear and convincing evidence is that Bundschu was evaluated to be the best bidder by every evaluator and the evaluators properly applied the criteria. It is undisputed that the property offered by Chuck Bundschu, Inc., is on property partially zoned "VR", and before offices could go into the building, a provisional use variance must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County. The bid evaluation committee did not consider zoning in evaluating the bids because zoning was not an element specified in the invitations to bid. The invitation to bid does not require the proposed site to be compatibly zoned in order for the bid to be valid and responsive. If the contract is awarded and the successful bidder fails to make the space available as agreed, whether because of zoning or otherwise, the successful bidder shall be liable to DHRS for liquidated damages for each day that the property is unavailable. Zoning is not an element to be considered in the award of the bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which awards the contract for Lease No. 590:1590 to Chuck Bundschu, Inc., as having submitted the lowest and best bid proposal. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Grguric, Esquire 900 Sixth Avenue South Suite 201 Naples, Florida 33940 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. 06-DC-7727 to Communications Engineering Service Company is contrary to the Department of Correction’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. 06-DC-7727 on October 27, 2006. The purpose of the ITB was to solicit bids for maintenance and repair of radio equipment owned by the Department in each of its four regions. The original deadline for submitting bids in response to the ITB was November 30, 2006, but the deadline was extended to December 15, 2006, through an addendum to the ITB. First Communications, CES, and Motorola, Inc., submitted bids for Region I. Another company, Econo Communications, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Communications, also responded to the ITB, but it did not bid on Region I. It was stipulated that First Communications’ bid was responsive to the ITB. The Department determined that the bid submitted by Motorola was not responsive to the ITB. That determination was not challenged. The Department determined that the bid submitted by CES was responsive, despite the issues discussed below. CES was determined by the Department to be the lowest responsible bidder. The bid submitted by CES was $2,571 per month.1 First Communications was the next lowest bidder. Its bid was $3,408.85 per month,2 which is 32.6 percent higher than CES’s bid. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB states that “it is essential that bidders follow the format and instructions contained in the Bid Submission Requirements (Section 5 with particular emphasis on the Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements).” Section 5.1 of the ITB lists the “mandatory responsiveness requirements” for bids, and states that: The following terms, conditions or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to the ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory.Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. (Emphasis in original). Nearly identical language is contained in Sections 1.7 and 4.3.6.1 of the ITB, and in the ITB Review Manual used by Department staff in reviewing the bids submitted in response to the ITB. Indeed, the ITB Review Manual refers to the mandatory responsiveness requirements as “fatal criteria.” The mandatory responsiveness requirement in the ITB that is most pertinent to this case is in Section 5.1.2,3 which states: It is mandatory that the bidder supply one original signed Bid and three (3) copies of the signed bid. . . . . (Emphasis in original). The bid package submitted by CES did not include the original signed bid. It only included the three copies of the signed bid. This omission was noted by Christina Espinosa, the procurement manager for the ITB who opened the bids on the afternoon of December 15, 2006. However, after Ms. Espinosa consulted with her supervisor and the Department’s legal staff, it was determined that the omission was not material and that CES should be given an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit the original signed bid. As a result, Ms. Espinosa contacted CES and gave it 24 business hours to “cure” the deficiency. CES delivered the original signed bid to the Department on the morning of December 18, 2006, which is three days after the bid submittal deadline in the ITB, but within the 24-business hour deadline given by Ms. Espinosa.4 CES did not have a representative at the bid opening, and there is no evidence that CES knew it was the lowest bidder, either when Ms. Espinosa gave CES an opportunity to “cure” its failure to submit an original bid on December 15, 2006, or when it submitted the original bid on December 18, 2006. It is undisputed that the original signed bid submitted by CES on December 18, 2006, is identical in all respects to the three copies of the bid that were timely submitted by CES on December 15, 2006. Ms. Espinosa reviewed the bid submitted by CES despite its failure to include the original signed bid. According to ITB provisions referenced above, that omission should have resulted in the bid being rejected and not further reviewed. The CES bid included at least one other deviation from the specifications in the ITB. The bid stated in the “service delivery synopsis” that the turnaround time for the repair of fixed equipment would be 15 working days. A 15-day time period was referenced in the original ITB, but it was changed to eight days in an addendum. Ms. Espinosa contacted CES about this discrepancy, and on January 3, 2007, CES advised Ms. Espinosa by e-mail that it “acknowledges the change in repair times from 15 days to 8 days.” CES was not the only bidder that Ms. Espinosa contacted after the bids were opened to obtain clarification or information omitted from the bid. For example, she contacted First Communications to obtain copies of its articles of incorporation and business licenses that were not included in its bid; to get clarification regarding First Communications’ use of subcontractors; and to confirm that First Communications acknowledged the eight-day turnaround time for repair of fixed equipment since its bid did not contain a service delivery synopsis. Section 4.3.1 of the ITB authorizes the Department to “seek clarifications or request any information deemed necessary for proper review of submissions from any bidder deemed eligible for Contract award.” However, Section 4.3.1 also states that “no modifications by the bidder of submitted bids will be allowed.” The ITB authorizes the Department to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids, and on this issue, the ITB states: Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department shall also reject any or all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Mandatory Responsiveness Requirements: Terms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder to be responsive to this solicitation. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid. Any bid rejected for failure to meet mandatory responsiveness requirements will not be further reviewed. Material Deviations: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by the bidder. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where any deviation there from is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, or has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of terms or services bid, or the prices submitted to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities: A variation from the solicitation terms and conditions which does not affect the price proposed or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. A minor irregularity will not result in a rejection of a bid. (All emphasis in original). The Department relies on these sections of the ITB as its authority to waive minor irregularities and non-material deviations in bids with respect to any provision of the ITB, including the mandatory responsiveness requirements. On January 4, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract for Region I to CES. In the same posting, the Department rejected all bids for the other three regions. The rejection of all bids for the other regions is not at issue in this case. First Communications timely filed a notice of protest and, then, a formal written protest challenging the intended award of the contract to CES. The Department provided notice of this proceeding to CES, as required by the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. CES did not file a petition to intervene or otherwise seek to participate in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing First Communications’ protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 2007.
The Issue The ultimate issue to be determined in this proceeding is which of the bids submitted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in response to its Request for Proposal for office space and facilities in Arcadia, Florida, is the lowest and best response to the invitation. The Petitioner contends that the Intervenor's bid was not responsive to the Request for Proposal, and that even if the Intervenor's bid were considered responsive, that Petitioner's bid was the lowest and best response. The Intervenor contends that its bid was responsive and that it was the lowest and best response. The Department contends that it properly evaluated the responses and that the bid should be awarded to the Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact In order to provide services as required by various federal and state statutes, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services needs to maintain office space in or near to the city of Arcadia, Florida. The Department is presently leasing office space from C. W. Whidden, the Intervenor in this proceeding. The lease expires on November 30, 1982. The Department's space needs have expanded since the time that it entered into the lease for the existing facility. In order to meet the need for increased space and to continue with its present activities, the Department issued an "Invitation to Propose" inviting interested persons to submit bids for the required office space. Three persons responded to the invitation: Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Martin M. McAllister, the Petitioner in this proceeding; and the Intervenor. The bid acquisition has been designated by the Department as Lease No. 590:1526. The Department formed a bid evaluation committee composed of five employees of the Department's District VIII office. The facility being acquired would be located within and serve people within the Department's District VIII. Members of the bid evaluation committee individually reviewed the three bids, and met together to form a consensus. On May 14, 1982, the committee generated a memorandum in which the three bids were given points in 12 separate evaluation areas. The Petitioner's bid was given 87 points, the Intervenor's bid was given 83 points, and the bid submitted by Chuck Bundschu, Inc., was given 75 points. The committee recommended that the lease be awarded to the Petitioner. The Department's District VIII Administrative Services Director, Frances Clendenin, was among the members of the committee. She was not satisfied with the committee's evaluation, and she communicated about it with Cindi Shaffer, the Department's Facilities Services Coordinator in Tallahassee. Shaffer agreed that the committee's evaluation had not been sufficiently objective, or at least that the evaluation did not adequately reveal that objective criteria were applied. She recommended to Clendenin that tangible factors be applied. She suggested that the most tangible factor was cost to the Department; and if cost was not a factor, that the committee should set out a detailed narrative statement in support of its conclusions that one bidder or another should receive more or less points in any given area of the evaluation. Clendenin interpreted these suggestions as meaning that all bidders should be awarded the same points in any area unless a specific cost to the Department could be identified so as to justify less points being given to any bidder. The committee conducted a second evaluation and concluded, based upon criteria directed by Clendenin, that the Intervenor's bid should be given 98 points, that Petitioner's bid should receive 90 points, and that the Bundschu bid should receive 81 points. Accordingly, the committee recommended that the lease be awarded to the Intervenor. This recommendation was accepted by the Department. Petitioner filed a timely bid protest, and this proceeding ensued. Chuck Bundschu, Inc., neither protested the bid award nor appeared in this proceeding. The Petitioner has contended that the bid submitted by Intervenor is not responsive to the specifications set out in the Invitation to Propose. The Invitation sets out the following evaluation criteria: The successful bid will be the one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Provision of the adequate 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 100 yards of each other. Intervenor has proposed to provide the required aggregate square footage in three buildings. Two of the buildings are presently occupied by the Department under the lease which will soon expire. They are separated only by a five- or six-foot-wide concrete walkway which is covered. To get from one building to the other, one must merely open one door, cross the sidewalk, and open another door. While these are more than one building, they effectively serve as a single location in the same sense that two floors in a single building serve as a single location. The third building in Intervenor's proposal is located across a parking lot from the other two buildings, within 100 yards of them. Intervenor proposes to meet the aggregate square footage required by the Department through three buildings. The three buildings constitute two locations, however, which are within 100 yards of each other. The proposal thus meets the bid evaluation criteria and is not unresponsive to the Invitation to Propose. The evaluation criteria set out in the Invitation to Propose delineates 12 separate areas to be evaluated and designates a weighted point value to be assigned each area. The highest number of points that could be given was 100. The first area for evaluation is "rental rate including projected operating expenses." Twenty-five points are assigned to this area. The Intervenor's bid offered the lowest rental rate. Over the 10-year period of the proposed leases, Intervenor's bid is between $84,000 and $85,000 lower than Petitioner's bid. In its first report, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor 25 points and the Petitioner 21 points. In its second evaluation, Intervenor was given 25 points and Petitioner 17 points. The second evaluation more objectively sets out the difference in rental rate between the proposals and constitutes an accurate appraisal of the difference between the rental rates proposed by Intervenor and Petitioner. Petitioner sought to establish at the hearing that the Department would incur additional operating expenses under Intervenor's proposal which would not be incurred under Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner offered the testimony of an employee of the electrical utility that serves the area to the effect that electrical utility charges would be greater for Intervenor's facility than for Petitioner's. The evidence is not, however, credible. The witness estimated Intervenor's utility charges by tracing the past history of charges for the two buildings presently occupied by the Department and assuming that the third building would incur utility expenses at the same rate per square foot. The Petitioner has proposed to construct a new building. The witness estimated utility charges that would be incurred at Petitioner's facility by utilizing accepted formulas. The comparison is not appropriate in an evidentiary sense because of the different techniques used to estimate charges for the two facilities. Furthermore, the witness's assumption that utility charges in the Intervenor's third building would be consistent with those in the other two is not valid because the third building would not be utilized on a daily basis. Finally, the theoretical computations for Intervenor's building cannot be credited because such services as heating and required equipment were not included in the estimate. Petitioner sought to establish that the Department would incur increased operating expenses under Intervenor's proposal because an additional employee would be required for Intervenor's facility. This contention is not supported by the evidence. The Department's activities are presently being undertaken in the Intervenor's two buildings that are separated only by a sidewalk, and no additional employees are required because of the configuration. Petitioner sought to establish that the Department would incur higher janitorial charges under Intervenor's proposal than under Petitioner's. A janitorial service made an estimate of the amounts that it would charge for the Petitioner's proposed building and for the Intervenor's existing three buildings. The estimate assumed that the third building would be utilized on a daily basis by the Department. The evidence establishes, however, that the building would be used on less than a daily basis and only for a portion of those days on which it is used. The janitorial service estimates are therefore based upon an unsupported assumption. The second area to be evaluated is "conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid." Twenty-five points are assigned to this area. In its initial report, the evaluation committee gave the Intervenor 20 points in this area, and the Petitioner 25 points. In its second evaluation, both bidders were given 25 points. The first evaluation reflects a concern with the fact that Intervenor's proposal was to provide the required square footage in three buildings, while Petitioner proposed to construct a new facility and to offer the square footage in a single building. The second evaluation reflected the committee's inability to assign a specific dollar amount to the inconvenience that would be caused by utilizing three buildings instead of one. Clearly, there are inconveniences that would result from use of three buildings rather than a single building. The operation would be less compact and therefore less efficient. Petitioner's proposal met the specific requirements in the Invitation to Bid with precision as might be expected from a facility which is designed specifically with the Invitation in mind. As also might be expected, Intervenor's facility, which was not developed with this specific Invitation in mind, does not conform as specifically with the requirements of the Invitation. The initial evaluation giving the Intervenor 20 points and the Petitioner 25 points for this area appropriately reflects differences in the bids offered by Intervenor and Petitioner and accurately assesses the difference through the point system. The fourth area to be evaluated is "provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building." Ten points are assigned to this area in the Invitation. In its initial report, the committee gave five points to the Intervenor and 10 points to Petitioner. In its second report, Intervenor was given eight points and Petitioner 10 points. The second evaluation reflects a more objective appraisal of the disadvantages of the three-building complex offered by Intervenor as compared to the one-building complex offered by Petitioner. The first evaluation represented too harsh a view of the inconveniences that would result from the three-building proposal. Some members of the evaluation committee felt that an additional employee would be required, which is not the case. Furthermore, the third building proposed by Intervenor, which is located across a parking lot, would be utilized only for storage of old files and as a conference room. It would not be used on a daily basis, and this minimizes the inconvenience that would result from its being located across the parking lot. It is appropriate that the Intervenor be given eight points and the Petitioner 10 points for this area of the evaluation. The fifth area to be evaluated is "susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization." In its initial report, the committee gave Intervenor three points and the Petitioner five points. In its second report, both Intervenor and Petitioner were given five points. The first evaluation too harshly downgrades the effect of three buildings, and the second evaluation gives too little weight to it. It is appropriate that Intervenor be given four points and Petitioner five points for this area of the evaluation. The twelfth area of the evaluation is "moving costs." Two points are assigned to this area in the Invitation. In both of its reports, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor two points and Petitioner no points for this area. Given the fact that no moving costs would be incurred under Intervenor's proposal, and costs would be incurred under Petitioner's, this appears to be an appropriate evaluation. The third and sixth through eleventh areas to be evaluated under the Invitation for Bid are "proximity to clients," "environmental factors," parking," "street-level space," "transportation," "dining facilities," and "proximity to other Department activities." The evaluation committee's reports varied in insignificant respects, but the evidence demonstrates that, objectively, the Intervenor's and Petitioner's proposals are equal in each of these areas. A total of 33 points is assigned to these areas under the Invitation. Both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bids meet the requirements in these areas set out in the Invitation, and both should be given 33 points. In its initial report, the evaluation committee gave Intervenor 83 points and Petitioner 87 points. In its second report, the committee gave Intervenor 98 points and Petitioner 90 points. The first report did not reflect an appropriate scoring because too much penalty was assigned to Intervenor's three-building configuration. The second evaluation did not adequately downgrade Intervenor's bid because of the three-building configuration. When the points set out in the above findings are added, Intervenor's bid is given 92 points and Petitioner's bid 90 points. This numerical assignment accurately reflects the differences between the bids and the advantages that would accrue to the Department for accepting one bid or the other. The reduced price of Intervenor's proposal and increased efficiency of Petitioner's render the proposals very nearly equal in value to the Department. By a very narrow margin, the Intervenor's proposal is the lowest and best bid in response to the Invitation to Propose for Lease No. 590:1526.
Findings Of Fact Respondent HRS published ITB 590:2306 for existing rental space in the central area of Brooksville, Florida. The bid solicitation specified a bid opening time and date of 2:00 p.m. July 17, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted sealed bids. They were the only two bidders. Neither they nor anyone else timely filed any protest of the bid specifications, and therefore the specifications are not subject to attack in this proceeding. Petitioner received a notice of intent to award the bid for lease 590:2306 to Intervenor by letter from Respondent dated August 27, 1991 and timely filed its notice of intent to protest and formal bid protest. Petitioner accordingly has standing to bring this proceeding. Intervenor is the intended awardee and as such has standing to intervene. Petitioner submitted the property located at 7348 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida, and showed in his bid submittal form that his proposed property contained 22,500 net square feet, with future expansion of 2,100 square feet available. When Petitioner submitted his bid, it included a floor plan, site plan, and a PUR 7068 form. A PUR 7068 form is a "Public Entity Crime Certification Statement," a sworn statement under Section 287.133(a) F.S. The ITB included two separate requirements for bidders to establish that they have control over the property that they submit to HRS. HRS' purposes in requiring bidders to demonstrate control are to prevent bids based on total speculation, to establish a reasonable expectation that the bidder can meet his obligations if awarded the bid, and to establish a reasonable expectation that the property can be occupied on time. Item 1 on page 3 provides as follows: Control of property - This pertains to both the structure(s) and proposed parking areas. To submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor must meet one of the following qualifications: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (submit copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documen- tation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas through the base lease term and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas. d.) Submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to in turn, sublease. Any lease must encompass the entire time period of the basic lease and any renewal option periods as required the state. e.) Submit form PUR. 7068 Sworn Statement of Public Entity Crimes (Attachment H). Page 12 provides, in part, as follows: In order for a bid proposal to be accepted the items 1 through 6 must be included in the bid proposal. Items 7 through 11 must be included, if applicable. [Items 11 and 13 state:] 11. Documentation showing bidder as controller of property. 13. Public Enemy [sic] Crime Certification Statement A pre-bid conference attended by Petitioner made clear that evidence of control and the PUR 7068 form were two different items. Petitioner testified that he attached the PUR 7068 form as his sole basis for evidencing control of the building and parking spaces he submitted for lease, and acknowledged that, in fact, the form did not provide any information with regard to his control of the buildings or parking spaces offered for lease. Petitioner's assertion that his name on some of his site plans, etc. constitutes evidence of control is not persuasive. Such assertion is not in line with the ITB requirements or even common sense. Petitioner Proctor owned the buildings he offered HRS in his bid submittal. Petitioner offered multiple buildings separated by parking areas and driveways. The property offered by Petitioner was to have built an awning- covered walkway between buildings but the walkway would have to be placed through the driveway area of the property. The expansion area for Petitioner's property designated in its bid submittal was composed of approximately 10 gated warehouse units which would be converted to office space. Petitioner had leased a portion of the same premises to HRS for 15 years, and HRS was still leasing that portion at the time of the bid opening. At the time of the bid opening, another portion of the property Petitioner proposed to be leased to HRS was also already rented to other tenants, including a lease to the Florida Department of Labor which was not scheduled to expire until December 31, 1991, one day prior to HRS' proposed first day of occupancy under the ITB. The space leased to the Department of Labor would require some renovation for HRS' use, at least to connect it on the interior with the rest of the building. The remainder of the second, adjacent, building to be rented under Petitioner's bid would require more extensive renovation to create office spaces to meet HRS' needs. In addition to the Department of Labor, Petitioner was also renting space in the second building to a beauty salon, a book store, an office supply store, a clothing store, and a barber at the time of bid submittal and opening and at the time of the formal hearing. These latter tenants were on month-to-month leases. In order to ensure that there would be time for necessary renovations before January 1, 1992 and further to ensure that the property would be available for occupancy on January 1, 1992, the ITB required in the following unequivocal language that all bidders file tenant acknowledgments of the bid/proposed lease with their bid submittal: Existing Tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date must be included with the bid submittal. [Emphasis added] Petitioner submitted no tenant acknowledgments from any of his tenants with his bid to HRS. Even though Petitioner failed to submit evidence of control in the form of a deed and further failed to submit the required acknowledgments from tenants occupying the premises on the bid date, HRS did not immediately disqualify Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive. Instead, HRS evaluated Petitioner's bid simultaneously with Intervenor TCC's bid. HRS relied on old leases in its files and actual knowledge that monthly rent was paid to Petitioner for its own currently leased space, and HRS ignored the absence of tenant acknowledgments with Petitioner's bid. HRS followed this course of action despite the requirement of the ITB on page 7, item 1 under EVALUATION OF BIDS which unequivocally provides: Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. This includes submittal on bid submittal forms, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, signatures and notarization, etc. Non responsive [sic] bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. The portion of the ITB designated, Documents Required To Be Submitted With Bid Submittal For Existing Buildings on page 12, item 4. required bidders to submit "Scale Floor Plans showing present configurations with dimensions." Page 3 of 22, Item 9.(b) further required that, as a part of the bid submittal, bidders were to provide "A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0") floor plan showing present configuration with measurements." Contrary to the ITB requirement, Petitioner submitted a floor plan scaled at 1/20" = 1', which also failed to reflect the present configurations with all measurements. Petitioner's scaled floor plan submitted with his bid was prepared prior to the present addition to one building and contained a hand- drawn configuration without accurate measurements for the northwest corner of one building. The term of the lease as shown on the ITB and Bid Submittal Form was 9 and one-half years with an option to renew for 2-5 year renewal periods. At the time of the bid opening on July 17, 1991, the bid submitted by Petitioner failed to have any proposed rental rates shown for "Renewal Options: Option II years 1 through 5." HRS permitted Petitioner to correct or supplement its bid after the bid opening (same date and place) to cover this material omission. Page 6, item 4 of the ITB provided for the property owner or other bidding entity to sign the bid submission. The pertinent part states: 4. Each bid submitted shall be signed by the owner(s) corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. ALL BID SUBMITTAL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS. [Emphasis appears in ITB] Petitioner Proctor signed his bid submittal in proper person. TCC's bid submittal was signed by Sharon K. Lane, "Executive Director," of TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc., Intervenor herein. At all times material, TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc. has been a Florida corporation. At the time of the bid opening, Ms. Lane was TCC's sole shareholder and "all officers." At the time of formal hearing, Ms. Lane remained the sole shareholder, but others had assumed some of the corporate offices. Her status at the time of the bid submittal was sufficient for her to bid on behalf of the TCC corporation and to execute the PUR 7068 form on that corporation's behalf. Intervenor TCC submitted the required PUR 7068 form, but TCC submitted as sole evidence of control an undated, unrecorded "Contract for Sale and Purchase" by and between Hernando Plaza Ltd. as Seller and Intervenor TCC as Buyer, for the property which Intervenor was offering for lease to HRS. The best date assignable to this document is April 29, 1991. It was executed on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves as general partners of the limited partnership. TCC's obligation to proceed to closing under the foregoing contract was contingent upon TCC's securing an anchor tenant. However, the contract requires TCC to take steps to secure an anchor tenant. By its terms, TCC may purchase the property with or without an anchor tenant, but the contract requires TCC, in seeking an anchor tenant, to set time limits for the lease arrangement with the proposed anchor tenant which do not necessarily accord with the timing of HRS' bid process. HRS accepted TCC's contract to purchase from Hernando Plaza Ltd., as evidence of TCC's control of the premises offered by TCC for lease, believing it to constitute an option to purchase and the necessary evidence of control as required by the ITB. (See, Finding of Fact 6, supra.) At the time of the bid opening, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with a legal entity other than the record title owner of the property, which record title owner was and is the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation (Brown Foundation). See, infra. Up to that date, at least, Hernando Plaza Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as the owner of the property. The ITB did not require that an abstract of title be submitted with the bid, and HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contains provisions for future disclosure from successful bidders. (See, ITB item 5 under Requirements for Bidders to Submit Bids.) Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS attempts to protect itself by requiring successful bidders to put up an irrevocable letter of credit for one-half of one percent of the proposed lease rental obligation over the basic lease term as a penalty in the event a successful bidder cannot perform. (See, ITB page 4, item 10.) Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s certificate from the Florida Secretary of State expired December 31, 1981. That fact was advertised and the certificate cancelled July 16, 1982. At that time, Edward M. Strawgate was listed as a general partner and Harold Brown was listed as a limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd. Hernando Plaza Ltd. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. Subsequent to the time that Intervenor submitted its bid proposal, but prior to formal hearing, Hernando Plaza Ltd. was reinstated by the Florida Secretary of State. Once reinstated, the limited partnership's ability to act related back and validated its prior actions. At all times material, the record title of the property offered by Intervenor TCC for lease to HRS was owned by "Harold Brown, Lillian Brown and Muriel Kahr as Trustees of the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation." This title is derived from a recorded June 30, 1967 warranty deed from Hernando Plaza Ltd., which deed was admitted in evidence at formal hearing. The warranty deed was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. Neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid to HRS on behalf of the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. There is also in evidence a recorded December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease between the Brown Foundation and City National Bank. That Amendment to Lease also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal to evidence control of the premises TCC was offering to lease to HRS. That Amendment to Lease also recites that Hernando Plaza Ltd. leased back the subject property from the Brown Foundation by a lease dated June 30, 1967. The June 30, 1967 lease was not recorded, was not part of TCC's bid submittal, and is not in evidence. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to recite that Hernando Plaza Ltd. has assigned its lessee interest under the June 30, 1967 lease to City National Bank by a March 14, 1978 assignment. There is also in evidence a recorded March 14, 1978 "Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease from Hernando Plaza Ltd. to City National Bank." This assignment was not part of TCC's bid submittal. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to further recite that the Brown Foundation has "agreed to give and grant to [Hernando Plaza Ltd.] an option to purchase the property." The remainder of the December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease details the terms or conditions of the option to purchase granted by the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza. For instance, in order to exercise that option to purchase the subject property from the Brown Foundation, Hernando Plaza Ltd., among other requirements, would have to demonstrate that all the terms of the unrecorded June 30, 1967 lease are "in good standing." One may reasonably infer that "in good standing" would at a bare minimum mean that the rents under the lease are paid current at the time the option is exercised, but what the other terms of the lease might be are subject to pure conjecture. TCC's bid submittal did not include documentation that the June 30, 1967 lease was "in good standing." There is also in evidence a recorded June 7, 1989 Trustee's Deed (quitclaim deed of the trustee's interest) from City National Bank's successor bank/trustee to Hernando Plaza Ltd. The Trustee's Deed also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. On the date of bid submittal/opening neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. or City National Bank's successor. At formal hearing, TCC submitted an October 24, 1991 written hearsay statement by Harold Brown as Trustee of the Brown Foundation to the effect that Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s December 18, 1985 option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation was "in full force and effect" and that the June 30, 1967 lease back from the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza Ltd. was "in full force and effect and that the lessee is in good standing thereunder." Assuming these items may be considered in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.58 (1) F.S. as supplementing or explaining direct evidence, they still do not clarify in any way what all the terms of the unrecorded 1967 lease are or that those terms will remain in good standing on the date in the future that Hernando Plaza Ltd. elects to exercise its option, if it elects to exercise its option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation so that Hernando Plaza Ltd. may, in turn, convey the property to TCC, pursuant to Hernando Plaza Ltd. and TCC's April 29, 1991 contract for sale and purchase. Oddly enough, there is further explanatory hearsay that on October 24, 1991, Harold Brown was a trustee of the Brown Foundation and that he also was the sole limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd., although TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza for sale and purchase previously indicated Harold Brown was one of two general partners. Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation must be exercised by Hernando Plaza Ltd. before Hernando Plaza Ltd. can honor its contract to purchase/sell to TCC. Since there is no record evidence that the June 30, 1967 lease from the Brown Foundation as lessor to Hernando Plaza Ltd. as lessee will be in good standing on whatever future date Hernando Plaza Ltd. attempts to exercise its option with the Brown Foundation, one may only speculate both as to when and if TCC will be able to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza Ltd. TCC has only an option to become owner of the subject property at some unspecified date conditioned upon Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s first successfully exercising its option from the Brown Foundation and further conditioned upon all the terms of TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. Apparently, TCC's only recourse to enforce its contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. is a Circuit Court action for specific performance. TCC also submitted a site plan and floor plan with its bid submittal. The ITB required that offices on outside walls must provide windows. TCC's plans did not reflect windows in two sides of the building, but given HRS' retaining the right to partially design and locate its own halls and offices during the building's renovation, TCC's failure to show windows in the two outside walls is not, in and of itself, a material, disqualifying deviation from the ITB so as to unilaterally render TCC's bid nonresponsive. HRS staff member Donald J. Cerlanek prepared a bid synopsis of each bid. This involved completing a form from the HRS leasing manual which illustrates the characteristics of each of the bids. The bid requirements included evaluation criteria and a maximum amount of points which could be awarded for each criteria item. Five HRS bid evaluation committee members executed no conflict of interest forms. These were: Thomas C. Little Jr., David Thomley, Sylvia Smoot, Harvey Whitesides, and Mary Hawks. All committee members were given copies of the bid synopsis form to use in evaluating the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Some of the committee members did not obtain or review the actual bid submissions of each of the bidders, but all of them had access to the bid submissions and read the bid synopsis forms for both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submittals. The bid evaluation committee members, except for Mary Hawks, made site visits to the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Ms. Hawks essentially acted only as a facilitator or conduit for the evaluations of the other four evaluators as set out infra. The four site evaluators took notes regarding each location. The four site evaluators each assigned numerical weights to each item of evaluation criteria except for the rent and renewal rent portions of the evaluation criteria. Although on their site visits some committee members visiting TCC's site may have seen a color version of an artist's rendering of what TCC's project could look like after renovation was complete, a black and white version of the same artist's rendering was attached to TCC's bid submittal to which all committee members had access, and it is found that this situation in and of itself presented no false or misleading information nor constituted any prejudice to a fair bid process/evaluation. Likewise, although some evaluators discussed expansion prospects with TCC's and/or Proctor's on-site representatives, the evidence is credible and persuasive that each evaluator who visited the sites assessed the projects' respective expansion prospects substantially upon what they saw on each site and had experienced in Proctor's existing facility. The points awarded and reasons for the recommendations of each evaluator who visited the sites were reasonably based on specific needs of HRS. These specific needs of HRS were reasonably articulated by the two evaluators who made on-site inspections and who also testified at formal hearing and were reasonably set out in writing in the written notes of the two other evaluators who did not testify. Thomas C. Little, Jr., testified that he found the Intervenor's property superior as a result of the security problems at Petitioner's locations, the closer proximity of the courthouse, hospital, and health department to Intervenor's property and the superiority of a single building offered by Intervenor versus multiple buildings offered by Petitioner. Additionally, he found the esthetics of Petitioner's buildings lacking and expansion offered by Petitioner limited and was concerned that HRS would outgrow the space due to the fact that their service area is one of the most rapidly growing in Florida. His contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Sylvia Smoot, also a member of the evaluation committee, testified that she found Intervenor's facility superior based on its proximity to the courthouse, hospitals, and other key locations, and its flexibility of design and concentration of space in one building. She further found Petitioner's location lacking as a result of the three separate buildings, its limited expansion room, and the necessity for redirecting clients between buildings, and the difficulty for elderly and handicapped clients accessing Petitioner's building. Her contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Evaluators Whitesides and Thomley made substantially similar contemporaneous notes justifying their scoring of the two bidders. Three of the four site evaluators met as a group following the site visits and discussed the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. All four of the site evaluators made recommendations to accept the property for lease proposed by Intervenor, but they did not all confer and jointly develop a single recommendation to the facilities manager. The points assigned by each of the four site evaluators for the properties proposed by Petitioner and Intervenor were as follows: Evaluation Committee TCC Number Member's Names Proctor's Points 3's Points Thomley 75 98 Little 78 93 Whitesides 74 95 Smoot 80 91 307 377 The rent portion of the evaluation criteria was ascertained by applying present value methodology as set forth in the HRS leasing manual to the annual rents offered by the bidders. The discount factor was 8.32 percent. The present value of Proctor's bid was $1,934,038 and the present value of TCC's bid was $2,028,316. The leasing manual is considered advisory only. It advises present values be made, a determination of the difference in amounts be calculated and a comparison of the difference be made to determine a percentage. Thereafter, the percentage is applied to the maximum amount of points allocated for rent in the evaluation criteria. The lowest present value receives the maximum number of points allocated, and, thus, Proctor was awarded 35 points. TCC received 33 points, based upon the fact that its present value of rent was close to the present value submitted by Proctor. No penalty is imposed to a bidder whose rental amounts is higher than the lowest bidder. No benefit is conferred upon the lowest cost bidder over the next lowest bidder. Mary Hawks, Manager for Administrative Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received each of the individual evaluation recommendations from Thomley, Little, Whitesides and Smoot. As a result of travel restrictions placed on the HRS, the four site evaluators and Ms. Hawks, who was also a fifth committee member, did not meet as a group following the site visits although three of the four site evaluators did meet collectively following the site visits. (See Finding of Fact 43-44, supra.) The committee members could have met by telephone conference call but Mary Hawks found it unnecessary to do so because there was such a clear evaluation in favor of Intervenor based on the total composite evaluation scores of 377 for Intervenor and only 307 for Petitioner, out of a total of 400 points. She assigned no points herself but approved their recommendations and forwarded a single recommendation in favor of TCC for ultimate approval by HRS management. Mary Hawks had spoken to the evaluation committee members subsequent to the evaluation and no member had expressed any reservation regarding his/her evaluation or a need to meet to discuss anything additional regarding the bid evaluation. The HRS Intent to Award to TCC subsequently issued. The evaluation process and formula for rent evaluation are not among the more commonly used methods but were reasonable and rational and fairly applied to the bids in this case. No conflict of interest in the evaluation committee members was demonstrated by Petitioner in these proceedings.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that: The bid of TCC Number 3 Ltd. is nonresponsive; The bid of Derick Proctor is nonresponsive; Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2306 to either bidder. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5963BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Proctor's 74 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted, except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the recommended order (RO). Unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized: 1-3, sentence 1 of PFOF 4, 5-6, 9, 11-12, sentence 1 of PFOF 13, sentence 1 of PFOF 16, 17-26, sentence 1 of PFOF 29, 30-33, 35-36, sentences 1 and 4 of PFOF 38, 39-41, 44-54, 56-57, 60-61, 63. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute a proposed conclusion of law (PCOL) or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 4, sentence 2 of PFOF 16, 34, 43. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 10, sentence 2 of PFOF 13, 14- 15, sentence 2 of PFOF 29, sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 38, 55, 58. PFOF 7-8 are accepted as modified because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found and other parts are mere recitations of unreconciled portions of the record and legal argument. The following PFOF are accepted in part but not utilized because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, and other parts are rejected as immaterial to the dispositive issues herein, although correctly quoted from the record: 68-73. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or not dispositive: 27-28, 37, 42, 59, 62, 65, 67, 74. The following PFOF are covered in preliminary material: 64, 66. HRS 21 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-19. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 5, 9-10, 14-15, 21. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 20. PFOF 13 is accepted as modified to correctly reflect the credible record evidence as a whole. TCC Number 3 75 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-31, 34-38, 42- 45, 47-48, 56, 58-60, 64-69, 71-75. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 32. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 33, 40-41, 53-55, 57, 61-63, 70. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or as not dispositive: 39, 46, 49, 51-52. PFOF 50 is not a sentence, but the subject matter is covered in the RO as understood. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire Sam Power, Clerk Bette B. Lehmberg, Esquire Department of Health and Suite 800 Rehabilitative Services One 4th Street North 1323 Winewood Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), acted illegally, dishonestly, fraudulently, arbitrarily or/and capriciously in determining to award the contract for RFP 95-142CM-FAP to Unisys Corporation (Unisys).
Findings Of Fact On November 14, 1994, HRS's Office of Information Systems distributed the RFP, entitled "FLORIDA System --Applications Programming Services." The RFP was designed to procure the programming services required by HRS to complete the software programming of, among other things, the state's federally mandated Child Support Enforcement System, and to maintain and enhance the system upon its completion. Upon selection of the winning proposal, HRS intended to enter into the contract for thirty-six months, renewable upon agreement of the parties for an additional 12 months. The cost proposal rates for the initial three-year term would be binding for any subsequent work on the project. HRS also reserved the right to acquire additional consulting services from the contractor for related activities for up to one year after the termination of the Contract. HRS began developing this RFP in the late spring or early summer of 1994 in anticipation of the expiration of the current contract with Deloitte for provision of applications programming services. Before release to prospective proposers, the RFP was approved by HRS' Office of Contract Services and the Information Technology Resources Procurement Advisory Commission (ITRPAC), a body consisting of various state officials including the head of the Division of Purchasing, which ensures that the RFP complies with state rules. In addition, various federal agencies approved the RFP before its release to prospective proposers. The RFP provided that 60 percent of the proposal scoring would be based on the technical proposals contained in the responses to the RFP, and that the remaining 40 percent of the score would be assigned to the costs as submitted in the proposals. After scoring and weighting of the scores, the weighted scores were to be combined to determine the winning proposal. The breakdown of scoring between technical and cost components is based upon HRS' standard practice and its experience with the format required by other state and federal agencies with whom HRS works. The division of the scores was also intended to ensure that an unqualified vendor did not secure the bid solely on the basis of low cost. The selection of the evaluation criteria and weighting of evaluation points for this RFP were subject to the discretion of the Department at the time the RFP was prepared. On December 12, 1994, HRS held a bidders' conference at which representatives of Deloitte and Unisys were in attendance. EVALUATION OF RESPONSES On January 6, 1995, Deloitte and Unisys submitted the only two proposals in response to the RFP. Both proposals were deemed responsive to the requirements of the RFP. HRS appointed a five member Evaluation Committee to review and evaluate the proposals. HRS provided training to the Evaluation Committee members specifically directed to the proper method for reviewing and scoring proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Each member of the Evaluation Committee was qualified by training, education and experience to review and evaluate the technical merits of each proposal. The RFP defined the criteria by which the proposals would be reviewed, scored and ranked by the Evaluation Committee, and the contract awarded. Included in the RFP were blank cost proposal forms which the proposers were to complete. Those forms did not include any blank spaces to be filled in referencing costs associated with any "renewal" periods or otherwise provide for including information about proposed costs for any renewal periods. The Evaluation Committee members each independently reviewed the technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP over a period of approximately two weeks. Committee members submitted the raw scores from their technical evaluations to Karin Morris, the HRS System Program Administrator. The cost proposals were opened and scored on January 20, 1995 by Ms. Morris. The RFP provided, in Section 6.0, that a comprehensive, fair, and impartial evaluation would be conducted of all proposals received. The RFP also provided for the grouping of evaluation criteria into six categories with points assigned as follows: - Mandatory Requirements 0 points - Management Summary 0 points - Corporate Capabilities 200 points - Project Staff 200 points - Technical Approach 100 points - Project Workplan 100 points - Cost 400 points Section 6.0 of the RFP also contained the following language: Selection of the successful proposer will be based on the proposal that is determined to be in the best interest of the department, taking into consideration cost and other criteria set forth in the RFP. Further, the RFP provided, in Section 6.1, that: An Evaluation Committee will be established to assist the department in selection of the winning contractor(s). All proposals not meeting the mandatory requirements will be rejected. The committee will evaluate the technical approach, corporate capabilities and project staff of all responsive proposals. The committee will rank proposers by the resulting scores and make a recommended award. The committee will summarize their findings and prepare an evaluation report to the Deputy Secretary for Administration. The report will then be presented to the Secretary of HRS. The Secretary will review the final report, pertinent supporting materials and make the determination of the final award, taking into consideration cost and other evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The Secretary reserves the right to take any additional administrative steps deemed necessary in determining the final award. (Emphasis added). Most importantly, Section 6.3(D) of the RFP dealing with the evaluation of the cost proposals stated: The points awarded for the three cost evaluation categories will be totaled and added to the points awarded for technical evaluation cate- gories 3 through 6 to determine the winning proposer. (Emphasis added). After reviewing and comparing the weighted scores of both proposals, the Evaluation Committee issued a "Final Report," with recommendations, on January 30, 1995. The weighted technical scores reflected in the Evaluation Committee's Final Report are as follows: DELOITTE UNISYS Corporate Capabilities 200 186.36 Project Staff 200 159.07 Technical Approach 100 76.62 Project Workplan 100 76.73 TOTAL 600 499 The weighted cost scores were: DELOITTE UNISYS Fixed Price Tasks 10.0 2.27 Monthly Price 357.90 380.0 Hourly Price 7.77 10.0 TOTAL 375.67 392.2 Totaling all categories as required by paragraph 6.3(D) of the RFP, the Department's Evaluation Committee arrived at the following final ranking: DELOITTE UNISYS Technical Proposal 600 499 Business Proposal 376 392 TOTAL 976 891 Based upon the Evaluation Committee's scores, Deloitte's demonstrated technical capability is 20 percent higher than that of Unisys. Under the terms of the RFP, there was no discretion involved in scoring the cost portion of the proposals, including the weight to be accorded costs in the final overall scoring to determine the winning bidder. Based upon HRS' inclusion of the specific criteria in the RFP, the cost portion scoring was merely a mechanical calculation. Both of the proposers' cost proposals fall within the agency's budgetary limits for the current year for accomplishing the work requested by the RFP. Four of the five members of the HRS Evaluation Committee recommended award of the contract to Deloitte, in the following language: Deloitte & Touche scored higher in all areas including recommendations. Deloitte and Touche is the incumbent contractor and therefore there are no risks associated with the transition. Deloitte understood the requirements of the RFP and addressed them more completely in their proposal. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the contract should be awarded to Deloitte & Touche. (Emphasis added). One member of the Evaluation Committee recommended the decision be left to the Secretary of HRS. None of the members of the HRS Evaluation Committee recommended award of the contract to Unisys. HRS SECRETARY'S DECISION TO AWARD TO UNISYS On January 27, 1995, prior to preparation of the recommendations contained in, or the issuance of, the Evaluation Committee's Final Report, HRS Secretary James Towey convened a meeting with Deputy Secretary Lowell Clary, John Holland, Bill Belleville and the department's legal counsel to discuss the contract award process, a draft of the Evaluation Committee's Final Report and other matters the Secretary felt relevant to HRS' ultimate decision on the RFP. At the meeting, Towey was informed by Bill Belleville that Deloitte's proposal was the "best." Towey was also informed by John Holland and Bill Belleville that both companies could perform under the contract. However, neither Holland's nor Belleville's assessments were based on responses to the RFP, but rather upon their own experience with the two vendors outside of this RFP process. Belleville conceded that he believed that a proposer was qualified to perform the contract by merely meeting the "mandatory" requirements of the RFP, a category that was accorded zero points in the scoring criteria. Informed that both companies could perform under the contract, Towey "zeroed in" on costs as the major consideration for the award of the contract. At the meeting, he considered a present-value calculation of the payments that the State would make over the course of a contract, if the contract had been for a 48 month term. The calculation had been prepared by Dean Modling, an HRS senior management analyst supervisor, although the RFP had been approved by the Department of Management Services without provision for such an analysis. The RFP not inform proposers that a present-value analysis would be performed and provision for the present-value of a contract was not included in the scoring criteria for the proposals. Present value calculation became an issue when it was raised and discussed at the January 27, 1995 meeting, and subsequently used in the Secretary's decision to award the contract to Unisys. Towey also considered, in deciding to award the contract to Unisys, a calculation of "raw costs," provided after the January 27, 1995 meeting. These "raw costs" were presented on two charts. Both added up the amounts submitted by each proposer for fixed price tasks and monthly costs, over 36 months. Although the RFP did not request, and neither proposer submitted costs for a 48 month contract, the two charts included a calculation for a hypothetical 48 month contract using the same monthly payments submitted for the 36 month contract. In addition, one of the two charts included a 5.8 percent factor for overtime, which was also not addressed by the RFP or by the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. There was no evaluation criteria contained in the RFP which dealt with the issue of "raw costs" over the term of the contract. Prior to the decision to award to Unisys, HRS never performed and Towey never considered a present value analysis for the 36 month contract period provided for in the RFP. Finally, as a result of concern expressed at the January 27, 1995 meeting regarding whether Unisys could handle the immediate tasks required by the contract, including requirements of the Child Support Enforcement and federal certification programs, Towey considered whether there would be any risk of transition if Unisys were unable to hire some of Deloitte's employees and subcontractors should he decide to award the contract to Unisys. Towey specifically requested Deputy Secretary Clary to research this issue. In order to obtain information, Clary had HRS personnel directly contact Deloitte's subcontractors. Clary responded to Towey three days later on January 30, 1995, the day before the decision by Towey to award the contract to Unisys, that Deloitte's subcontractors would not be prohibited from working for Unisys. Consideration of overtime and risk of transition were not criteria contained in the RFP, nor were these elements evaluated and scored by the HRS Evaluation Committee. By way of a January 31, 1995 memorandum to Clary announcing the award of the contract to Unisys, Towey stated: I have now had an opportunity to review the report of the evaluators of this RFP, the recommendations contained therein, the raw data submitted with the proposals, and the RFP. I understand the nature of the project and its importance to the agency. Based upon my review of the information presented to me and my understanding of similar projects in the past, my decision is to award the contract to Unisys as the proposal most advantageous to the state of Florida, taking into consideration the price and other criteria set forth in the RFP. Although I have considered the risk of transition to a new contractor, I find that I am unable to ignore the dollar savings which will result in awarding the contract to Unisys. Since you and your staff have assured me that both companies are technically competent to perform the work, I believe the monetary savings outweigh any risk that might exist in the transition of contractors. Therefore, I have determined that it is in the state's best interest to award the contract to Unisys. Please take whatever steps are necessary to implement this decision. (Emphasis added). By his actions, Towey exercised more than the prerogative conferred by the RFP to "take any additional administrative steps deemed necessary in determining the final award" and actually evaluated criteria other than that contained in the RFP in reaching his decision to award the contract to Unisys. Further, in awarding the contract to Unisys, Towey effectively altered the relative weight of the criteria as specified in the RFP. Towey relied upon the advice of Clary. Illustrative of Clary's perspective is his testimony at the final hearing that he believed the 60/40 weighting contained in the RFP to be inapplicable to decision making by the Secretary of HRS. Neither Bill Belleville nor John Holland reviewed, in detail, the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Neither performed their own independent analysis of the responses. Further, Clary never reviewed the RFP nor the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. In the course of his decision making process with regard to award of the contract to Unisys, Towey relied on the advice of Clary, Belleville and Holland, referred to by Towey as his "top managers", despite their undisputed lack of familiarity with the Deloitte and Unisys proposals. While his memorandum dated January 31, 1995, states he reviewed the RFP, Towey admitted in his testimony at the final hearing that he had not personally reviewed the document. Further, he never reviewed or performed his own analysis of the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The members of the Evaluation Committee members were the only persons to fully and carefully evaluate the two proposals and score them under the criteria contained in the RFP. Since that time, no one else from HRS has attempted to reevaluate or re-score the proposals. Neither Towey nor anyone else involved in the January 27, 1995 meeting disagrees with the analysis and scoring of the proposals by the Evaluation Committee. PRESENT-VALUE ANALYSIS Section 1.2 of the RFP, states, in part: This RFP will result in a thirty-six month contract. Further, Section 4.12(C) of the RFP states, in part: Upon selection of the winning proposal, the department shall enter into a contract for thirty-six (36) months. Although the possibility of renewal of the contract for a maximum of a single, one year term is contained in the RFP, there is no provision in the RFP which requires that HRS renew the contract after 36 months or that the contractor accept a renewal after 36 months for any specific term. By the terms of the RFP, any renewal of the contract for a period beyond the 36 month term is subject to negotiation between the contractor and the department. While proposals submitted by Unisys and Deloitte commit to maintaining the same costs in the event of renewal, negotiation as to the length, price and staffing for any renewal period less than a year, is not excluded by the terms of the RFP. Neither HRS nor the contractor is bound, under the terms of the RFP, to any extension of the contract. HRS' own manual, HRSP 75-3, entitled "Developing a Request for Proposal," states, in the section on contract renewals: If Contract Renewals have been provided for in this RFP, include the following recommended language in the Special Provisions subsection of the RFP: This contract may be renewed on a yearly basis not to exceed two (2) years beyond the initial contract or for a period no longer than the term of the original contract whichever period is longer. Such renewals shall be contingent upon satisfactory performance evaluations as determined by the department and shall be subject to the availability of funds. As specified in the provider's response to the RFP/ITB, the total cost for the contract under the' first year renewal will not exceed $ and the second year renewal will not exceed $ . Each renewal shall be confirmed in writing and shall be subject to the same terms and conditions set forth in the initial contract. (Emphasis added). Another in-house document at HRS is HRS manual, HRSM 75-2 (May 1, 1994 update), entitled "Contract Management System for Contractual Services". Chapter 5 of that document, entitled "Contractual Procurement Requirements," states, in pertinent part: The dollar amount and the manner in which the costs for the . . . renewals will be calculated must be specified in the response to the RFP and in the resulting contract document. By contrast, the RFP contains none of the language specified in either HRS manual regarding renewal. Section 4.12(c) of the RFP merely states: This contract term shall be renewable for a max- imum of a one year term upon the mutual agreement in writing of the contractor and the department. (Emphasis added). Terms of the RFP did not invite proposers to submit a specific cost or any other information for a renewal period or explain how costs for a renewal period would be calculated. Neither did the RFP contain any language that renewals would be conditioned on satisfactory performance by the contractor. Proposers, on blank cost forms, were requested in the RFP to provide HRS with their proposed prices for fixed price items, monthly costs and hourly costs. The forms, contrary to the requirements of HRS manuals applicable in situations where information for a renewal term is requested, did not provide a place for proposers to indicate costs for any renewal term or to demonstrate how those costs were calculated. Both contractors understood that any renewal would be subject to negotiation. The "Standard Contract" contained in the RFP provides only for a term of 36 months and a cost for that specific contract term. Consistent with the terms of the RFP that the contract was for a 36 month term, HRS submitted, on more than one occasion, materials to ITRPAC. In those materials, HRS represented that the proposed budget amounts of $25 million and $28 million for the project were for a three year term contract. The Notice of Award which HRS issued stated that a three year contract was to be awarded. Although the RFP addressed staffing at a maximum of 107 persons, HRS was aware that 100 percent staffing might not always occur. Section 2.l(B)(5) of the RFP permits 90 percent of the maximum staffing level at a given time without the vendor incurring a penalty. At one point in the RFP preparation, a draft of the RFP required 95 percent staffing. Even that level was considered by HRS to be too restrictive and anti-competitive and was amended to 90 percent out of fear that a 95 percent staffing level would discourage submission of competitive proposals. The 90 percent figure was also used in the RFP to account, in part, for projected attrition of contractor employees that HRS had historically experienced on this project. From the standpoint of budgetary allowances by HRS for the project, it is realistic to believe that the job will be staffed at somewhere between 90 percent and 95 percent rather than at the maximum staffing level of 107 employees. Although Section 4.15(D)(5) of the RFP states that the State is not responsible for paying contractor's employees for leave or vacation time, the testimony of Petitioner's financial expert, Dr. Elton Scott, establishes that a reasonable assumption is to assume that each employee is entitled to, and would take, at least two weeks vacation. Such an assumption should also be included when performing a present value analysis, particularly when assuming 100 percent staffing. Depending on budget allocations for this project, it is possible that HRS would only require that the contractor provide as few as 46 employees. The present value calculation performed by HRS indicated that, over 48 months, at 100 percent staffing (107 employees), the monetary cost of awarding the contract to Unisys would be approximately $500,000 less than the cost of awarding the contract to Deloitte, a savings of approximately 1.5 percent over the term of the contract. As demonstrated by HRS' subsequent present value calculation performed at final hearing in this cause, for the 36 month actual contract period, at maximum staffing, HRS would realize a savings of no more than $39,802 by awarding the contract to Unisys, a savings of less than 2/10ths of 1 percent. None of HRS' present value calculations accounted for leave/vacation time or for any staffing levels under 100 percent for any other reasons. Based upon the terms of the RFP, the language of HRS' procurement manuals, and the expert testimony of Dr. Scott, any valid present-value analysis should have included a 36 month term contract. Any such analysis should also have taken into account varying levels of staffing, leave/vacation time, and overtime if staffed at the minimum required. A properly performed present-value analysis indicates that Deloitte's proposal is less expensive than the Unisys proposal in the following amounts over a 36 month contract term, at the staffing levels indicated: Employees Leave/Vacation Time Overtime Deloitte Savings 107 2 weeks none $12,791 96 none none $109,062 96 none 5.8 percent $ 18,327 46 none none $844,473 (Pet. Exh. 15) The only scenario in which the Unisys proposal is less costly than the Deloitte proposal, using the proper present value analysis, would be at 107 employees, with no accounting for leave time. This unlikely future scenario would result in a savings of no more than $47,378, or less than 2/10ths of l percent of the contract amount over 36 months. Because it requires an up-front payment of more than $1,600,000 (as compared to $78,000 for Deloitte), the Unisys proposal places the State of Florida at substantially more financial risk than the Deloitte proposal in the event of nonperformance by Unisys. On February 1, 1995, HRS posted its notice of intent to award the Contract to Unisys. Deloitte filed its timely notice of intent to protest on February 3, 1995, and filed its timely formal protest and request for hearing on February 13, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which declines the award to Unisys and takes into account the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding the future course of contracting for the services sought by the RFP. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made with regard to purposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Intervenor's Proposed Findings: Adopted. Adopted as to 1st sentence. Remainder not relevant with exception of last sentence which is adopted. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 6.-7. Rejected, cumulative. 8. Accepted. 9.-10. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, cumulative. 15.-17. Rejected, subordinate. 18.-20. Rejected, relevance. 21.-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 24.-25. Accepted. 26.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 30. Accepted. 31.-36. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, opinion, weight of the evidence. 39.-41. Rejected, subordinate. Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1.-3. Adopted, not verbatim. 1.-6. Adopted by reference. 7. Rejected, relevance. 8.-9. Rejected, cumulative, unnecessary. 10.-12. Accepted. 13. Rejected, cumulative. 14.-16. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 20.-21. Rejected, argument. 22.-23. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 24. Rejected, argument. 25.-27. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 28.-29. Rejected, relevance. 30.-31. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. 35.-36. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected, argument, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance, argument. 41.-42. Rejected, argument. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, 20 percent difference, improper characterization. Rejected, relevance, argument. Rejected, argument, subordinate. Rejected, redundant, subordinate. Rejected, legal conclusion. Rejected, relevance, argument, lack of credible evidence. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argumentative, legal conclusion. Rejected, legal conclusion, argument. Rejected, legal conclusion. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1.-43. Accepted, though not verbatim in some instances. 44. Subordinate to HO findings. 45.-48. Accepted. Subordinate. Accepted. Subordinate. 52.-70. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esq. Red D. Ware, Esq. Huey, Guilday & Tucker, P.A. 106 E. College Ave., Ste. 900 Tallahassee, FL 32301 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 W. Robert Vezina, III Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. 1004 DeSoto Park Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32302 Steven A. Blaske Unisys Corporation 4151 Ashford Dunwoody Rd. Atlanta, GA 30319 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Barbara Clark and Company, a CPA firm. Barbara Clark owns and operates the company. The Respondent issued a Request for Proposal, RFP Number 7112, for CPA audit services. The Petitioner responded to the RFP along with four other proposers. The award for RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, was to be made to the two (2) companies who received the highest number of points based on individual evaluations by four (4) people selected for the RFP review committee. The evaluation criteria to be used by the review committee members was specified in Section 1.16 of the RFP and involved review of the management and technical aspects of a given proposal. The committee members for the RFP were instructed by the FAMU Purchasing Director to use the criteria as outlined in Section 1.16 in the process of evaluating the management and technical plans of the respective proposals and that each member should evaluate and score each proposal independent from the other committee members. The evaluations by each member were placed in a sealed envelope. The proposals submitted in response to RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, were reviewed by the evaluation committee members. After the members completed their review, they met as a group with the Purchasing Director. The sealed envelopes which contained the individual committee members' evaluation sheets for each proposal were opened and the points for each proposer were determined by adding the points for each respective proposal. The evaluation of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, occurred pursuant to the evaluation criteria in RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services. No committee member testified. There was absolutely no evidence submitted by Petitioner which demonstrated that the committee members did not follow the specifications of the RFP. Likewise, there was a lack of evidence that the evaluation process established in the RFP was arbitrary or capricious. The two (2) proposers that received the highest number of points were recommended for the award of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services. Petitioner's proposal was not evaluated as having either of the highest point totals for RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services and therefore did not receive an award of the contract. The FAMU Purchasing Director, Oscar Martinez, sent to each proposer by certified letter, return receipt, notification of the intended award of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, to the two proposers with the highest number of points. The FAMU Purchasing Director, Oscar Martinez, discussed the results of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, with Barbara Clark after he mailed the intended award notification to the proposers. A mathematical error in the calculation of points for one of the proposers was discovered and corrected. The error had no effect on the rankings of the proposers and was therefore an immaterial discrepancy in the award of the RFP. Petitioner utterly failed to establish that the intended award pursuant to RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, was not in good faith and not the result of a fair, full and honest exercise of the agency's discretion in making such an award. Likewise Petitioner utterly failed to establish that Respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously in its intended award of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services. After a review of the evidence Petitioner's protest of the intended award of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, was clearly without merit and lacked factual or legal support and was therefore frivolous and improper. Indeed the barest attempt was made by Petitioner to prepare or pursue evidence for the hearing in this matter. Although Respondent consulted with Petitioner and provided Petitioner information regarding RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, Petitioner persisted in pursuing its protest of the intended award of the RFP. Petitioner continued its protest of RFP Number 7112, CPA audit services, long after it was or should have been aware that it had no factual or legal grounds for such a protest causing Respondent's attorney to spend 13 hours in preparation for this case. However, Respondent did not submit an affidavit from another attorney who reviewed the file and number of hours spent by Respondent's attorney and attested to the reasonableness of the hours spent or the fee charged. Therefore, Respondent's motion for attorney's fees is denied.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the protest be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX CASE NO. 96-1371 1. The facts contained in paragraphs 1-28 of Respondent's proposed findings of fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: George W. Butler, Esquire Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Office of the General Counsel 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307 Barbara A. Clark Barbara A. Clark and Company 270 First Avenue South, Suite 101 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Frank T. Brogan, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael Olenick, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bishop Holifield, Esquire Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32307-3100
