The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Services acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, capriciously, illegally or dishonestly in issuing an award of bid or HRS Lease No. 590:2069 to Harpaul S. Ohri.
Findings Of Fact Sometime before March, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) requested and received approval from the Department of General Services (DGS) for additional office space to provide social services in the western portion of Orlando, Orange County, Florida, including a food stamp distribution office. HRS was authorized to procure, through competitive bidding, a lease for 17,250 net rentable square feet of existing office space, plus or minus 3 percent. The said lease was to provide for a full service period of seven years and two options to renew for three years each at specified rates, with occupancy no later than December 1, 1989 or 175 days after the bid award is finalized. The geographic area designated in the bid package for the office space was limited to the following area of Orange County, Florida: Beginning at the intersection of Colonial Drive and Kirkman Road to the intersection of L.B. McLeod Road, then east on L.B. McLeod Road to the, intersection of Rio Grande Avenue then north on Rio Grande Avenue to the, intersection of Colombia Street,, then east on Colombia Street to Interstate 4, then north on Interstate 4 to the intersection of Colonial Drive, then west on Colonial Drive to the point of Beginning. Public notice that HRS was seeking competitive bids was given and HRS prepared a document entitled Invitation to Bid for Existing Office Space (ITB), which set forth in detail all of HRS requirements. The purpose of the ITB was to inform all potential bidders of the minimum requirements for submitting a responsive bid, and the specific criteria by which the bids would be evaluated. Specific areas of importance to Respondent as reflected in the ITB and addressed by the evidence herein were as follows: 17,250 net rentable square feet (plus or minus 3 percent) of existing office space. General office use for use, as a client service center. Seven year term with two options to renew of three years each. 120 off-street, on-site, full size parking spots designated exclusively for use of Department employees and clients, suitably paved and lined, with a minimum of two for the handicapped. Availability of public transportation within reasonable proximity. Availability to adequate dining facilities within two miles. Photographs of the exterior front of the facility, along with documentation of present facility configuration and parking areas including access and egress to public roadways. Availability of elevator for multi-story use. i). Space requirement criteria: Minimum telephone requirements. Back-up interior emergency lighting. Three separate sets of rest rooms, male and female, one meeting the needs of the handicapped General security requirements. Specific security requirements for food stamp distribution center. Window covering over exterior widows to allow both sunlight and energy control; if bidded space without existing windows, then all rooms comprising the exterior of the building would require windows measuring approximately 24 x 36, all secured and inoperable. Full Service including all utilities and janitorial. The evaluation factors and their relative weights were stated in the ITB as follows: Evaluation Criteria The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated on the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental rates for basic term of lease Evaluated using present value methodology by application of the present value discount rate of 8.69 percent. (Weighting: 25) Rental rates for optional renewal of terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Associated moving costs, i.e., furniture, equipment, telephone systems, etc,. (Weighting: 5) Location Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of map boundaries. (Weighting: 10) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space. (Weighting: 10) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of the departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 10) Facility Susceptibility of design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting 15) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be con- sidered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) TOTAL POSSIBLE 100 percent The bid package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Sealed bids were submitted by three bidders, Petitioner, Harpaul S. Ohri and Kensington Gardens Builders Corp. The bids were opened on April 25, 1989, and Ernie Wilson, HRS District 7 Facilities Services Manager, determined that all three bids were responsive, and within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. The District Administrator appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade, the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to him the committees choice of the lowest and best bid. Four individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space and familiar with the bid process were appointed to the Committee. On or about May 1, 1990 the bid evaluation committee determined that the bid of Harpaul S. Ohri was the "lowest and best bid" and submitted its determination, in writing, to the District Administrator who, subsequently approved the selection. On or about June 26, 1989, on behalf of the Department, Ernie Wilson, Facilities Services Manager, notified the bidders of the Departments intent to award the bid to Harpaul S. Ohri, as being in the best interest of the Department. The bid evaluation committee consisted of four representatives of the Department who visited two of the three bidders sites and questioned the bidders representatives. The members of the committee were familiar with the Petitioners site from previous experience. They choose not to make an on-site visit prior to completing the bid evaluation sheet, although instructed to do so on the Evaluation Committee Duties and Responsibilities/Real Property, Leasing instruction sheet. Each committee member completed an evaluation sheet and gave a higher total score to Mr. Ohri. The three major bid evaluation criteria were Fiscal Cost, Location and Facility. Under the Fiscal Cost criterion were three sub-categories: Rental Rates, Renewal Rates, and Moving Costs. For Rental Rates, Petitioner received an average of 22.7 points out of 30 possible,, while Ohri received 21.7, and Kensington Gardens received 23.7 points. The points were individually assessed by the evaluation committee, after the rental rates were compared by Ernie Wilson based on the present value analysis of bidders proposed rates. For Renewal Rates, each of the bidders, including Petitioner, received 5 points out of 10 possible. The present value analysis was not applied, as was noted in the ITB. However, even a cursory examination of the renewal rates submitted by the bidders shows that there is a 15 percent to 33 percent yearly differential in the rates, with the Petitioners rates as the lowest and Kensington Gardens as the highest. Although the committee assigned all three bidders an equal rating, the renewal rates submitted by the bidders were not equal should the Department wish to exercise its options, the rates submitted by Petitioner were substantially lower than the other two bidders and would result in a cost savings to the Department of several hundred thousand of dollars. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Moving Costs, Petitioner received 5 points on each of the committee members sheets, while Ohri received 4 points and Kensington Gardens received, an average of 3.7 points. The maximum points possible was 5 points. Petitioner was awarded the maximum points because HRS is presently in the same building and no moving costs would be experienced. The other two bidders were awarded 4 points each by committee members. That determination was based on each members personal experiences. No cost or time lost data was provided or requested. The LOCATION criterion also had three sub-categories: Proximity to other governmental agencies - 10 points - with all three bidders receiving the same rating; Public Transportation -10 points - with all three ,bidders, receiving the same rating; and Environmental Factors - 10 points - out of which Petitioner received an average of 5.7 points; Ohri - 9.7 points and Kensington Gardens - 6.5 points. In considering the proximity to other governmental agencies of each of the facilities being considered, the committee relied on their own knowledge of the area. They determined that since each was within the geographical area designated in the ITB, each was equally distant from the most frequently visited government agencies in the vicinity. However, Petitioners facility is the most centrally located of the three facilities offered, while the two other facilities were considerably distant from other government agencies. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. For Public Transportation, the committee determined that local bus service went near each of the three facilities. They were neither provided, nor did they request, route maps, schedules or passenger capacity for buses servicing each facility. Petitioners facility is centralized in the area served within the bid district, and serviced by, numerous bus lines which pass near the facility ten times per hour. The bus service to the other two facilities are limited to four buses per hour, with buses having a smaller capacity. In addition, most clients would be required to travel to the central bus terminal and transfer to a different route in order, to reach the Ohri or Kensington Gardens facilities, making bus transportation a very time-consuming process. No other form of transportation is available, except for taxi service. In addition, in order for a client to walk from the nearest bus stop to the Ohri facility, a person would cross two heavily traveled six lane streets and then walk across an open shopping center parking lot. This would require approximately a fifteen minute walk. In order to reach Petitioners facility, a client would require approximately a five minute walk utilizing public sidewalks. The committee did not consider these facts in its evaluation. The award factor points should not have been awarded equally. (c)(1). For Environmental Factors, the committee considered each buildings physical characteristics and the surrounding area. The committee, in their letter to the District Administrator, dated May 1, 1989, identified this category as "a very critical area for the new lease." The letter also stated: "The committee took the following into account when evaluating this section: Cleanliness of the building aid surrounding areas. Lack of traffic congestion by motorized vehicles close to the facility. Easiness of getting to and from the facility by vehicle. Safety for clients and staff walking to and from the facility. Upkeep of the surrounding buildings or other sections of the bidders building." The following was also taken into account when evaluating this section, but was not so stated in the letter. At least one committee member believed the lack of window space in Petitioners facility was disabling to his bid, and that the willingness of the Ohri representative to install windows on exterior walls was a significant factor in her determination of award. At least one committee member indicated that future expansion was a substantial factor in her favoring the Ohri bid, and that there was janitorial and security problems at Petitioners facility. The committee received no other information other than the committee members opinion regarding the same. The committee as a whole erroneously believed that the extra square footage visible at the Ohri facility at the time of their inspection would necessarily be available to HRS if and when it might expand its offices. Future expansion was specifically removed from the ITB at the pre-bid conference and it was clearly erroneous for them to have included this factor in their bid evaluation. The ITB specifically calls for the installation of exterior windows by the winning bid prior to occupancy. However, none of the committee members reviewed the ITB or the actual bids submitted. They relied primarily on the synopsis of the bids prepared by Ernie Wilson. The ITB states substantial general and specific security requirements in detail; however, the evaluation criteria forms do not provide a category for evaluating security other than generally under the sub-category of environmental factors. The ITB, under General Specifications and Requirements, called for the availability of adequate dining facilities within two miles of the proposed facility. The evaluation criteria did not provide a category for the committee to rate dining facility availability. In consideration of the environmental factors, the committee overlooked or failed to consider a hazardous unfenced high voltage transmission station adjacent to the Ohri facility. In addition, the photographs submitted by Ohri as the front of the building (as required by the ITB) are in fact the rear of the building which was not offered as part of the proposed leased facility. Of the three sub-categories under FACILITY, out of 15 possible points, Petitioner received an average rating of 9.5, Ohri received an average of 13.7 and Kensington Gardens received 11.2 for Layout/Utilization. Ohri received the most points because his building configuration was a, shell and was more flexible and could be reconfigured for more efficient layout to suit the Departments needs. All three bidders submitted proposals wherein the total square footage of rentable space was to be contained in a Single Building. Therefore, all three bidders received the maximum 10 points. A maximum 5 points was provided for facilities with Street-level space. All three bidders were awarded the maximum 5 points. However, a portion of Petitioners space was offered on the second floor, a fact which the committee overlooked. The Petitioner should not have received the full 5 points for having street-level space. The unanimous recommendation of the evaluation was to award the lease to Ohri. In reaching that conclusion, the committee did not properly utilize the weighted bid criteria and, in addition, included improper bid considerations in their evaluation of the three facilities. Some of the reasons given by the committee for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. However, others were erroneous and improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for lease number 590:2069 and issue a new invitation to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Accepted: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 (in substance, except for subparagraphs f, g, j and k which are not relevant), 10 (in substance), 12(a), (b), (f-in substance), (g-in substance), (h-in substance), (j), (k-in substance), (l-in substance), (p-in substance). Rejected: Not relevant: paragraphs 4, 12(c), (d), (e), (m), (n), (o), (p- the proposed future location of the Greyhound Station; insure wooded area nearby), (q), (r). Argument: paragraphs 11 and 13. Procedural matters, covered in the preliminary statement: paragraphs 8 and 14. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence W. Ackert, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Suite 1402 Orlando, Florida James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District 7 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September 2002.
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 The College realized that it needed a new telecommunication system about three years ago, when it began to renovate some of its buildings. On June 8, 1992, the College issued an Invitation To Bid, No. 3656, to eight vendors to replace its fifteen-year-old AT&T Dimension Private Branch Exchange (PBX) System and install a voice and data communications network among the College's four campuses. The bids were to be opened at 2:30 p.m. on July 29, 1992. The College believed replacement of the existing PBX system would result in lower operating costs, permit the system to serve more functions and permit the system to expand as the College's needs grew. Two vendors, NEC and AT & T, submitted bids. The College already has gone through two prior bids for the new PBX system, which did not result in contracts with any of the bidders. AT&T had submitted a bid in response to each of those attempts to let a contract for replacement of the College's communications system. The process of developing the bid specifications was initiated by the College's Vice President for Business Affairs, Dr. Clinton Hamilton, who asked those who would be using the communications system (the Registrar, the Learning Resources Department, the Provost, and others) to explain their needs so they could be incorporated in the new system. He also asked College employees familiar with information systems and telecommunication systems to help draft the bid documents to incorporate the functions the users desired. The College received assistance from a committee made up of representatives of the State's Department of General Services, Division of Communications; the State Department of Education; Miami Dade Community College; Nova University; and the School Board of Broward County. These groups reviewed the proposed bid specifications before each of the College's three attempts to let a contract and advised the College on them. The College made a careful effort to craft its specifications to ensure it would purchase the most appropriate communications system for its needs. The College currently has separate and independent voice and data communications systems. For data, each of the College's locations (South campus, Central campus, North campus and the College's administrative center in Fort Lauderdale) use more than one data circuit (AT&T Exhibit 5; Bid page D-1). For example, the eight controllers at the South campus are connected to the Fort Lauderdale Center by a pair of data circuits. The 15 controllers at the Central campus are linked to the Fort Lauderdale Center by four data circuits. If the controllers associated with one data circuit should go down for some reason, those connected to the other data circuits at campus will continue to operate, and the campus will only suffer "partial paralysis." The bid at issue seeks a single "voice and data T-1 network" to link each of the campuses to Fort Lauderdale Center in a unified system, which eliminates the need for separate voice and data systems. The new system is designed so that controllers at each campus will communicate with the mainframe computer at Fort Lauderdale Center through T-1 trunk lines, the same lines connecting the voice telephone system at each campus. Each campus will have its own PBX system, and the T-1 lines will allow users at each campus to place telephone calls to extensions at all campuses internally, i.e., without leaving the College's own network. They can also use the local Southern Bell network to place calls if all internal lines are in use, just as the Southern Bell network is used to place calls to numbers outside the College's campuses. Connection of the voice system (the PBX equipment) and data terminals at each of the College's three campuses to the Fort Lauderdale Center requires the use of multiplexors, devices which improve efficiency in networks by concentrating and combining signals and switching them over connecting links (i.e., the T-1 circuits) to other locations or devices. The bid solicitation document requires a multiplexor known as a "40- Series" multiplexor at each campus to perform the concentrating and combining role. The bid solicitation document also specifies a single multiplexor of a more complex type, a "45-Series" multiplexor, at the Fort Lauderdale Center. This multiplexor performs the switching function to redirect signals from one location to another. The bid solicitation document instructs bidders to supply a Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a type of software to operate the hardware components. Comsphere is manufactured by a wholly owned subsidiary of AT & T, known as "AT&T Paradyne." This software manages the entire network, and allows remote troubleshooting of any problems on the network, Comsphere's system can automatically dial out to the AT&T Paradyne Center in Largo, Florida, so that a technician can investigate and often solve problems without the need to send anyone to a campus to perform maintenance. On July 7, 1992, the College held a bidders conference to explain the bid documents and their requirements, in order to insure that the bids the College received would be accurate and complete. During that conference, the vendors were told: (1) any price corrections must be initialed or the bid would be disqualified; (2) all pages of the bid documents which contain signature lines had to be signed; (3) bidders could not modify the general conditions or special conditions of the bid documents; and (4) any questions about the specifications would be answered only by written addendum. The same instructions can be found in text of the bid solicitation document (AT&T Exhibit 4). The College issued Addendum One to its bid documents on July 9, 1992, Addendum Two on July 14, 1992, and Addendum Three July 22, 1992. Addendum Two is the source of the dispute here. As is the College's practice, all bids were opened publicly after the hour for the receipt of bids had passed on July 29, 1992. Each bid submission had two parts. The first was a bid summary sheet containing a required format for the vendor's price. The second part of the submissions were bound volumes explaining how the vendor would satisfy each of the specific requirements in the bid specifications. During the bid opening, a College employee opened the sealed envelopes containing the vendor's bid summary sheet, and read aloud the prices found on each bidder's summary sheet. Page 13, paragraph 19.6 of the Bid Specifications told bidders that the bid summary sheets must recite the total bid price for the entire system, which had to include any upgrades to the standard features of the vendor's equipment so that the equipment provided would meet the College's specifications. When the bids were opened, representatives of AT & T, AT&T Paradyne, and NEC were present. As the bid summary sheets were opened and the prices announced, no one from AT&T objected to the prices read out or contended there was an error in AT&T'S pricing. The College's Director of Purchasing, Janet Rickenbacker, and the senior buyer handling the acquisition, Susan Kuzenka, then reviewed the extensive responses to the specifications submitted by the two bidders. They determined that NEC was the low responsive bidder. The amount AT&T bid based on the bid summary sheet found in its sealed bid was $1,558,836.57, NEC's bid was $1,549,895.15. 1/ After the bid opening, Mr. Zinn of AT&T had two conversations with Ms. Kuzenka about the AT&T bid. These conversations focused on the conflict in the entry for system maintenance on the bid summary sheet for AT&T which had been opened and read aloud on July 22, 1992, and the backup data for the system maintenance figure found in a section of AT&T'S bid response documents. On the bid summary page, AT&T had listed its "four-year maintenance totals M[onday] through F[riday] 8 a.m. through 5 p.m." as $755,536.16. But on page 53 of its bound bid response, AT&T listed the "total maintenance" cost as $530,204.00. This lesser figure is consistent with other maintenance price information found on page 61 of the AT&T bound bid documents, which set out total monthly maintenance costs for Monday through Friday maintenance from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for all four college locations as $11,045.92 per month. If this monthly figure is multiplied by the maintenance term (48 months) the sum is the $530,204.00 shown on page 53. During his first conversation, however, Mr. Zinn told Ms. Kuzenka that the higher figure of $755,536.16 was correct, because AT&T had neglected to add in the maintenance for the AT&T Paradyne multiplexor in the entries in the bound bid documents at pages 53 and 61. During a second conversation, Mr. Zinn reversed his position and indicated that he had added the maintenance for the multiplexor twice, which resulted in an erroneously high figure of $755,536.16 on the bid summary sheet, and that the $530,204 figure on page 53 was correct. One week after the bid opening, on August 5, 1992, AT&T sent a fax letter to Ms. Kuzenka, which confirmed Mr. Zinn's second conversation, and stated that the correct maintenance price was the $530,204.00 found on page 53 of the AT&T bid, rather than the $755,536.16 figure found on its bid summary sheet. Ms. Kuzenka had not asked anyone from AT&T to submit this price change to its bid, and it was not accepted by the College, under its standard policy that price changes will not be accepted once a sealed bid has been received and opened. The College has consistently adhered to this practice through the entire term of Ms. Kuzenka's employment. While a lower maintenance price can be found in one portion of the voluminous response of AT&T to the Bid Specifications, the figure on the bid summary sheet controls. See the "Special Instructions" found at page 5 of the bid solicitation documents (AT&T Exhibit 4). A bidder should not be permitted to look for ambiguities in the supporting documentation to contradict clear entries of price components found on its bid summary sheet. Use of the bid summary sheet permits the College to rely on a specific portion of the bid submission, which will be comparable from bidder to bidder, and to avoid wading through voluminous and perhaps internally inconsistent submissions to try to determine exactly what the bidder's price is. The "Special Instructions" state: "Bidder must use bid pages provided by the College and submit bid in the order issued; failure to do so will result in rejection of your bid" (AT&T'S Exhibit 4). Over and above the maintenance price differential, the College staff found the submission by AT&T to be materially non-responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Ms. Kuzenka found five problems with the AT&T submission, which led her to conclude that the response submitted by AT&T failed to meet the bid specifications: (1) AT&T qualified or modified the terms and conditions of the specifications; (2) price corrections were not initialed by AT & T; (3) the maintenance contract was partially assigned to another vendor; (4) the bid was not signed by AT&T on all pages which have required signature lines; and (5) AT&T failed to provide a qualification statement. Modification of terms and conditions The College's bid document stated in paragraph 54.1 that the terms and conditions of the bid and purchase order constitute the contract and "no other terms and conditions apply" (Tr. 157). The maintenance agreement, titled "Product Agreement," which is appended to the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan is a standard AT&T form (College Exhibit 6). It contains a provision in paragraph 20G., which states "THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LOCAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY" (emphasis in original). The general conditions of the bid required that the contract be governed by Florida law (Tr. 152). AT&T argues that the standard product agreement it attached to its bid response had not been signed by a representative of AT & T, and that the College had the right to accept or reject the terms of the Service Offerings and Support Plans and the attachments to it. This is true, but the inclusion in its bid response of the New Jersey choice of law provision certainly creates an ambiguity over the applicable law, if AT&T'S bid were accepted. This ambiguity would be completely avoided had it not been proposed by AT & T, in contravention of the bid's general conditions. Paragraph 2 of the Product Agreement states "Terms and conditions on any non-AT&T order form shall not apply." Fairly read, AT&T was attempting to have its duties under its standard Product Agreement governed by the laws of New Jersey, not the laws of Florida. As a matter of sovereignty, Florida agencies do not subject themselves to foreign law. The College acted within its legitimate range of discretion when it rejected the choice of law provision as inconsistent with its bid documents. The same problem is caused by similar language in paragraph 12F of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The AT&T Product Agreement also has an integration clause, Paragraph 20H, stating that it constitutes the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes any other oral or written agreements. This provision also attempts to modify the terms and conditions of the bid specifications to give the terms of AT &T's Service Offerings and Support Plan priority over the specifications. The College was entitled to reject this as inconsistent with the bid specifications. The same problem is presented by similar language in paragraph 12G of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The Service Offerings and Support Plan also contained a provision allowing AT&T to assign the agreement, which violates the anti-assignment provisions of paragraph 56.1 of the bid specifications. AT&T'S bid response stated that the College would be required to pay the cost for installing any additional cable. The bid specifications required vendors to inspect existing facilities at the College during a pre-bid walk- through, so that bidders could determine whatever cabling would be needed, and incorporate all necessary cable in their bid price. AT&T'S attempt to make the College liable for any cabling over and above that estimated by AT&T when submitting its bid is inconsistent with the bid specifications. The AT&T submission includeds a statement that the College was obligated to pay for the cost of a site survey to be performed by the project manager before the execution of the contract. Yet a site survey had already been performed, and the bidder's price was to have been inclusive of a total system, with no additional cost to the College for items such as surveys. Finally, the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan required the College to provide, at the College's expense, a secured and protected area for storage of tools and equipment near the equipment room, which was not part of the bid specifications. At the walk-through, AT&T should have determined whatever its security needs were and included those costs in its bid price. In essence, AT&T submitted preprinted forms without tailoring them to the carefully crafted requirements of the College's bid specifications. It cannot now disavow the contents of its forms which violate or fail to conform to these specifications. The time to review the company's standard forms was before they were submitted in its bid response, not afterward. Price correction There is a price correction on page 48 of the AT&T bid which is not initialed. The bid specifications require that "all corrections, manual or written or white-out must be initialed by the person signing the bid" (Bid Specifications, page 63, paragraph C). This was not done. The specifications stated "Failure to initial price corrections will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 2). Assignment provisions There was also confusion in the AT&T bid arising from the attachment of two proposed maintenance agreements, one from AT&T itself, another from AT&T Paradyne. The two maintenance contracts are not identical. 2/ College personnel believed that one contract was for part of the equipment, while the other contract was for another block of equipment. The College had been concerned about the difficulty in having to deal with different companies; it had drawn its specifications so that the bidder would be the single entity responsible to the College for maintenance. The submission of a proposed maintenance contract from an entity other than the bidder was inconsistent with the bid specifications. Signature Not all pages with signature lines had been signed by AT&T'S representative. These included page D1, which had a bearing on the equipment allowance being provided for the existing system traded in by the College. While AT&T regards these failures as trivial, the College went to pains to require bidders to sign pages with signature lines. Page 5 of the Bid Specifications stated: "Failure to sign all pages with a signature line will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 3). It is not arbitrary for the College to insist that these requirements be followed or to enforce the penalty stated in the specifications. Qualifications statement The special conditions for the bid required that vendors submit a qualifications statement listing similar work done for others (Tr. 168; Bid Specifications Section 25.1 at page 25). The College intended to consult those listed to determine whether they were satisfied with the equipment the vendor installed and the service it provided. AT&T did not provide that list, but rather provided an annual report which contains no customer references. This was not responsive to the bid. The College had experience with AT&T'S fifteen- year-old Dimension system, but not with the new equipment AT&T bid. The failure to submit the qualifications statement deprived the College of the opportunity to check with entities which had purchased the equipment AT&T had bid, something it had been careful to require of bidders. Deciding how to treat these inadequacies is a matter of discretion. Staff recommended rejection of the AT&T bid for genuine instances of noncompliance with specific requirements of the bid specifications the College had carefully crafted. This action cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The College's decision The College's purchasing department recommended to Dr. Hamilton that the bid be awarded to NEC as the low responsive bidder. A bid tabulation was posted on August 7, 1992, awarding the contract to NEC and rejecting AT&T'S bid. The protest AT&T filed a Notice of Protest, and later a Formal Written Protest on August 18, 1992, which dealt with a number of technical aspects, but did not claim that NEC's rival submission failed to conform to the bid specifications. Dr. Hamilton advised the College's president that, to be fair to both bidders, an outside consultant should be retained to evaluate the issues raised by AT&T in its Formal Written Protest. This was done, and the College retained Technology Associates for $8,600 to report to the College on the issues raised by AT & T. Technology Associates found that AT&T did not meet the emergency 911 requirements outlined in the College's bid documents. Southern Bell requires that when 911 calls are made from the College, the telephone system be capable of identifying to the police dispatcher which campus, which room and which extension number originated the emergency 911 call. The consultant also found that NEC's system met this requirement. AT&T did not attempt to refute this determination at the final hearing. The consultant found that AT&T'S proposed system was "over designed," in that it included elements not required by the bid documents. AT&T argues that Addendum Two, issued on July 14, 1992, 14 days before the bid opening, was so ambiguous with respect to necessary redundancy that the two bidders were bidding on fundamentally different systems, so that the matter should be bid for a fourth time. The portion of the addendum at issue states: The College requires two additional T-1 lines; not one as previously stated, to be added to diagram D-2 to ensure redundancy. A T-1 line is to connect North Campus with Central Campus and an additional T-1 line is to connect Central Campus with South Campus. (Tr. 85) Addendum Two explains that these lines are required to "ensure the ability to redirect calls if required, enabling the system to be fully redundant" (Tr. 86- 87, emphasis added). The addendum directed only the addition of two T-1 lines. This can be done, as NEC proposed, by connecting additional T-1 lines, one from the PBX at the North Campus to the PBX at the Central Campus and the other from the PBX at the Central Campus to the PBX at the South Campus. AT&T chose to feed each of the PBX installations at the North Campus, Central Campus and South Campus first into its own additional 45-Series multiplexor (the complex multiplexor, see Finding 10 above) so that a 45-Series multiplexor will handle T-1 connections from North Campus to a 45-Series multiplexor at Fort Lauderdale center, and to a 45-Series multiplexor at Central Campus. The PBX at Central Campus, because it has its own 45-Series multiplexor, then can be connected by T-1 lines to the 45- Series multiplexors at North Campus, South Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center. The PBX at South Campus, through its 45-Series multiplexor, then can connect to the 45-Series multiplexors at Central Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center (this configuration is shown on the final page of AT&T Exhibit 5). This is a more complex way to provide the T-1 connections between North and Central Campus and Central and South Campus than the addendum required, and uses four 45-Series multiplexors rather then one. AT&T argues its more complex solution was necessary so that both voice and data systems would be redundant, thus meeting the requirement in the addendum that the system be "fully redundant." The problem with the approach taken by AT&T is that it fails to follow the language of Addendum Two. There is no reference to alternative routing or redundancy for data, the redundancy is required to redirect calls, i.e., PBX or voice components. See the final quotation in Finding 40, above. Redundancy for data transmissions, something the AT&T solution provides, was not required. AT&T'S solution is overdesigned. This is not a pivotal issue, however, because for the reasons stated in the foregoing findings, the submission by AT&T was properly rejected by College staff as non-responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. NEC is the low responsive bidder. Software certification AT&T argues in pages 16 through 20 of its proposed recommended order that the bid of NEC fails to conform to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid. AT&T had not raised the issue of whether the bid of NEC was responsive in its Formal Written Protest, and the attempt to do so at the beginning of the final hearing was rejected. As a result, this is not an issue which should have been addressed in the proposed recommended order. Nonetheless, it may be easily disposed of. The bid documents require that each bidder provide the College with a certification that the bidder: [O]wns, leases or controls the software it offers in response to this bid. If the bidder does not own the software, their certificate must include the source from which the software shall be obtained, and that the bidder has a right to sell or lease this software (Bid Specifications at 26, AT&T Exhibit 4.) The bidder also must certify that it is "eligible to maintain and support the software." (Id.) In its certification, NEC stated: NEC is the manufacturer of the NEAX2400 IMS that has been proposed to Broward Community College. As the manufacturer, we developed all software utilized on the NEAX2400. NEC owns all the rights to the software and has over 600 software engineers in Dallas dedicated to maintain and support the software. (AT&T Exhibit 4, final page) AT&T objects that this certification goes only to NEC's hardware, and does not constitute a certification that NEC has the rights to convey to the College the software necessary to operate the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a product of AT&T Paradyne. When reviewing the submissions of both bidders, the College staff found that their software certifications were equivalent. Both companies certified that they had the right to sell the software to operate the system each offered to the College. The College is entitled to rely on the certification given to it by NEC. If NEC is wrong, and does not have the right to provide the necessary software because AT&T or AT&T Paradyne will refuse to permit it to use that software, NEC may be liable in damages for failure to meet its contractual obligations to the College. NEC did not offer at the hearing evidence on why it believes it is entitled to use the software for the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, because AT&T's attempt to raise this issue had been rejected when AT&T's motion to amend its Formal Written Protest of August 18, 1992 was denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Trustees of Broward Community College awarding Bid No. 3656, the rebid of the College-wide PBX system, to NEC for a bid price of $1,549,895.15. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of March 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation sought bid proposals for mechanical sweeping on three road projects identified as Project No. 87906-9175, Project No. 87906-9176 and Project No. 87906-9177, which involve street sweeping in Dade County, Florida. The contract documents provided that a mandatory pre-bid conference would be held in Miami on August 7, 1986. The purpose of the pre-bid conference was to answer any questions the contractors might have to assure that the contractors understood the full scope of each of the contracts and to assure the Department that it would receive responsible bids. Two prospective bidders attended the pre-bid conference: Dave Smith & Company and Power Sweeping Services, Inc. Charles Larry Roberts attended the pro-bid conference on the three subject projects as the sole representative of Dave Smith & Company. Florida Sweeping, Petitioner herein, did not exist at the time of the pro-bid conference. Roberts was in attendance at the pro-bid conference from the beginning until the end of the conference. The pre-bid conference would not have been conducted in a different manner had Roberts signed in as agent for Petitioner rather than as agent for Dave Smith & Company. Although there was a mandatory pro-bid conference requirement, the contracts were routine in nature. Prior to the bids being submitted for the subject contracts, the relationship between Dave Smith & Company and Roberts was terminated. Other than the attendance by Roberts at the pre-bid conference, Roberts did not participate in the preparation of the bids on behalf of Dave Smith & Company. After Roberts and Dave Smith & Company terminated their relationship, Roberts chose to submit bids for the contracts himself under the name of Florida Sweeping. Subsequent to the pro-bid conference, Roberts went to the Department and picked up the bid specifications for the three projects, signing his own name as the party receiving the packages. Laurel Bryan, the District Contracts Coordinator, was aware that Roberts signed his own name in picking up the bid specifications. In response to the Department's request for bids, bids were submitted on all three projects on behalf of three bidders: Dave Smith & Company, Power Sweeping Services, Inc., and Petitioner. At the time scheduled for bid opening, Roberts delivered to Bryan the three bids on behalf of Petitioner, at which time they were accepted by Bryan who knew that while Roberts had in fact attended the pre-bid conference, he did not attend the conference in the capacity of representative of Petitioner. She also knew that Roberts had previously bid on other similar projects. At the time the bids were submitted and accepted, they were in sealed envelopes and Bryan was unaware as to which of the three bidders was the low bidder. At the time of the bid opening, the Department made no inquiry as to whether the Dave Smith & Company bids were prepared with the benefit of Roberts' attendance at the pre-bid conference. The bids submitted by all three bidders were opened on August 14, 1986, and tabulated, disclosing that Petitioner was the low bidder with respect to all three contracts. The Department admits that attendance by Roberts at the pre-bid conference as representative of a company other than Petitioner would not affect his ability to bid for and to perform the work under the subject contracts. On August 18, 1986, the Department of Transportation advised Petitioner that its bid proposals had been declared nonresponsive and irregular for two reasons: (a) Petitioner did not send a representative to the mandatory pre-bid conference; and (b) Petitioner did not present adequate proof of ability to obtain a performance bond. Part of the bidding specifications included a document entitled "Instructions to All Bidders". Paragraph 4 of "Instructions to All Bidders" reads as follows: 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 OF THE MINI-CONTRACT GENERAL: SPECIFICATIONS, ALL BIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF THE ABILITY TO ACQUIRE A PERFORMANCE BOND. AS PROOF, ALL BIDS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTARIZED LETTER FROM A BONDING COMPANY, BANK OR OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTION STATING THAT THEY INTEND TO ISSUE A BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF YOUR BID, WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT, SHOULD YOUR FIRM BE AWARDED THE CONTRACT. Petitioner with respect to each contract, submitted a notarized letter dated August 12, 1986, from A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited. A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited, is a financial institution. The letter stated that A. W. Bradshaw & Co., Limited, would "cash" bond any contracts awarded to Petitioner by the State of Florida. Although the Department of Transportation's written requirement concerns a bond from either a surety or insurance company, or from a bank or other financial institution, a cash bond is acceptable to the Department. It is, therefore, not necessary that a bond be provided by a surety. After rejection of Petitioner's bids, the Department determined that Power Sweeping Services, Inc., was the lowest responsible bidder. The bid from Power Sweeping Services, Inc., includes a letter from William Douglas & Associates, an independent insurance agent, as the letter intended to comply with the bonding letter requirement of the Instruction to Bidders. That letter states in part: With regard to Item #1, Qualifying Bonding Company, I have been advised by the present carrier, Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company that they do not anticipate any problems in issuing the Payment and Performance Bond in the total aggregate amount of $158,915.70, which consists of the following . . . . The bond letters submitted with the Power Sweeping Services, Inc., bids are not notarized and do not bind any bonding company, bank, other financial institution or even Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company, to issue a bond for Power Sweeping. The Department accepted the letter from William Douglas & Associates, Inc., as opposed to requiring a letter directly from Southeastern Casualty and Indemnity Company due to the fact that Bryan had prior independent knowledge of the agent as she had dealt with the agent on previous occasions. If Bryan had any questions about the William Douglas & Associates, Inc., letter, she would have called the agent. Although Bryan could not read the signature on the letter from William Douglas & Associates, Inc., she felt she could recognize the signature of a Mr. Savoie on behalf of William Douglas & Associates, Inc., by virtue of her previous dealings with him. The Department rejected Petitioner's letter from A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, for the following reasons: (a) because Bryan could not read the signature of the person who signed it; and (b) because Bryan did not know the cities or countries or islands where the company was located, did not see a recognizable to her address on the letter, and did not see a recognizable to her telephone number with a three digit area code and a seven digit number. Bryan did not ask Roberts at the bid opening or at any subsequent time where A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, was located, whether A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, was a financial institution, or how A. W. Bradshaw and Co., Limited, could be contacted by telephone. The only reasons why Petitioner's bids were rejected were the two specific reasons stated in the letters of August 18, 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping with respect to State Project Nos. 87906-9175, 87906-9176 and 87906-9177, to be the lowest responsive bids, accepting those bids, and awarding the three contracts in question to Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barry S. Webber, Esquire Post Office Box 8549 Hollywood, Florida 33084-0549 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are 1) Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) properly rejected all bids on Lease Bid No. 590:2133, and 2) Whether either Petitioner is entitled to award of Lease Bid No. 590:2133 as the lowest and best responsive bidder.
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1989, HRS issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) on Lease Bid No. 590:2133 for 43,634 net square feet of office space in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. The bid package contained specifications, evaluation criteria, and numerical weight to be assigned to each criteria. The bid package indicated the area of emphasis placed on the facility by HRS which focused on client safety, public access, availability of public transportation, and parking. The emphasis on each area was indicated by the weighted points to be given in each area. On January 24, 1990, HRS received bids from both Wharton and Curtis. Both bids were responsive. Curtis submitted the apparent low bid and Wharton submitted the apparent second lowest bid. Curtis, as Trustee, is the owner of the property which is presently occupied by HRS in Ocala, Florida. The lease on these premises was awarded in 1980 and expires in 1990. Curtis purchased the leasehold in April of 1988 while HRS was a tenant and subject to the existing lease. Philip J. Procacci is the President of Procacci Development which is the general partner in Wharton Investment Group. The actual bids submitted were not offered into evidence by any party in this proceeding. Susanne Casey, the District Administrator of HRS District 3, is ultimately responsible for the leasing of all HRS facilities in the district, including facilities in Marion County. Casey appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and evaluate the responsive bids based on the criteria stated in the bid package. The committee was to make a recommendation regarding the lowest and best bidder. Before the bids were opened, the bid evaluation committee met and agreed upon objective parameters for each of the evaluation criteria. These parameters established standards against which each committee member could independently evaluate and award points on each bid. The evaluation criteria in the bid package assigned points in three major categories: associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. Associated fiscal coasts were further broken down into (a) rental rates for the basic lease term, (b) rental rates for optional renewal terms, and (c) associated moving costs. The maximum points available in each of these categories were fixed in the bid package and could not be altered by the committee. These criteria are standard in a lease procurement through out the state. State regulations require that all bids for lease space in the state evaluate rental rates using present value methodology. See Rule 13M-1.029, Florida Administrative Code. This means that the proposed rental rates in all bids are calculated to present value dollars for the purpose of comparison. The Department of General Services has a computer program, the sole function of which is to calculate the present value of the rental rates. The program has nothing to do with the assignment of points under the criteria, but is used as a tool to allow comparison of the bids. The present value of the Curtis bid was $662,464 lower than the present value of the Wharton bid. The rental rates were awarded points under criterion 1a of associated fiscal costs. The committee awarded the full 20 points to Curtis and awarded 5 points to Wharton. The committee members awarded these points in accordance with the standards and formula they had agreed on prior to the bid opening. The formula the committee used was not the more commonly used formula, but it was reasonable and rational and it was fairly applied to the bids in this case. There is no rule or policy of HRS or of the Department of General Services (DGS) that mandates that a particular formula be used in awarding points for the rental rate criterion 1a. There is a formula that HRS and DGS recommend as guidance of a methodology that is appropriate and reasonable, but the recommendation is not binding on the committee or on the District Administrator. There was another criterion of associated moving costs considered as part of the associated fiscal costs. Each committee member awarded 10 points to Wharton and 8 points to Curtis on this item. Wharton received 10 points because it sent a letter with its bid in which it offered to pay all moving costs incurred by HRS in a move to its building. Curtis received 8 points because HRS already occupied two of its buildings and would have limited moving costs in moving into the two additional buildings included in its bid. The bid specifications and bid package contained no indication that a bidder could offer to pay all moving costs as part of its bid. In fact, Wharton submitted its letter offering to pay all moving costs as a result of its discussion with one committee member, T.C. Little. Mr. Little is also the General Services Manager for HRS District 3 and is involved with all bids in the district. Mr. Little interpreted the bid specifications to permit such an offer even though the bid specifications were silent on the issue. At page 5 of the bid package, it is clearly stated that questions concerning the bid are to be directed to the project contact person. It further states: Any questions which might be prejudicial to other bidders will be answered in writing in the form of a clarification to the bid and will be sent to all prospective bidders. On that same page, the bid specifications address proposal of alternatives by stating: For evaluation purposes each bid submitted will be evaluated as to adherence to the specifications requested. If a bidder desires to propose alternatives to the specified specifications, he/she may do so by attaching a sheet to the bid submittal document titled Alternatives. However, these alternatives will not be presented to the bid evaluation committee for use in comparison of bids and can only be considered after an award of bid is made. The project contact person was Donald J. Cerlanek and any request for clarification should have been addressed to him and not to Mr. Little. Mr. Little's gratuitous advice and interpretation of the bid specifications made to Wharton and not to all bidders was incorrect, violated the terms of the bid specifications, and was improper. The bid specifications do not permit an offer to pay all moving costs to be considered in the award of points under the associated moving costs criteria. Such an offer can only be considered as an alternative proposal and cannot be considered by the bid evaluation committee in comparing the bids. Under the standards established by the committee, Wharton should have received 5 points on the associated moving costs criterion instead of 10 points. The committee members individually evaluated each bid and awarded points within the parameters they had established. Except for the incorrect award of points on the associated moving costs criteria, the scoring method and award of points by each committee member was rationally and reasonably related to the relative importance of each criterion as established in the bid package and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Each committee member came to the conclusion that the Curtis bid was the lowest and best based on the award of points in each member's independent evaluation. On February 13, 1990, they recommended in writing that Curtis be awarded the bid. On February 19, 1990, the District Administrator adopted the committee's recommendation and reported the recommendation to Steven Gertel, the assistant staff director for HRS Facilities Services in the Office of General Services. On March 7, 1990, Mr. Gertel sent a memo to the District Administrator. The memo said: Review of the bid evaluation committee's recommendation has disclosed that the committee used a non-standard method of evaluating present value of rental rate for the lease term. Please provide an explanation of this variation to accepted practice. In fact, the committee used the established DGS formula to calculate the present value of rental rates. However, the committee used its own formula to award points based on the present value of rental rates. There was nothing impermissible about the committee's actions or formula. Because of a fear of a bid protest, Ms. Casey, the District Administrator, sent a notice rejecting all bids on the project. No other reason was articulated for rejecting all bids. The fear of a bid protest is not a legally sufficient reason to reject all bids, particularly because it is not stated in the bid specifications and is based on speculation about a future event which may never occur. HRS did reserve the right to reject all bids in the bid package, but it may not do so for an improper purpose. Fear of a bid protest is not a proper purpose. Wharton alleged and attempted to show some level of collusion between Curtis and Mr. Cerlanek of HRS. While Mr. Curtis had several contacts with Mr. Cerlanek about the project, such contacts are not per se inappropriate because Mr. Cerlanek is the District 3 Lease Coordinator and is the proper person to discuss future projects with potential bidders. No competent, substantial evidence was presented to show that Mr. Cerlanek discussed anything that was not public record or anything that gave Mr. Curtis any advantage in the bid process. Mr. Cerlanek did not tell Mr. Curtis what would be in the bid package or what would be needed to insure award of the bid to Curtis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order awarding the bid in Lease No. 590:5133 to Gail Curtis, as Trustee, as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 90-2459BID AND 90-2666BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Wharton 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(5) and 19(27). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, 11-17, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, and 57 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 6, 8-10, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 31-34, 37, 40-44, 48- 50, 52, and 55 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 7, 28, 56, 58, and 59 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 22, 23, 26, 35, 36, 38, 47, 53, and 54 are mere summaries of testimony and are not appropriately framed as proposed findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Curtis, as Trustee Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(11), 7&8(13), 9(14), and 15(25). Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, and 16-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13, 14, and 27-29 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: Part I paragraphs 2(1&2), 3(4), 4(8), 5(30), Part II paragraphs 2(1&2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(8), 6(9), 8(10), 19(25), and 20(26). Proposed findings of fact Part I paragraphs 1 and 6 and Part II paragraphs 1, 7, 9, 10, 12-18, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 11 is irrelevant. Copies furnished to: Robert A. Sweetapple Attorney at Law 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr. Attorney at Law Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gloria Fletcher Attorney at Law 515 North Main Street, Ste. 300 Gainesville, FL 32607 Frances S. Childers District Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues presented in this proceeding are whether Petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid on CTB 5998 and whether Petitioner is entitled to the bid award.
Findings Of Fact On November 5, 1990, Florida A & M University, acting as the agent of the Board of Regents, issued a Call to Bid (CTB) for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium (repainting project). The total project was estimated to cost $595,000.00. The funds for the project would come from the Public Education Capital Outlay and Debt Service Trust Fund appropriated by the legislature and passed into law in the State's budget. 1/ Specifically, the funds for the repainting project were appropriated by the legislature as a specific line item in the 1990-1991 budget. The line in the budget read, "Fire Code Corrections/Repainting-Bragg Stadium (includes $490,000.00 Reimb. to Aux. Fund), of $682,000.00." The $682,000.00 figure was obtained from several documents submitted by FAMU to the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents then submitted the University's budget requests to the Commissioner of Education who, in turn, submitted an integrated budget to the governor and legislature. See Chapter 216 and 235, Florida Statutes, for the specifics of this budgetary process. The beginning of the budgetary process in relation to the repainting project occurred on October 16, 1989, when Louis A. Murray, the Associate Vice President of Florida A&M sent a document titled "the University's 1990-91/1992- 93 Capital Improvement Fee Project List for Legislative Consideration" to Dr. Carl Blackwell, the Vice Chancellor for Budgets. The document contained two attachments entitled "Capital Improvement Fee Project List, Project Information Sheet" (Project Information Sheet) for the fire code corrections at Bragg Stadium and the repainting of Bragg Stadium. It also included a Project Information Sheet for the remodeling of the Commons Building. The Project Information sheet dealing with the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium contained the amount of funding being requested by FAMU for the repainting project and a breakdown of the project's estimated costs. The project cost detail for the repainting of Bragg Stadium states: Construction $495,000.00 (Assumes bid date of 1991) Professional Fees . . . . 43,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . 30,000.00 Contingency . . . . . 27,000.00 Total Project Cost: $595,000.00 Importantly, the Project Information Sheet for the repainting of Bragg Stadium contains the basis utilized by FAMU to arrive at the repainting project's estimate. FAMU represented in the Project Information Sheet as follows: The basis for the estimate is the bid experience of a prior advertisement of the project by our own Plant Operations Maintenance Office, which came in at over $400,000. 2/ This estimate was again verified in a letter, dated October 25, 1989, from Dr. Murray to Dr. Blackwell. The letter states, in part, as follows: . . . . Since the opportunity for completing this project is between football seasons, the University wishes to advance dollar requirements from its Auxiliary Trust Fund with expected reimbursement from Capital Improvement Trust Fund after Legislative approval on July 1, 1990. This action will permit us to proceed with the Bid process and construction contract through completion before the 1990 football season. The scope of this project is summarized as follows: This project includes sandblasting, repainting and structural repairs for Bragg Stadium. Sandblasting and repainting is estimated at $415,000, while structural repair, primarily isolated rust spots, will cost approximately $75,000. . . . . The total estimate in Dr. Murray's October 25, 1990, letter was $490,000.00. It was this letter which prompted the parenthetical language in the line item of the General appropriations act for 1990-1991, passed by the legislature and enacted it to law. The Project Information Sheet for the fire code corrections to Bragg Stadium (fire code project) contained a project cost detail as follows: Construction $70,000.00 Professional . . . . . 7,000.00 Resident Supervision . . . (No entry) Equipment . . . . . (No entry) Contingency . . . . . 10,000.00 Total Project Cost: $87,000.00 The contract for the fire code corrections was let for bid prior to the repainting project. The amount of the contract for the fire code project was approximately $107,000.00. This contract amount exceeded the amount of the construction portion of the Project Cost Detail of $70,000.00 shown in the Project Information Sheet for the fire code project. Dr. Murray testified that this action was acceptable because it was within the discretion of Florida A&M to use the $682,000.00 appropriation to perform the fire code project in any amount it deemed appropriate, without regard to the break-outs shown in the Project Information Sheets. However, even assuming the correctness of Dr. Murray's position and deducting the amount of the fire code project's contract and the architectural fees of $7,000.00 listed in the Project Information Sheet, $568,000.00 of the original budgeted amount of $682,000.00 would remain for use on the repainting project. Florida A&M University, also prepared a document titled, "Summary of Capital Improvement Fee Projects for 1990-91/1992-93." The document is a summary of Florida A&M's budget requests for those years. This document also lists the fire code project and the repainting project along with the requested funding for those projects for the years 1990 through 1991. The funds requested for the projects are broken into three categories; Planning, Construction and Equipment. The entries for the repainting project show that the amount of $522,000.00 is for "Construction". The $522,000.00 figure was obtained by taking the $495,000.00 figure for construction contained within the Project Information Sheet for the repainting project, and adding the amount of the contingency cost ($27,000.00) for the project which was also shown on the Project Information Sheet. The combined total for the two projects was $682,000.00, the exact amount appropriated by the legislature for the two projects. Once the legislature had appropriated the money, FAMU, on November 5, 1990, requested that A Capital Outlay Implementation Plan be established with the Capital Outlay Trust Fund. The establishment of such a Plan is similar to creating a special account within the trust fund from which the University can draw. On November 26, 1990, the Plan was established for both projects in the amount of $682,000.00, as had been appropriated by the legislature. 3/ The Capital Outlay Implementation Plan contained a section titled, "estimated budget". The estimated budget contained estimates for the various phases of both projects as follows: Construction. $565,000 Professional Fees. 50,000 Furnishings and Equipment. 30,000 Contingencies. 37,000 .................................$682,000 Significantly, these documents were the only pre-established construction budgets developed by FAMU prior to the opening of the bids in this case. 4/ The specific pre-established construction budget for the repainting project was $522,000.00. Later, after the filing of the bid protest, FAMU would attempt to render a strained interpretation of the phrase "pre-established construction budget" contained in the bid specifications and engage in some inappropriate accounting in order to create several lower budget estimates. The Bid Package for CTB 5998 provided in the "Instructions to Bidders", Item D-21, Rejection of Bids, as follows: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the owner such rejection is in the best interest of the owner. The Bid Package further provided in the "Instructions to Bidders" at B-23, Contract Award, page 16 of 106, in relevant part: The contract will be awarded by the Florida Board of Regents for projects $500,000 or more, and by the President of the University, on behalf of the Florida Board of Regents, for projects of less than $500,000.00, to the lowest qualified and responsible bidder provided the bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the owner to accept it. . . . The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. The aggregate bid shall consist of the base bid plus accepted active alternate bids, or less accepted deductive alternate bids, applied in the numerical order in which they are listed on the bid form. If the base bid exceeds the amount of the pre-established construction budget, the owner may reject all bids. (Emphasis added) A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on December 6, 1990, and was attended by seventeen contractors, including Petitioner. By the terms of the bid package, the bid opening date was set for December 18, 1990. However, by addendum, the bid opening date was extended to December 21, 1990. Seven bids were submitted in response to the original solicitation. 5/ The bids were opened at 10:00 a.m. on December 21, 1990, at the conference center of Florida A&M University. The bids were opened by Chuks Onwunli on behalf of Florida A&M, and tabulated by William Sabella, a representative of the architectural firm , Barnett, Fronczak Architects, the consulting architects for the repainting project. The opening and tabulation of all the bids was recorded on a document titled "Bid Tabulation". The result of the opening was that Phoenix Coating was the low bidder with a bid of $419,000.00. Feimster-Peterson, Inc., was the second lowest bidder with a bid of $474,320.00, and Monoko, Inc., was the third low bidder with a bid of 487,462.00. The four other bidders listed on the bid tabulation sheet were all over the amount of $490,000.00. 6/ As can be seen from the numbers, the top three bids were well within the pre-established construction budget for the repainting project. On December 21, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent a Notice of Protest by telecopy and overnight delivery for delivery on Monday, December 24th. The basis of the protest was that the low bidder, Phoenix Coating, was not responsive because it had not attended the mandatory pre-bid conference and had not complied with the minority participation requirements of the specifications. On December 28, 1990, Feimster-Peterson sent its formal protest to Forrest Kelly, the Director of Capital Programs at the Florida Board of Regents by telecopy and by overnight delivery with delivery on December 31, 1990. The formal protest was filed in a timely manner. On or about January 14, 1991, Oscar Martinez, the Purchasing Director for Florida A&M issued a letter regarding Bid No. 5927 for the repainting and renovation of Bragg Stadium. 7/ The letter rejected all seven bids. Phoenix Coating's bid was found to be nonresponsive because it did not meet the 15% minority participation requirements of Bid 5998 and because the company had not attended the December 6, 1990, mandatory pre-bid meeting. Because Phoenix Coating's bid was non-responsive, Petitioner became the lowest responsive bid on CTB 5998. The letter further advised that the other six bids, including Petitioner's bid, were rejected because all six bids allegedly exceeded the pre- existing construction budget estimate for the project. The letter did not contain any language affording Petitioner a clear point of entry as required by Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The letter did indicate that the University would modify the scope of work. Attached to the same letter was a new invitation to bid. Clearly, at this point in time, FAMU knew or should have known that there was a bid protest filed with it which was unresolved and which required a formal administrative hearing. However, during this time instead of following its statutory duties under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, FAMU, at its peril, chose to re-let the project for bids. The new bid opening was set for February 28, 1991, and a new mandatory pre-bid meeting was also set for February 28, 1991. The bid deadline was extended to March 21, 1991. The scope of the work was not significantly altered in the re-bid. 8/ On or about January 16, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson sent a letter to the Florida Board of Regents. The letter was prompted by Robert Petersen's, president and stockholder of Petitioner, belief that something was not right about the monetary and funding claims that FAMU was putting forth as its basis for rejecting all the bids. In essence, the numbers Mr. Petersen was aware of, which did not include any of the Project Information Sheet figures referenced above, did not make any sense to him. The letter stated, in part, as follows: Re-bidding the Project is unfair to all bidders now that the results of the first bid have been made public. Each bidder now has a target . . . to shoot at which will override the customary free market environment. Rewriting the Specifications will not eliminate this effect. Be advised that Feimster-Peterson requests the opportunity to either see the estimates or negotiate with the Board to reach a mutually acceptable scope of work. I request that you delay re-bidding until this option can be explored. (Emphasis added). On January 23, 1991, counsel for Feimster-Peterson again wrote to the Office of General Counsel at Florida A&M University and stated in relevant part: This letter is to reiterate our concern for the actions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department and regarding the painting contract for Bragg Stadium. We filed bid protest for the Florida Board of Regents filed on December 28, 1990 pursuant to paragraph B-22 of the bid documents. Neither the Florida Board of Regents or the administration of Florida A&M has acted upon our bid protest. The bid protest remains unresolved and we intend to pursue the administrative remedies provided to us through the bid protest procedure. Moreover, it is our position that the decisions taken by the Florida A&M Purchasing Department subsequent to our filing may be included and adjudicated within the administrative procedures of the original bid protest . . . Mr. Martinez apparently takes the position that a new bid protest filing is necessary to formally dispute his decision [about the University's available budget]. As indicated, we disagree and intend to dispute this action within the existing, unresolved bid protest . . . By indicating the precise amount of the budget, Mr. Martinez has eliminated the basic purpose of competitive bidding, which is to achieve the lowest responsive price. All bidders now have a target price, and a minor modification of the specifications will not eliminate this effect. This serves neither Florida A&M's interest nor the interest of the original responsive bidders. Feimster-Peterson has requested that negotiations be commenced so that a mutually beneficial contract price be determined and the contract work commenced. To date, Mr. Martinez has refused to enter such negotiations and have given several oral, unsatisfactory reasons for this position. The Purchasing Department's refusal to negotiate with Feimster-Peterson, the lowest responsible bidder, should be clearly articulated in writing and sent to us. Feimster-Peterson believes such negotiations may prove successful, and work could commence without further delay or expense to Florida A&M . . . . (Emphasis added). Feimster-Peterson intends to pursue its rights under the bid protest originally filed on December 28, 1990. As low responsive bidder, Feimster-Peterson is entitled to an award of the contract . . This letter was sent by both telecopy and Federal Express to Mr. Holifield at the Office of the General Counsel and added the additional issues of whether FAMU's action in regard to this bid constituted bid shopping and whether Petitioner's bid, in fact, exceeded the estimated construction budget for Bid 5998. 9/ Significantly, the Martinez letter did not mention that Respondent was rejecting Petitioner's bid because the University believed that it could increase the number of contractors participating in a re-bid and could achieve a lower price by re-bidding the project. This issue was raised for the first time at the hearing. In that regard, the evidence clearly indicates that Respondent was attempting to shop its bid in order to obtain a lower price by re-bidding the project. Bid shopping is a process by which the general contractor or, as in this case, the owner of a project attempts to play off one bidder against another bidder in order to obtain a lower price. Bid shopping is done either by establishing a target figure which is represented to bidders to be a number which must be beaten in order to obtain the contract; or by the bid shopper relaying the amount of a competitor's bid to a bidder or group of bidders in order to encourage the bidder or group of bidders to lower its bid to below that of the competitor in order to secure the contract. A basic assumption in bid shopping is that the scope of the work is not significantly altered in order to lower the cost of the project. Bid shopping is considered to be unethical in a public competitive bidding situation and has been disapproved of by the Florida courts. In this case, Respondent established a target price in its letter of January 14, 1991, by communicating the amount of the alleged overage, enabling a bidder to calculate the budget figures to shoot for and, at the same time, keeping the scope of the work substantially the same in the re-bid. Additionally, the amount of the bids, as well as details involving those bids became public once the bids were opened, converting the possibility of unfair advantage accruing to potential bidders on the re-bid to a probability of such unfair advantage in this instance. 10/ Such a reason for rejecting the bids in this case strikes at the very heart of the bid process, which is to ensure that bidders have an equal and fair opportunity to have their bids considered and prevent an agency from picking and choosing among various bidders or potential bidders. There was absolutely no evidence which indicated that the number of contractors participating in Bid 5998 was non-competitive or was in any way fundamentally unfair. 11/ By rejecting all the bids in order to attempt to shop its bid, Respondent acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and therefore, its rejection of the bids in this case cannot stand. Additionally, Respondent's attempt to reject the bids in order to allegedly increase the number of bidders participating in the re-bid and thereby reduce the price, violated its own specification in the bid documents which states: The contract award will be made to the responsible bidder submitting the lowest responsible aggregate bid within the pre-established construction budget. (emphasis supplied) By going outside the scope of its bid specifications, Respondent has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and may not reject Petitioner's bid on this basis. After the protest of Feimster-Peterson raised the issue of the amount of the budget/estimate and after its request to see the budget, Florida A&M began to review documents to determine its response to Feimster-Peterson. The basis underlying the figures cited in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 13, 1991, was arrived at by subtracting amounts spent by Florida A&M from the $682,000.00 appropriated by the legislature for the fire code and repainting projects. The overage of $55,000.00 claimed in Mr. Martinez's letter of January 14, 1991, was calculated by taking the "proposed budget" of $682,000.00 and subtracting the amount of $257,105.00 "in expenses for the stadium", for an "available balance" of $424,895.00. 12/ It was this account balance which was being claimed by FAMU to be the pre-existing construction budget referred to in the bid documents. Such an account balance does not constitute a pre-established construction budget because the balance was not established prior to the submission or opening of the bids. Additionally, an account balance is simply not a budget as that term is normally defined and used in the bid documents. Mr. Martinez did not identify the source of the expenses or the purpose for those expenditures. Mr. Martinez deferred all questions as to verification of the figures or the purpose of the expenditures to "Bob", which referred to Robert Goodwin, Jr. Mr. Goodwin was and still is, the Director of the Facilities Planning Office of Florida A&M and is responsible for the various purchase orders involved in this case. Mr. Goodwin took his instructions on which purchase order numbers to use from Dr. Murray and/or Dr. Humphries, Associate Vice President and President of Florida A&M University, respectively. For reasons outlined later in this Recommended Order, the expenditures claimed for the stadium are highly suspect. On or about February 6, 1991, Mr. Holifield, General Counsel of Florida A&M University, responded to Petitioner by enclosing a statement of budget estimate for Bid No. 5998. 13/ Attached to Mr. Holifield's letter of February 6th was a memorandum addressed "[t]o whom it may concern" dated February 5, 1991, from Robert Goodwin, Jr., the Director of Facilities & Planning for Florida A&M. The memo stated that the "budget estimate" for the Project was $367,351.00. Mr. Holifield's letter noted that Feimster-Peterson's bid "exceeded the budget estimate by $106,969.00." (emphasis added). He further noted that FAMU had chosen to re-bid the repainting project rather than accept the bid of the Petitioner. Mr. Holifield also addressed the pending bid protest by Feimster-Peterson as follows: Florida A&M University feels that it is the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers of the State of Florida to re-bid this Project rather than to award the job to your client. In view of the discrepancy between the bidder and the client and the estimated budget it would seem that now that you have been provided with the budget estimate, that you and your client would be willing to forego the bid protest which you are attempting to pursue. Rather, it would appear to be far more appropriate for you to simply join in the rebidding process. (emphasis added). Again, the basis for the decreasing budget figure was the legislatively appropriated funds available for the project less amounts which were supposedly attributable to the repainting and fire code projects, i.e. the account balance. However, what the evidence clearly showed was that, like the budget figures underlying Mr. Martinez's assertions in his letter of January 14, 1991, the latest budget figure of $367,351.00 was calculated by Florida A&M subtracting sums for expenditures which were made for projects unrelated to the fire code or repainting projects. In fact, several of the expenditures were for improvements to the public address system at Bragg Stadium. Similarly, some of the amounts claimed to have been expended for the repainting and fire code projects were expended for architectural fees on other projects. 14/ FAMU's officials were aware that such accounting was inappropriate. From this evidence, it appears that FAMU is attempting to spend or has spent money specifically appropriated for two certain purposes on projects unrelated to the appropriation and not approved for such use by either the legislature or the Board of Regents. Since these expenditures are all part of other projects separate and distinct from the fire code and repainting projects, they should not have been subtracted from the amount of money available to FAMU for the repainting project. 15/ There is no doubt that this "budget estimate" and the budget underlying the assertions made by Mr. Martinez in his letter of January 14, 1991, were false and were red herrings, developed after the fact, in an attempt by Respondent to throw Petitioner off the track of an otherwise valid bid protest. Moreover, beyond utilizing improper accounting, one of the most significant facts in this proceeding was that FAMU created no less than eight separate figures which it claimed to be the budgets for this project. Which figure FAMU used depended on who FAMU was dealing with at the time and the result FAMU desired to achieve. Such tactics by an agency are totally unacceptable and the use of such false figures to justify rejection of a bidder's bid is nothing short of bad faith on the part of an agency akin to fraud. Since Petitioner submitted the lowest and best responsive bid, Petitioner, at this point in time, was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. Another point not directly raised by FAMU in this proceeding, but suggested by the underlying facts and necessary to the resolution of this bid protest, is the question of whether bids may be rejected by an agency if the funds necessary to complete the project are no longer available, i.e. the agency has run out of money. On the surface, given the constraints of Florida's finance system, an honest lack of funds would appear to be an appropriate basis for an agency to reject all the bids. See Section 235.42, Florida Statutes. However, in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that the University no longer has the necessary funds to pay for the repainting project since the actual money from the trust fund has not been disbursed to FAMU and since FAMU's representations in regards to the status of the repainting project's account balance appear to be based on unlawful accounting and are less than credible. Since the evidence did not establish that FAMU no longer has the funds necessary to complete the project, Petitioner was entitled to the award of Bid 5998. However, because of FAMU's actions regarding Petitioner's bid protest which actions were highly prejudicial to Petitioner, time had moved on and, on February 25, 1991, FAMU discovered that there was lead in some portion of the paint on Bragg Stadium, in the amount of 1.9% by weight. The test was conducted by Professional Services Industries, Inc. on some paint chips from the stadium. The test utilized by Professional Services is known as the TCLP test. This discovery began a review by Florida A&M, in conjunction with Barnett, Fronczak Architects, of what changes, if any, needed to be made to the Specifications and what options were available for carrying out the repainting of the stadium. 16/ On March 19, 1991, the Project was "cancelled" by Addendum number 4 until the fall of 1991. Presently, it appears uncontradicted that the paint which is on Bragg Stadium contains lead. It is probable that the lead is contained in the primer coat, which is the first coat on the steel. In fact, the current specifications for the repainting project call for a red lead and oil primer coat to be placed on the steel structure of the stadium. Of the options which have been proposed by the architect, two of them assume that the lead paint will not be removed from the structure, but will essentially be sealed in by the new coatings. These options will avoid the creation and need for disposal of any hazardous waste containing lead and should result in either the same cost to perform the work or in a reduction in cost to perform the work. The third option is to completely remove all the paint and possibly create material which may be hazardous waste. This option is essentially the same type of sandblasting called for in Bid 5998, but may require more money to perform. Any possible increase in the cost of Bid 5998 would be due to the greater expense of disposing of any hazardous waste, if any such waste is created by the blasting operation, and whether the presence of the lead is an unforeseen condition as defined in the proposed contract which would entitle Petitioner to an increase of the bid price caused by the potential cost of disposal to it. In this case, the evidence did not demonstrate that the presence of the lead was an unforeseen condition. Article 3.15 of the proposed contract when compared to Article 10.1 appears to comtemplate the discovery of potentially hazardous materials. Additionally, as indicated earlier, the current specifications of Bid 5998 call for a lead primer coat. Under all the facts of this case, the presence of lead or lack of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium would appear to be a circumstance the risk of which is assumed by the bidder in bidding the project; and therefore, would not be a changed or unforeseen condition which would justify rejecting all the bids. Importantly, the scope of the work, i.e. sandblasting and structural repair, would not change. Sandblasting is the same whether the surface being removed contains lead or does not contain lead. The structural repair required by Bid 5998 is not effected by the presence of lead in the paint on Bragg Stadium. The only differences would occur in the type of equipment used and the type of respirators worn by the workers. The equipment for lead removal has vacuums incorporated in its operation and uses a steel grit instead of sand. The steel grit actually reduces the amount of any potential hazardous waste by compacting it into a smaller volume. The respirators differ in the type of filters. Neither of these differences affect the cost of the work required in Bid 5998. Similarly, disposing of the end product of the blast operation would still be required under Bid 5998 whether the debris contains lead or does not contain lead. The only difference would be the ultimate disposal site of the barrels of debris, i.e whether at a regular landfill or at a disposal site for hazardous waste. All of these differences are already required under EPA, OSHA and DER rules regulating lead abatement, toxic chemicals and hazardous waste and are utilized by Petitioner when it encounters lead in its paint removal operations. Moreover, the bid documents contemplate that the bidder is familiar with all federal, state and local laws and regulations which affect the project in any manner. See Section B-3 "Instructions to Bidders." While it is uncontroverted that the paint contains lead, it is also not clear whether the end product created by a blasting operation would be hazardous waste requiring expensive disposal in a hazardous waste landfill and what amount, if any, would need to be placed in a hazardous waste landfill. The TCLP tests performed by Professional Service Industries were run on paint chips and not the abrasive debris that remains after a blasting operation. Therefore, the TCLP test results have no relevance as to what amount of hazardous waste, if any, would need to be removed from the site. In fact, it is impossible to determine whether the debris left over from the blast operation will be hazardous waste until the blast operation has begun and produced debris sufficiently representative of what may be expected during the course of the work and which is capable of being tested. The issue of lead arose long after the rejection of the bids on the basis of Feimster-Peterson's bid being over the budget and would not have become a potential basis had FAMU acted in a responsible manner in the award of this bid. It is understood that the University and its architects are still trying to determine what, if any, action needs to be taken regarding the presence of lead in the paint. The evidence established that at a minimum the architect would have suspended the project to give them time to study the lead and determine what course of action should be taken. At the most, the architect would have cancelled the project. Added to such an analysis is the fact that the Bid specifications appear to require a red lead and oil primer paint to be placed on the structural steel of the stadium and that under the facts of this case, the presence of lead in the paint on the stadium would not be an unforeseen condition. In either event, the discovery of the lead did not undermine the scope of the repainting project as it is comtemplated in the bid documents and may have only resulted in change orders under the terms of the proposed contract. 17/ The General Conditions of the contract provide in Article 3, Administration of the Contract, paragraph 4.3, Claims and Disputes, subparagraph 4.3.6, Claims for Concealed or Unknown Conditions, as follows: If conditions are encountered at the site which are (1) subsurface or otherwise concealed physical conditions which differ materially from those indicated in the contract documents or (2) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature, which differ materially from those ordinarily found to exist and generally recognized as inherent in construction activities of the character provided for in the Contract Documents, then notice by the observing party shall be given to the other party promptly before conditions are disturbed and in no event later than twenty-one days after the first observance of the conditions. The Architect/Engineer will promptly investigate such conditions and, if they differ materially and cause an increase or decrease in the contractor's cost of, or time required for, performance of any part of the work, will recommend an equitable adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time, or both . . . . Article 7, Changes in the Work, also provides a mechanism by which the Architect/Engineer and the Owner may order changes in the work after execution of the contract. Paragraph 7.3, Construction Change Directives, provides the mechanism by which the amount of a construction change directive is determined. A change order is simply a revision of the scope of the contract, requiring that something be done differently, that more be done, or that less be done, than what is within the original scope of work of the contract. Article 14, Termination or Suspension of the Contract, paragraph 14.3, Suspension by the Owner for Convenience, provides in relevant part: The owner may, without cause, order the contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the work in whole or in part for such period of time as the owner may determine. An adjustment shall be made for increases in the cost of performance of the contract including profit on the increased cost performance, caused by suspension, delay or interruption . . . . (Emphasis added). It is clear that conditions, such as the lead in this case, are contemplated by both the bid and the contract which is part of that bid. In this case, but for FAMU's actions, Petitioner would have been awarded the contract prior to the discovery of the lead. Had Florida A&M entered into a contract with Feimster-Peterson to perform the repainting project when it should have, it would have been guided by Article 14.3 of the specifications, "Suspension by the Owner for Convenience." The evidence did not demonstrate that the discovery of the lead would sufficiently change the scope of the repainting project to the extent that a new bid would have to be developed and that the contract terms of Bid 5998 were inadequate to handle any changes in the scope of the work for the repainting project. Such a result is especially desirable where, as in this case, the University has acted in such a way so as to undermine the fairness of the competitive bidding process and is attempting to spend appropriated money in a manner not authorized by statute. In essence, FAMU has undermined the competitive bidding process to the extent that it would be unfair to re-bid the project since it is impossible to remove FAMU's past conduct from any rebid on any re-vamped specifications. The only remedy, in this case is to award Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest and best responsible bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Florida A&M University enter, on behalf of the Board of Regents, a Final Order awarding Bid 5998 to Petitioner as the lowest, responsible bidder on the repainting project. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1991 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the award of a bid for the sale of scrap metal to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. was arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition or the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 2011, the Department issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-Apalachee-8252. The ITB was a revenue- generating contract for the sale of scrap metal at Apalachee Correctional Institution in Sneads, Florida. Since the contract would generate revenue to the State, the Department’s purpose was to award the contract to the highest responsive bid and developed bid specifications and criteria to accomplish that goal. The specifications for the ITB stated in relevant part: Material Deviations: The Department 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 ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material.[emphasis added]. 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, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularity: A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. 1.10 Responsive Bid: A bid submitted by a responsive and responsible vendor that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation. * * * 4.3.1 Submission of Bids Each bid shall be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise delineation of the bidder’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this ITB, fancy bindings, colored displays, and promotional material are not desired. Emphasis in each bid must be on completeness and clarity of content. In order to expedite the review of bids, 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. Rejection of Bids The Department shall reject any and all bids containing material deviations. The following definitions are to be utilized in making these determinations. Material Deviations The Department 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 ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department except where the deviation therefrom is not material. A deviation is material if, in the Department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the ITB’s requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. Minor Irregularities A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. As indicated, Section 5 of the specifications outlined the contents of the bid. Section 5 stated in relevant part: SECTION 5 - CONTENTS OF BID This section contains instructions that describe the required format for the submitted bid. Bids shall be submitted in a sealed envelope, clearly marked “Bid - ITB#- Apalachee-8252”. . . . . [T]he following paragraphs contain instructions that describe the required format for bid responses. Responsiveness Requirements The following terms, conditions, or requirements must be met by the bidder to be considered responsive to this ITB. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements may cause rejection of a bid. [emphasis added]. Bidder shall complete, sign and return the ITB Bidder Acknowledgement Form (page 1 & 2). The bidder must return either the original or a copy of both pages with an original signature on page one (1). The bidder shall complete, sign, date, and return (all) pricing pages, entitled Cost Information Sheet, which consists of page 28. By submitting a bid or bids under this ITB, each bidder warrants its agreement to the prices submitted. The Department objects to and shall not consider any additional terms or conditions submitted by a bidder, including any appearing in documents attached as part of a bidder’s response. In submitting its bid, a bidder agrees that any additional terms or conditions, whether submitted intentionally or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect. Any qualifications, counter-offers, deviations, or challenges may render the bid un-responsive . . . . * * * 5.3 Certificate of Insurance Bidders shall return a fully executed Certificate of Insurance . . . . In this case, Section 5.1 contains two bid specifications essential to a bid's responsiveness. Those two requirements were submission of a signed and completed, original or copy, of the bidder acknowledgement form and submission of a completed Cost Information Sheet. The Cost Information Sheet is not at issue here. The bidder acknowledgement form is a double-sided Department of Management Services form containing general boilerplate contractual language. The back of the form is a continuation of standard contractual terms from the front. Oddly, signatures acknowledging these terms and the terms of the ITB are on the front page (page 1) of the form. By signing the front page of the bidder acknowledgement form the bidder agrees to abide by all conditions of the bid. The remainder of Section 5 of the ITB contains bid specifications that are not considered essential to determine the initial responsiveness of the bid at the bid opening, but are to be returned at some later point in time after the bid's are opened. However, the language of Section 5 effecting that intent is unclear. In particular, the bid specification contained in Section 5.3 requires the bidder to "return" an "executed" Certificate of Insurance. The Certificate of Insurance provides the Department with proof of a variety of required insurance coverage of the vendor. However, later in the ITB Section 7.14 clarifies that the Certificate of Insurance need only be supplied with the later-signed contract documents. Section 7.14 states, in relevant part: 7.14 Contractor's Insurance The contractor shall not commence any work in connection with this ITB . . . until he has obtained all of the . . . types of insurance and such insurance has been approved by the Department. The Department shall be furnished proof of coverage of insurance by Certificates of Insurance . . . accompanying the contract documents and shall name the Department as an additional named insured [emphasis added]. Indeed, the evidence demonstrated that the Department has long interpreted these provisions to require a winning bidder to provide Certificates of Insurance at the time a contract is entered into and not as part of the essential requirements of the bid due at bid opening. While the Department could (and probably should) clarify this provision, its interpretation of its bid specifications is not unreasonable under these facts. In this case, five bids were timely submitted in response to the ITB, including those of K & M and Cumbaa. On March 8, 2011, the Department opened bids for the ITB. Cumbaa submitted the highest bid for the contract, at $22,197.48. K & M submitted the next highest bid at $20,001.00. At the bid opening, Cumbaa's bid included a Cost Information Sheet, a copy of the signed front page of the bidder acknowledgement form, and the Contact for Contract Administration form known as Attachment 1. However, the bid did not contain the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form or a Certificate of Insurance form at the time the bid was opened. K & M's bid contained the same documents as Cumbaa's bid, as well as the second side of the bidder acknowledgement form and a number of certificates of insurance for K & M. The evidence showed that Cumbaa did not include the Certificate of Insurance form in its sealed bid upon the advice of the Department that the form was not required at bid opening. However, Cumbaa had insurance coverage in place at the time of the bid opening and faxed its certificates of insurance to the Department on March 10, 2011. Given these facts and the Department's reasonable interpretation of its ITB, the omission of Cumbaa's certificate of insurance was neither required at the time of the bid opening, nor material to the award of the bid. The omission of the second page of the bidder's acknowledgement form was not noticed by anyone reviewing the bids until its omission was pointed out by K and M in this bid protest. Cumbaa faxed a copy of the back side of the document to the Department on April 11, 2011. Clearly, this lack of notice demonstrates the immateriality of the back side of the bidder's acknowledgement form. Additionally, since the signatures of both bidders were on the front page of the form submitted by them and those signatures bound the bidders to the terms of the ITB, there was no evidence that demonstrated why submission of a copy of the back side of the form was material to the award of this bid. Ultimately, the Department reviewed the bids for responsiveness and determined that Cumbaa was the highest responsive bid. On March 11, 2011, the Department posted its intent to award the bid to Cumbaa Enterprises, Inc. As indicated, there was no evidence that the omission of these two documents from the Cumbaa bid were material deviations from the bid specifications since neither omission impacted the ultimate contract requirements and did not materially impact the integrity of the bid process. Indeed, the insurance certification was not required for responsiveness under Section 5.1 of the bid under a long-standing and reasonable interpretation of that requirement by the Department. For these reasons, this bid protest should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Corrections, enter a final order dismissing the Protest of K & M Pine Straw. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kurt Eldridge K and M Pine Straw 20583 John G Bryant Road Blountstown, Florida 32424 Edith McKay, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Edwin G. Buss, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Jennifer Parker, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue Whether the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intended decision to award contract T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements (Project) and other incidental construction on State Road 9A, in Duval County, to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. (ALS), is contrary to the agency's governing statutes, the agency's rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:1/ The contract being protested is T2442 for the Intelligent Transportation System improvements and other incidental construction for State Road 9A, in Duval County. The Department advertised the bid solicitation notice for the Project on July 27, 2012. The bid solicitation notice included a list of all of the pay items and estimated quantities for the project. DOT also posted all of the pay items online in two formats. One format was a downloadable file that could be used in software, and the other was similar to an Excel spreadsheet file. These formats could be used to formulate a bid. Changes to pay items are issued in an Addendum, and while two addendums were issued for this project, neither affected the pay items for the project. For several years, DOT has mandated that prospective bidders use an automated, online bidding process, by which prospective bidders request bid documents and submit their bids using the DOT's website. The letting date established as the deadline for submission of bids via electronic submission was September 26, 2012, and was set forth in the bid solicitation notice. In order to be considered, all bids were due by 10:30 a.m. on that day. Letting is the term used to indicate the date that the bids are due. The bid solicitation notice included a requirement that bidders for the Project attend a mandatory pre-bid meeting to be held on August 20, 2012. Hinson Electrical is a licensed electrical contracting company based in Jacksonville, Florida. The company has completed "hundreds" of projects for the State of Florida, including DOT, and is pre-qualified to bid on jobs with DOT. The mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on August 20, 2012, as scheduled. G. Christopher Ginn, Project Manager for Hinson Electrical, attended the pre-bid meeting, signed his name, and identified the company he represented (Hinson Electrical) on the sign-in sheet. Section 337.168(2), Florida Statutes, provides: (2) A document revealing the identity of persons who have requested or obtained bid packages, plans, or specifications pertaining to any project to be let by the department is confidential and exempt from the provisions of section 119.07(1) for the period which begins two working days prior to the deadline for obtaining bid packages, plans, or specifications and ends with the letting of the bid. As a business strategy, Hinson Electrical routinely orders bid documents within the two-day blackout period mandated by section 337.168(2), during which time DOT is required to take down its list of contractors who have requested bid documents concerning a particular project. Ordering bid documents within the blackout period prevents competitors from discovering whether Hinson Electrical is bidding for a particular project. The blackout period for the Project began at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2012. The deadline to order the bid documents for the Project was 10:30 a.m. on September 25, 2012. There is no requirement that contractors request bid documents prior to the pre-bid meeting (if one is required for a particular project), or at any time prior to the order deadline, which is 24 hours before the bid deadline. DOT acknowledged at hearing that it is Hinson Electrical's prerogative to order the bid documents within the blackout period during which the identities of bidders are kept confidential. Hinson Electrical ordered the bid documents for the Project at approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 24, 2012. The computerized system immediately provided access for Hinson Electrical to download the plans and specifications for the project at issue. However, four minutes later, at approximately 1:04 p.m., Hinson Electrical simultaneously received an email with a "Prequalification Failure Notice," and a second email stating that the bid document request for the Project was "pending." The Prequalification Failure Notice indicated that the bid document was not provided because Hinson Electrical had not attended the required pre-bid meeting for the Project.2/ Failure to attend the pre-bid meeting was the only basis stated in the Prequalification Failure Notice for DOT refusing to provide the bid document. As noted, Hinson Electrical's representative did in fact attend the pre-bid meeting for the Project, and he signed the sign-in sheet, attesting to his presence at the meeting. The sign-in sheet had been transmitted to DOT on August 21, 2012, the day after the pre-bid meeting was held. Thus, DOT's basis for sending Hinson Electrical a Prequalification Failure Notice was in error. The Prequalification Failure Notice also stated, "[Y]ou will be contacted by email or phone as soon as possible during business hours regarding requirements for obtaining the bid documents." However, DOT did not send an email or call Hinson Electrical after 1:04 p.m. on September 24, 2012, or at any time on September 25, 2012. Phillip Davis, a DOT employee in the Contracts Administration Office, was "blind copied" on the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice email, with a "high importance" tag. Mr. Davis' job responsibilities include following up on these types of notices, though he is not supervised to ensure this occurs. Mr. Davis' responsibilities also include checking sign-in sheets from pre-bid meetings to authorize release of bid documents to contractors. DOT admits that Mr. Davis did not read the Hinson Electrical Prequalification Failure Notice; did not check the sign-in sheet from the pre-bid meeting; and made no attempt to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the notice. From September 20 through 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson and Chris Ginn obtained quotes from suppliers and subcontractors to prepare a bid for the Project. Hinson Electrical also secured a bid bond for the Project, and had everything necessary to submit a bid, except for the actual bid document. In the afternoon or early evening of September 25, 2012, Daniel Hinson sat down at his computer with the price lists and quotes he had obtained to prepare a bid for the Project. It was then that Mr. Hinson discovered DOT had not granted him access to the bid document for this Project, and that the failure notice he had received pertained to this Project, and was in error. Hinson Electrical was bidding on a total of eight contracts at that time, some of which did not have a mandatory pre-bid meeting. As of the close of business on September 25, 2012, DOT had still not made any effort to contact Hinson Electrical, as promised in the failure notice. At 7:55 p.m. on September 25, 2012, Hinson Electrical sent an email to the Contracts Administration general email address, stating that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting and asking why Hinson Electrical was being excluded from the bidding. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. the following morning (September 26, 2012, the bid deadline), Chris Ginn called the project inspector, Thomas Woods of HNTB Corporation, on Hinson Electrical's behalf, and requested that HNTB confirm that Hinson Electrical's representative had attended the pre-bid meeting. At 7:32 a.m. that same morning, Mr. Woods sent an email to Juanita Moore notifying her of the error and confirming that Hinson Electrical's representative had indeed attended the pre-bid meeting. The Contracts Administration Office opened at 8:00 a.m. on the day of the bidding deadline. Within 36 minutes (by 8:36 a.m.), Ms. Moore reviewed Mr. Woods' email; checked the sign-in sheet; and instructed a subordinate, Colette Jackson, to send the bid document to Hinson Electrical. Ms. Jackson immediately sent the bid document to Hinson Electrical under a cover email. Ms. Moore testified that Phillip Davis could have easily gone through these same steps on September 24, 2012 (two days before the bid deadline), and timely transmitted the bid document to Hinson Electrical, if he had only read the Prequalification Failure Notice on which he was copied. Ms. Moore agreed that 24 hours would have been sufficient time for Mr. Davis to check the sign-in sheet and release the bid document. When DOT finally provided the bid document to Hinson Electrical, it was 1 hour, 54 minutes before the bid submission deadline. At 8:40 a.m. on September 26, 2012, (four minutes after receiving the bid document) Daniel Hinson spoke by telephone with Colette Jackson about needing additional time to complete Hinson Electrical's electronic bid submission. Colette Jackson testified that one of her responsibilities at DOT is to move bid deadlines, and that she can do so quickly upon receiving instructions from Ms. Moore to do so. However, Ms. Jackson did not have authority to provide the requested relief, so she transferred the call to Ms. Moore. Upon being transferred to Ms. Moore, Mr. Hinson asked for additional time to complete the Hinson Electrical bid for the Project. That request was refused by Ms. Moore. In her view, the fact that the pay items and estimated quantities for the project had previously been provided should have enabled Hinson Electrical to submit a bid within the two hours remaining prior to the deadline. In addition, Ms. Moore felt Hinson Electrical should have taken it upon itself to contact DOT immediately upon receiving the disqualification notification if it believed it had complied with all prerequisites. Contrary to Ms. Moore's opinion, Mr. Hinson testified that it would have taken him about four hours to go through the various steps to submit Hinson Electrical's online bid for the Project. DOT's position that Hinson Electrical could have completed and submitted its bid with less than two hours remaining is rejected as not credible. However, even if that were possible, it would have put Hinson Electrical at a disadvantage because every other bidder was able to download the bid document immediately upon request after the pre-bid meeting. Daniel Hinson has submitted bids for hundreds of DOT projects (including "dozens" using the current online system) and he reasonably believed there was insufficient time remaining before the deadline to prepare a competent bid and ensure its accuracy. Mr. Hinson's testimony regarding the amount of time necessary to prepare a complete and competent bid for the Project is more credible than the testimony of Ms. Moore. Considering the potential cost to Hinson Electrical of a mistake made in haste, it was entirely reasonable for Hinson Electrical to decline to submit a bid, and instead request a bid extension. Likewise, it was unreasonable for DOT to decline the extension request, given that it was DOT's mistake that necessitated the extension. DOT extends bid deadlines dozens of times each year, for various reasons, including computer issues, mistakes in the bid documents, or bad weather. Ms. Moore testified about bid deadlines that had been moved, three or four times in some cases, for reasons including computer glitches, website issues, and "technical problems." In one such instance, contractors could not obtain their bid documents on the Monday before a Wednesday letting (which is what happened to Hinson Electrical in this case), and DOT postponed the bid deadline. In another instance, a bid deadline was postponed for a third time "because the vendors couldn't download what they needed to bid." And in another example, the bid deadline was postponed with notice provided just 92 minutes before the deadline due to "server issues at the Department." In this final example, once the malfunction was identified, DOT promptly sent the notice of postponement to the bidders and later completed the other necessary steps to move the bid deadline. A postponement notice can be sent to bidders in less than ten minutes after the decision to postpone a bid is made. All other steps required to move a bid deadline are typically accomplished by DOT personnel in about an hour. DOT knows of no harm that would have come to the other bidders had DOT agreed to move the bid deadline to allow Hinson sufficient time to submit its online bid. At 9:22 a.m. on September 26, 2012, Daniel Hinson sent an email to Colette Jackson in response to her email, stating there was insufficient time for Hinson Electrical to prepare its bid for the Project and that a protest would be filed if DOT posted its intent to award the contract to one of the other bidders. The letting of the project occurred as scheduled at 10:30 a.m. on September 26, 2012. At approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 24, 2012, DOT posted notice of its intent to award the contract to ALS. This was the second posting date for the September 26, 2012 letting date. Thereafter, Hinson Electrical timely served its notice of protest, formal protest pleading, and the required bond. The advertisement for the Project reads, in part, "Bidders are hereby notified that all bids on any of the following projects are likely to be rejected if the lowest responsive bid received exceeds the engineer's estimate by more than ten percent (10%)." DOT does reject all bids for being too high in some cases. The bid submitted by ALS for the Project exceeded the proposal budget estimate of $4,183,958 by 19.9 percent (ALS' winning bid was $5,016,501.73). The Contract Award Committee (Committee) is the DOT body with discretion to reject all bids for a project. However, Ms. Moore never informed the Committee of Hinson Electrical's situation so that it could determine whether the Project should be rebid. Even after posting notice of intent to award the Project to ALS, DOT retained discretion to reject all bids, but Ms. Moore was unaware of that discretion and never discussed the matter with the Committee. Hinson Electrical credibly established that it would have submitted a bid of $4,973,361.99 for the Project had DOT provided the online bid document when Hinson Electrical first requested it. Thus, Hinson Electrical would have been the low bidder, and presumably awarded the contract. DOT had at least three opportunities to correct its mistake and allow Hinson Electrical an opportunity to bid. DOT could have (l) extended the bid deadline, as it has in many other cases; (2) rejected all bids and rebid the Project, before posting notice of intent to award the contract; or (3) rejected all bids even after posting notice of intent. In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following: DOT has no policy statements, handbook provisions, internal memoranda, guidelines, or other documents regarding the following subjects: How a failure to timely transmit bid documents in response to a prospective bidder's request, whether due to a transmission error or otherwise, should be handled or what relief may be provided to the bidder; Acceptable grounds for extending a bid submission deadline; How an erroneous determination that a prospective bidder for a project was not qualified to bid should be handled, either before or after the bid deadline has expired; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some irregularity in the bidding process; Relief that can or should be provided to a prospective bidder who was denied the opportunity to bid for a project due, at least in part, to some error made by FDOT (including its computer system); and How to handle a situation in which all received bids exceed the budget for the project by more than 10%. (Prehearing Stipulation, pgs. 11-12)
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation that rescinds the Notice of Intent to award Contract T2442 to American Lighting & Signalization, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., and Corporate Interiors, Inc., (Petitioners) is the lowest responsible bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Respondent) for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building, or in the alternative, whether all bids should be rejected as urged by The Harter Group (Intervenor).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received three bids, including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor, and one no bid. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and neither Petitioners nor Intervenor were determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. However, the Petitioners' bid was lower than that of the bidder to whom the Respondent proposes to award this contract. Petitioners' bid was $932,502.39, Intervenor's bid was highest at $1,101,509.90, and the bid of lowest responsible bidder, Haworth, Inc., was $1,072,286.50. The first reason given by Respondent for its determination that Petitioners' bid was not responsive to the bid specifications is that it did not include an amount for sales tax. Intervenor also did not include sales tax in its bid, but Haworth, Inc., which was determined by Respondent to be the lowest responsible bidder, did include sales tax. However, there was no dispute at hearing that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System, and that Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The second reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it omitted a required page from the approved form which was to be used to list those items in the bid proposal that were not in strict compliance with the Respondent's specifications. Petitioners admit that the required page numbered 00310-7 was not included in their bid, but maintain that it was not necessary to include this exact page since all items in their bid do meet specifications, and since a statement to this effect was included elsewhere in the bid. The lowest responsible bidder, as determined by the Respondent, did include this required page with a statement thereon that "all items comply". Intervenor also included this page listing 11 items in its bid which differed from the specifications. The purpose of this required page is to allow the Respondent to have a uniform, clearly identifiable place in each bid proposal where it can look to determine if the items in that bid meet specifications, without having to check every page of each bid. The third reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it included numerous pages of unit costs which were not called for in the specifications, without any explanation as to their meaning or the purpose for which they were included in the bid. Section 4.1.1 of the bid specifications, found at page 00100-11, makes it clear that no bid form other than that which is set forth in the specifications will be accepted, and specifically states that bidders are not even to retype the form on their letterhead, but are to simply fill-in a copy made from the form in the specifications. The Petitioners admit that their bid includes additional, unexplained information that was not called for in the specifications. A final reason given by Respondent at hearing for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it was accompanied by a bid bond, required by Section 4.2.4 of the specifications, in the name of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., while the public entity crime affidavit, required by Section 2.1.5, was subscribed to by Corporate Interiors, Inc. Petitioners' bid did not include a resolution or other evidence of authority that Corporate Interiors, Inc., had authority to submit a public entity crime affidavit on behalf of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., or that the affidavit submitted was valid as to Kimball. Thus, while Petitioners maintain that their bid was jointly filed on behalf of the manufacturer, Kimball, and the vendor, Corporate Interiors, their bid includes a bond from the manufacturer only, and a crime affidavit from the vendor only. Section 1.8 of the specifications, found at page 00100-2, specifies that the bidder is the person or entity that submits a bid. Petitioners urge that theirs is a joint bid, but they have failed to submit a joint bond or affidavit. Section 5.2.1 of the specifications allows the Respondent to reject any bid which fails to include a required security, or other required data. The bid which was determined by the Respondent to be the lowest responsible bid contains no technical flaws, errors or omissions, and the proposal meets all specifications for this project. The Respondent properly posted notice of its intent to award this contract to Haworth, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. Under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, the Respondent has the right to waive "any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and to accept the Bid or Bids which, in (its) judgment, is in (its) own best interest." Respondent chose not to waive any of the irregularities in the Petitioners' bid. This decision was made, in part, because of Respondent's previous experience with Petitioners in their installation of similar systems for Respondent at the Walter Pownall Service Centers in which there had been problems involving service during installation, coordination of the installation work, and verification that invoices received from Corporate Interiors did not exceed the bid base price, and that all items being paid had actually been received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' and Intervenor's protests of its intent to award a contract for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building to Haworth, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 6th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2863BID Petitioner and Intervenor filed letters, but no proposed findings of fact upon which rulings could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. 3. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 4. Adopted in Finding 6. 5. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 6. Adopted in Finding 6. 7. Adopted in Findings 6, 8. 8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. 10-12. Adopted in Finding 6. 13. Adopted in Finding 4. 14. Adopted in Finding 3. 15. Adopted in Finding 5. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 7. 18. Adopted in Finding 1. 19. Adopted in Finding 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Sue Olinger 1284 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
