The Issue Whether the Department’s action to reject all bids submitted in response to DOT-RFP-20-5003-DAA, relating to asbestos abatement, demolition, and removal services, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts (verbatim) The Department is an agency of the State of Florida tasked with procuring the services for Districtwide Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for Right of Way property under the Department’s supervision by law. The Department published a bid solicitation for DOT-RFP-20-5003- DAA, seeking bids to provide District Five Asbestos Abatement and Demolition and Removal Services for FDOT. The RFP included specifications, qualification requirements, instructions on what would be required of responders, a bid price proposal sheet, and the award criteria. Cross Construction and Cross Environmental submitted bids in response to the RFP. Cross Construction’s and Cross Environmental’s bids were evaluated by the Department. There is no debate, challenge, or disagreement raised in the Petitions with regard to the Technical Scores submitted by the responding firms to the RFP, only disagreement on three pay items. On June 15, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee reviewed and discussed the information presented as to the Technical and Pricing scores of the Responding firms, asked for an additional bid item analysis, and indicated that it would reconvene at a future date for a decision. On June 22, 2020, the Selection Committee reviewed, discussed, and confirmed the recommendation presented by the results of the Technical Review Committee scorings and the Project Manager’s Bid Price analysis and selected Cross Construction and Cross Environmental as Intended Awardees. The Selection committee also found that Johnson’s Excavation and Services Inc., [Johnson] and Simpson Environmental LLC [Simpson] were deemed non-responsive due to irregular, and unbalanced pay items prices. On August 24, 2020, the Department’s Selection Committee decided to cancel the Procurement with the intent to readvertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing Structure and decided to reject all proposals. Additional Findings of Fact The “three pay items” referenced in paragraph six of the stipulated facts are the items that ultimately caused the Department to reject all bids in the instant dispute. The three pay items are collectively referred to as mobilization pay items. The RFP directs that bids are to contain two parts. Part I is the technical proposal, and Part II is the price proposal. Section 30.3 of the RFP provides that proposers “shall complete the Bid Price Proposal Form No. 2 and submit [the form] as part of the Price Proposal Package … [and that] [t]he Procurement Office and/or the Project Manager/TRC will review and evaluate the price proposals and prepare a summary of its price evaluation.” Five bidders submitted proposals in response to the RFP. One bidder did not advance beyond the initial review phase because its technical proposal did not meet minimum bid standards. The remaining bidders were CCS, CES, Simpson, and Johnson. Price proposals submitted by each of the remaining bidders were evaluated by the Department. Section 3 of the RFP provides a general outline of the process associated with awarding the contract. The steps are: “Pre-Proposal Conference; Public Opening (Technical Proposals); Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting; and, Selection Committee Meeting Summarizing Evaluations and Determining Anticipated Award.” The agenda for the “Price Proposal Opening & Intended Award Meeting,” as established by the RFP, provides as follows: Opening remarks of approx. 2 minutes by Department Procurement Office personnel. Public input period – To allow a reasonable amount of time for public input related to the RFP solicitation. At conclusion of public period, the Technical evaluation scores will be summarized. Announce the firms that did not achieve the minimum technical score. Announce the firms that achieved the minimum technical score and their price(s) as price proposals are opened. Calculate price scores and add to technical scores to arrive at total scores. Announce Proposer with highest Total Score as Intended Award. Announce time and date the decision will be posted on the Vendor Bid System (VBS). Adjourn. Section 30.4 b. of the RFP provides that a proposer can be awarded a maximum of 30 points for its price proposal. This section also provides that “[p]rice evaluation is the process of examining a prospective price without evaluation of the separate cost elements and proposed profit of the potential provider.” On June 15, 2020, the selection review committee met publicly for the purpose of opening price proposals and announcing an intended award. Price proposals were opened, and the eligible bidders received the following price scores: CCS - 11.09; CES - 13.22; Johnson - 19.76; and Simpson - 30. In terms of total score, which combined both the technical and price scores, Simpson received a score of 113.00, which was the highest score, followed by CES (107.55), CCS (103.76), and Johnson (101.76). After opening and considering the price proposals of the respective bidders, the selection committee did not announce an intended award at the meeting on June 15, 2020, but instead requested that the project manager “do further analysis on the pay items for any potential imbalance.” The project manager, through a staff member, performed the additional analysis and determined that Johnson and Simpson submitted “irregular, unbalanced pay items” which resulted in their respective bids being deemed non- responsive and thus not eligible for award. The “irregular, unbalanced pay items” are the three mobilization pay items at issue in the instant matter, and are identified on the bid price proposal sheet as items AB200, AB201, and AB202. Simpson bid $400 for item AB200, $100 for item AB201, and $50 for item AB202. Johnson bid $250 for item AB200, $250 for item AB201, and $100 for item AB202. CCS bid $1 for item AB200, $1 for item AB201, and $1 for item AB202. CES bid $1 for item AB200, 75 cents for item AB201, and 50 cents for item AB202. The Department, in evaluating the bidders’ mobilization pay items, considered costs associated with abatement two structures, a 1,500 and 2,250 square feet structure respectively. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CCS’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $2,250. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, CES’ AB200 mobilization costs totaled $1,500. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, CES’ AB201 mobilization costs totaled $1,687.50. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $375,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Johnson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $562,500. For the 1,500-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB200 mobilization costs totaled $600,000. For the 2,250-square-foot structure, Simpson’s AB201 mobilization costs totaled $225,000. On June 22, 2020, the selection committee reconvened and announced CCS and CES as intended awardees of the contract. The Department also announced at this meeting that Johnson and Simpson were “deemed non- responsive due to irregular, unbalanced pay item prices.” On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed a Notice of Protest wherein the company informed the Department of its intent to formally protest the intended award of contracts to CCS and CES. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed with the Department its “formal written petition of protest.” Although Simpson’s formal protest is dated July 6, 2020, CCS and CES contend that Simpson’s protest was actually filed on July 7, 2020, thereby making the protest untimely by a day. The Department did not refer Simpson’s formal protest to DOAH for final hearing, but instead considered the issues presented by Simpson in its protest and then attempted to negotiate a resolution with Simpson, CCS, and CES. Those efforts were unsuccessful. The question of the timeliness of the formal bid protest filed by Simpson is not before the undersigned. Nevertheless, the undisputed facts as to Simpson’s protest, as demonstrated by the record herein, are as follows. On June 24, 2020, Simpson filed notice of its intent to protest the RFP. On June 29, 2020, CCS received notice that a bid protest was filed with respect to the RFP. On July 1, 2020, CES filed a public records request “for public records related to the bid protest made to the” RFP. On or about July 6, 2020, Simpson filed its formal written protest with respect to the RFP, and although the evidence is not clear as to the date, it is undisputed that the Department received affidavits from Simpson explaining the factual circumstances surrounding the filing of the company’s formal written protest. On July 15, 2020, the Department notified CCS and CES that “in response to the Formal Written Protest filed by Simpson Environmental Services, the Department will hold a settlement conference” on Friday, July 17, 2020. On July 21, 2020, Simpson, CES, and CCS notified the Department that they “reached an agreed upon settlement proposal.” On August 11, 2020, the Department, after considering the settlement proposal for several weeks, notified Simpson, CES, and CCS that the Department would discuss the RFP at a public meeting to be held on August 24, 2020. As previously noted, it was during the meeting on August 24, 2020, when the Department announced that all proposals received in response to RFP were rejected. CES, on or about July 1, 2020, submitted to the Department a public records request wherein the company sought a copy of documents related to Simpson’s protest. In response to the request, the Department provided CES a copy of the formal written protest filed by Simpson. It is undisputed that the initial copy provided to CES by the Department did not show either the date or time of receipt of the document filed by Simpson. At some point after the settlement conference, the Department provided to CES a date and time stamped copy of Simpson’s formal written protest. There was no evidence presented explaining the circumstances or the process which resulted in the Department providing different copies of Simpson’s formal written protest to CES, and the remaining evidence does not provide a sufficient foundation to reasonably infer that the Department acted with nefarious motives when providing different versions of the documents to CES. Simpson’s formal protest contains the following statement with respect to the price proposal that the company submitted in response to the RFP: Petitioner’s individual bid price items were based in fact, were reasonable and were in conformity with standard industry rates for similar asbestos abatement and demolition and removal projects. Petitioner’s bid price items were also patently similar to bid price items that Petitioner has previously submitted in response to past FDOT proposal requests that ultimately resulted in the corresponding contracts having been awarded to Petitioner. Indeed, Petitioner has a longstanding relationship with the FDOT as Petitioner has previously contracted with FDOT as a vendor performing asbestos abatement services on numerous projects over the course of the past eight years. Petitioner’s price items for bid proposals have remained consistent for each of its past projects with FDOT. Petitioner’s price items for the instant bid proposal did not differ or vary in any material aspect from those proposed by Petitioner for previous projects that FDOT has deemed reasonable. Michelle Sloan works for the Department as a district procurement manager, and was assigned to manage the instant RFP. Ms. Sloan testified that because Simpson protested the Department’s intended decision to award the contracts to CCS and CES, and specifically referenced in its protest “that their bid for mobilization was in conformance with industry standards, as well as previous bids submitted to the agency that were deemed responsive,” she conducted additional review of the Simpson and Johnson bids. Ms. Sloan testified that after reviewing the RFP, the price sheets related thereto, Simpson’s protest, and the additional analysis of the pay items conducted following the June 15, 2020, selection committee meeting, she concluded that material ambiguities existed in the RFP’s mobilization pay items and recommended to the district secretary that the Department “reject all [bids] and re-advertise with a revised pricing sheet and instructions.” On August 24, 2020, the selection committee, following public notice, accepted Ms. Sloan’s recommendation, rejected all proposals, and canceled the procurement with the “intent to re-advertise with adjustments to the Scope and Pricing structure.” A review of the credible evidence demonstrates a rational basis for the conclusions reached by Ms. Sloan and members of the selection committee. Exhibit C of the RFP is titled “Price Proposal/Detailed and Contractual Price Sheet.” The first page of this document provides a general description of the asbestos removal and abatement pay items. The general pay items are as follows: AB100 Fees [as] determined from the Department of Environmental Protection based upon regulated material. AB200 One-time fee necessary to mobilize for full isolation, per parcel, when abatement with isolation is required. AB300 Fees to be charged by square feet for preparation [of] structure before abatement can commence. AB400 Fees to be charged by square feet, to abate asbestos from various surfacing material such as ceiling, walls, beams, plaster, sheetrock and fireproofing using conventional containment methods. AB500 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks ducts, fittings, pipes, flutes and flanges. AB600 Fees to be charged either by square foot, linear foot or fittings to abate asbestos from various mechanical systems such as boilers, stacks, ducts, pipe, fittings and jackets which involve the use of a Glove bag. AB700 Fees to be charged by square foot, to abate asbestos from various roofing materials such as cement roof shingles, flashing, rolled roof, felts, wood shingles and mobile home coating. AB800 Fees to be charged by square foot or piece to abate asbestos from various materials such as floor tile, mastic adhesive, sheet vinyl, carpet, wood sub- floor, concrete sub-floor, vibrator dampers, wallboard, metal ductwork and sinks with insulation and heat shields (light fixture). AB900 Fees to be charge[d] by landfill for asbestos disposal. The bid price proposal sheet, which is form number 2 of the RFP, provides a listing of specific pay items related to the general “AB ---” items listed in Exhibit C to the RFP. Below is an example of some of the specific pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet: [See table on next page] Item Number Description (A) Estimat ed Quantit y Unit (B) Unit Pric e Total Bid Amount (A x B) ASBESTOS REMOVAL ABATEMENT AB200 Mobilization for structures less than 2,000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB201 Mobilization for structures [from] 2001 – 5000 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB202 Mobilization for structures over 5001 Sq. FT. 1 SQ. FT. AB300 Mask and Seal 1 SQ. FT. AB401 Remove ACM plaster/lathe including all surface materials 1 SQ. FT. AB501 Remove insulation from fittings 1 LF. AB603 Remove insulation from boilers, stacks or ducts piping 1 LF. AB703 Remove roofing cement 1 SQ. FT. AB810 Remove carpet and mastic adhesive 1 SQ. FT. AB820 Remove sinks with insulation 1 SQ. FT. AB901 Non-Friable 1 SQ. FT. General pay item category AB200, as described on Exhibit C, does not reference a “unit of measurement,” but instead notes that items within this category are to be determined on a “one-time – per parcel” basis. When the AB200 general pay item category is compared to the specific pay items for this category enumerated on the bid price proposal sheet (i.e., AB200, AB201, and AB202), it is evident that the unit of measurement “square feet” is listed as the basis for calculating the bid amount for this item when no such unit of measurement is stated for this item on Exhibit C. Comparatively, general pay item categories AB300 through AB800 each expressly references a specific unit of measurement (i.e., square foot, linear foot, or by the “piece”), and these units of measurement carry over to and are consistently reflected on the bid price proposal sheet for the specific pay items enumerated therein. By inserting a unit of measurement (i.e., square feet) in the mobilization pay items listed on the bid price proposal sheet, when the general description on Exhibit C instructs that they are “one-time, per parcel” pay items, the Department created a material ambiguity in the bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby Recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a final order in Case Nos. 20-4214 and 20-4216 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-20-5003-DAA was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing the two petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 14th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Dell Dolan, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brian A. Leung, Esquire Holcomb & Leung, P.A. 3203 West Cypress Street Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Diane E. H. Watson, Esquire Cross Environmental Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1299 Crystal Springs, Florida 33524-1299 (eServed) Kevin J. Tibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Findings based on stipulation The School Board of Broward County, Florida, ["Board"] issued bid number 94-307D [Lease of School Board Owned Parking Lot - Term Contract] on the 22nd day of November, 1993. Three bidders responded to the invitation to bid. They were: Bliss Parking, Inc., a Florida Corporation ("Bliss"); Fort Lauderdale Transportation, Inc., d/b/a USA Parking Systems ("USA"); and Carl A. Borge. An initial review of the tabulations of the bids indicated that Bliss and USA had submitted the identical percentage of shared revenue to the Board in their respective bids. After the review of the bids, Board staff posted a recommendation to award the bid to USA. [See the "remarks" portion of Exhibit B.] A bid protest was filed by Bliss because of the "remarks" portion of Exhibit B. After a review of Bliss' bid protest, Board staff amended its recommendation to reject all bids because of the issues raised in Bliss' protest. After Board staff notified all bidders of this amended recommendation, USA filed a notice and formal protest. The Board, at its meeting on March 1, 1994, heard the presentation of USA and Board staff. The Board, after deliberating the matter, deferred the item until the meeting of March 15, 1994, wherein seven Board members would be present. At the March 15, 1994, Board meeting, by a vote of 4 to 3, the Board granted USA's protest and awarded the bid to USA whom the Board had determined was the highest bidder meeting bid specifications. All bidders were notified of the Board's action and on the 16th day of March 1994 Bliss timely filed its notice of protest and its formal written protest. Bliss appeared with counsel before the Board on the 5th day of April 1994. After considering arguments of counsel for Bliss and reviewing the material in Agenda Item H-1 and in consideration of its previous actions, it voted to reject Bliss' protest seeking the rejection of all bids received and re-bidding of the item. Bliss subsequently requested a formal hearing under Chapter 120.57, Florida Statutes. Findings based on evidence adduced at hearing The General Conditions portion of the Invitation To Bid includes the following provision: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications must be submitted in writing and received by the Department of Purchasing no later than five (5) working days prior to the original bid opening date. If necessary, an Addendum will be issued. A related provision in the Special Conditions portion of the Invitation To Bid reads as follows: 21. INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mrs. Sharon Swan, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (305) 765-6086 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Swan nor any employee of the SBBC is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with General Condition #7. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. The Special Conditions portion of the subject Invitation To Bid includes the following provisions: REFERENCES: A minimum of three (3) references must be provided by completing page 14 of the bid. Failure to provide references with the bid or within five (5) days of request by the Purchasing Department will be reason for disqualification of bid submitted. All references will be called. SBBC reserves the right to reject bid based on information provided by references. Page 14 of the Invitation To Bid has three sections, each of which reads as follows: COMPANY NAME: STREET ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON'S NAME: NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES: LENGTH OF CONTRACT: At page 12 of the Invitation To Bid, the following note appears under the Bid Summary Sheet portion of the document: "NOTE: Calculation of high bidder shall be the bidder offering the highest percent of shared revenue meeting all specifications and conditions of this bid." The Special Conditions portion of the Invitation To Bid also contains a procedure for resolving tie bids, which reads as follows, in pertinent part: TIE BID PROCEDURES: When identical prices are received from two or more vendors and all other factors are equal, priority for award shall be given to vendors in the following sequence: A business that certifies that it has implemented a drug free work place program shall be given preference in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 287.087, Florida Statutes; The Broward County Certified Minority/ Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Palm Beach or Dade County Certified Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Florida Certified Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Broward County vendor, other than a Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor: The Palm Beach or Dade County vendor, other than a Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Florida vendor, other than a Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor. If application of the above criteria does not indicate a priority for award, the award will be decided by a coin toss. The coin toss shall be held publicly in the Purchasing Department; the tie low bid vendors invited to be present as witnesses. The Petitioner filled out all three sections on page 14 of the Invitation To Bid and submitted that page with its bid. The three references listed by the Petitioner were companies for whom the Petitioner provided parking services or parking facilities, but none of the three references listed by the Petitioner was a land owner from whom the Petitioner leased land for the operation of a parking facility. Mr. Arthur Smith Hanby is the Director of Purchasing for the School Board of Broward County. In that capacity he is in charge of the bidding process for the School Board. Specifically, he was in charge of the bidding process for the subject project. In the course of evaluating the bids on the subject project, the evaluation committee reached the conclusion that there was a problem with the bid submitted by the Petitioner with respect to the references listed in the Petitioner's bid. In the original bid tabulation and recommendation posted on January 4, 1994, the recommendation was that the contract be awarded to the Intervenor, whose bid amount tied with the Petitioner's bid amount. 4/ The reasons for the recommendation were described as follows in the "remarks" portion of the tabulation and recommendation form: REJECT BID FROM BLISS PARKING, INC. REFERENCES WERE GIVEN ON PAGE 14 OF BID. ALL REFERENCES WERE CALLED. BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THESE REFERENCES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIAL CONDITION #10, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BID FROM BLISS PARKING, INC. BE REJECTED. EVALUATION OF THIS BID CEASED AT THIS TIME. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY THIS BID COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. The sole reason for the rejection of the Petitioner's bid was that the references listed by the Petitioner were not the types of references the evaluation committee wanted to receive. The evaluation committee wanted references from entities who, like the School Board, were land owners who had leased land to a parking lot operator. The evaluation committee was of the opinion that references from other sources would not adequately protect the interests of the School Board. There is nothing in the Invitation To Bid that addresses the issue of who should be listed as references. Specifically, there is nothing in the Invitation To Bid requiring that references be submitted from land owners who had leased land to a parking lot operator. At the time of the issuance of the subject Invitation To Bid, the Petitioner was operating the subject parking lot for the School Board. There were no material differences in the bids submitted by the Petitioner and the Intervenor other than the differences in the types of references they listed. The Petitioner's references who were contacted did not provide any adverse information about the Petitioner. The evaluation committee spoke to two of the references listed by the Petitioner, but did not speak to the third listed reference. The third reference listed by the Petitioner was a court reporting firm located across the street from the location of the subject parking lot. The evaluation committee did not speak to anyone at the court reporting office because the telephone number listed for that reference was not a working number. The evaluation committee made an unsuccessful attempt to locate the telephone number of the court reporting firm in the telephone book.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner's bid is responsive to the Invitation To Bid and that the School Board then take one of the courses of action described in paragraph 26, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June 1994 at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June 1994.
Findings Of Fact The invitation to bid on state Project Nos. 86906-9093, 86906-9094, and 86906-9085 (the "ITB") contained, among other things, 43 pages of Technical Specifications Roadside and Slope Mowing ("Technical Specifications"). Paragraph VI.A. of the Technical Specifications contained the following provision: When mowing areas within ten feet of the travel way, the equipment shall be operated in the direction of the traffic. This provision does not apply when the specific worksite (sic) is protected in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation Roadway and Traffic Design standards [attached]. 3/ Respondent amended the ITB by letter dated May 1, 1990, which contained Addendum Nos. 1 and 2. Addendum No. 1 amended the invitations to bid on State Project Nos. 86906-9093 and 86906-9094 by deleting the "last" word "attached" from Paragraph VI.A. Addendum No. 2 amended the invitations to bid on State Project No. 86906-9085 by deleting the "last" word "attached" from Paragraph VI.A. No other changes were made in the amendments to the invitations to bid on the three state projects at issue in this proceeding ("Amended ITB"). The ITB contained a requirement that all bidders attend a Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference to allow bidders an opportunity to speak to Respondent's maintenance engineers about any concerns over the ITB. Petitioner attended the Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference conducted on April 26, 1990, for the ITB. 4/ The ITB and the Amended ITB contained a requirement that each bidder visually inspect the roadside areas to be mowed. Petitioner knew of the requirement for visual inspection and complied with that requirement. Petitioner had previous experience in mowing roadside areas for Respondent. The Florida Department of Transportation Roadway and Traffic Design standards ("Standards Index") was not attached to either the ITB or the Amended ITB. Paragraph 9 of the General District Contract Specifications provided that the successful bidder "...shall adhere to the requirements of Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD")." Neither the ITB nor the Amended ITB included a copy of either the MUTCD or Part VI of the MUTCD. Petitioner received the ITB on April 12, 1990, and requested a copy of the Standards Index at that time from Teresa Martin, Assistant District Contracts Administrator, District Four, Florida Department of Transportation. Ms. Martin advised Petitioner on April 12, 1990, that no copies of the Standards Index were available locally and further advised Petitioner of the location and means for obtaining a copy of the Standards Index in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner made no attempt to obtain a copy of the Standards Index at that time. Petitioner again requested a copy of the Standards Index from Ms. Martin on May 2, 1990, and was advised again at that time of the location and means of obtaining a copy of the Standards Index. The bid package did not fail to contain any "plan" referred to in: Section 4, Scope of Work, paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2; Section 5, Control of the Work, paragraph 5.2; Section 12, Work Assignment and Planning for Routine Contract Maintenance, paragraphs 2 and 4-6, page 5, paragraph 1.2, page 20, Section II D., III A., page 24, Section IX, and page 64, Proposal. Petitioner presented no evidence or authority describing the applicable standard for defining a "plan". The ITB and Amended ITB contain a description of which roadsides are to be mowed, the manner in which the work should be performed, each pay item and the quantity estimated for each item, the estimated number of mowing cycles, and numerous other detailed provisions regarding mowing operations, operator safety, equipment maintenance, and conversion charts. While the ITB and Amended ITB are standard forms of contract issued by the Department of General Services, they are tailored to meet the specific needs of a mowing contract by means of the Technical Specifications. In the absence of evidence or authority to the contrary from Petitioner, the ITB and Amended ITB are found to include all relevant plans. Respondent failed to include either the "form of Contract" or "Bond" referred to in pages 1, 10, and 64 of the ITB and Amended ITB. Page 64 contained a form of bid proposal which required each bidder to sign a statement that the bidder had "...carefully and to [its] satisfaction examined the...form of Contract and Bond.. The ITB and Amended ITB did not fail to state standards for what is "customary to the mowing operation". The ITB and Amended ITB were prepared on a standard form of contract issued by the Department of General Services and used by Respondent to solicit bids for various types of commodities and services. The ITB and Amended ITB were used to solicit mowing services for specified roadside areas In Broward County, Florida. They were composed of general specifications, bidding documents, technical specifications, and mowing guidelines. The term "custom" by definition refers to the prevailing practice that has been established over time within a geographical area rather than the written terms of a contract. 5/ The definition of grass or vegetated roadside areas to be mowed, which is set forth in Section I, Description A, page 19, excludes certain plants and vines which are present in the areas to be mowed. 6/ Such a definition does not take into account the different toughness and clumping characteristics of each type of grass or weed within the mowing area. Differences in toughness and clumping characteristics of grasses and weeds can adversely alter the uniformity of cutting height. The Technical specifications neither define the term "routine mowing", as used in Sections II.D. and III.A., nor prescribe how high grass or weeds should be allowed to grow before Respondent issues a work order or a notice to proceed. Grass, weeds, plants, and vines in a roadside area that are left for several months without a work order being issued can grow to a height of 10 feet, develop very hard stems, or lay down during mowing and later rebound. The Technical Specifications do not contain a definition of minimum mower size. The frequency with which Respondent issues work orders or notices to proceed depends on growth conditions in the particular roadside area including rain and drought. The topography of the roadside areas to be mowed includes holes, boulders, and un-repaired washouts. The topographical characteristics of the roadside areas and the toughness and clumping characteristics of the grasses and weeds in the roadside areas adversely affect the ability of a successful bidder to comply with cutting height and green streak requirements in the Technical Specifications. 7/ The ITB and Amended ITB were neither arbitrary, capricious, nor beyond Respondent's discretion. The terms of the ITB and Amended ITB were not inherently uncertain or unreasonable. No evidence was presented that Respondent abused its discretion in soliciting the bids, that the accepted bid, if any, was not a reasonable price for the work solicited, that the law was not complied with, or that the contract to be awarded was not fair and capable of just and lawful enforcement. The ITB and Amended ITB were sufficiently precise to protect the public against collusive contracts, prevent favoritism toward contractors, and secure fair competition upon equal terms to all bidders. The ITB and Amended ITB afforded a basis for an exact comparison of bids among all bidders and did not reserve to an officer of the public body the power to make exceptions, releases, and modifications that would afford opportunities for favoritism after the contract is let.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's written formal protest be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of August, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 3rd day of August, 1990.
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 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
The Issue Whether, in issuing the Revised Recommendation/Tabulation for contracts for Items 1 and 3 for Invitation to Bid No. 15- 048E, Multifunctional Devices, Cost-Per-Copy, Respondent acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 2014, SBBC issued ITB No. 15-048E (the ITB) entitled "Multifunctional Devices, Cost-Per-Copy" for the provision and maintenance of copying devices during the contract term. The listed Submittal Requirements were: Manufacturer's Authorization Special Condition 8; Descriptive Literature Special Condition 6; and Material Safety Data Sheets Special Condition 16. A Bidder's Preference Statement was not identified as a Submittal Requirement. Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB was entitled "TERM" and notified bidders that SBBC sought through the award of this bid to "establish a contract for the period beginning from the date of award and continuing through June 30, 2017." The Bid Summary Sheet found at Section 5 of the ITB requested bidders to provide cost-per-copy based on a stated average monthly number of copies, and to extrapolate cost out for 12 months and for 36 months. Page 1 of the ITB contained a certification to be executed by each bidder's authorized representative which stated in pertinent part as follows: Bidder agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and conditions contained in the ITB, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements of this ITB and failure to comply will result in disqualification of bid submitted. All bidders submitted a signed bidder certification. Section 3, Paragraph 1(a), of the General Conditions of the ITB provided as follows: SEALED BID REQUIREMENTS: The "Bidder Acknowledgment Section" must be completed, signed and returned with the bid. The Bid Summary Sheet pages on which the Bidder actually submits a bid, and any pages, upon which information is required to be inserted, must be completed and submitted with the bid. The School Board of Broward County (SBBC) reserves the right to reject any bid that fails to comply with these submittal requirements. BIDDER'S RESPONSIBILITY: It is the responsibility of the Bidder to be certain that all numbered pages of the bid and all attachments thereto are received and all Addendum released are received prior to submitting a bid without regard to how a copy of this ITB was obtained. All bids are subject to the conditions specified herein on the attached bid documents and on any Addenda issued thereto. Section 3, Paragraph 6, of the General Conditions of the ITB provided as follows: AWARDS: In the best interest of SBBC, the Board reserves the right to: 1) withdraw this bid at any time prior to the time and date specified for the bid opening; 2) to reject any or all bids received when there are sound documented business reasons that serve the best interest of SBBC; 3) to accept any item or group of items unless qualified by Bidder; and 4) to acquire additional quantities at prices quoted on this ITB unless additional quantities are not acceptable, in which case, the bid sheets must be noted "BID IS FOR SPECIFIED QUANTITY ONLY." On June 18, 2014, SBBC issued Addendum Number 1 for the ITB which replaced a number of pages within the bidding documents and contained responses to questions posed by prospective bidders. Addendum Number 1 included Question No. 6 in which Xerox inquired whether SBBC "would . . . consider a change to the contract term of the contract to 48 or 60-month term?" SBBC responded through Addendum Number 1 that it had amended the bid "to include additional pricing for 48 or 60-months term[s]," and SBBC continued to request proposals for a 36-month contract term. Addendum Number 1 revised Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the Special Conditions of the ITB to state as follows: TERM: The award of this bid shall establish a contract for the period beginning from the date of award and continuing through an award for a term of 36, 48 or 60 months. Bids will not be considered for a shorter period of time. All prices quoted must be firm throughout the contract period. Items will be ordered on an as needed basis. Addendum Number 1 included an Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet which required bidders to provide cost-per-copy based on a stated average monthly number of copies, and to extrapolate cost out for 12 months, 36 months, 48 months, and 60 months. On June 20, 2014, SBBC issued Addendum Number 2 for the ITB. The first page of Addendum Number 2 advised prospective bidders, "This Addendum amends the above referenced bid in the following particulars only: 1. DELETE: Appendix A–Cost Summary Sheet INSERT: Revised Appendix A–Cost Summary Sheet." The first page of Addendum Number 2 further cautioned bidders that "[i]t is important to include the REVISED page when submitting your response." Addendum Number 2 went on to provide a Revised- Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet which stated "A Cost Summary Sheet must be completed for each options [sic] 36 months, 48 months and 60 months" and included a cost summary sheet for each of those three options. The ITB and addenda numbers 1 and 2 were released by SBBC via Onvia DemandStar, with email notices thereof to prospective vendors who subscribed to its bid notification service. Toshiba downloaded the ITB, Addendum Number 1, and at least the first page of Addendum Number 2 from DemandStar prior to the submission of its bid to SBBC. Again, the first page of Addendum Number 2 cautioned bidders that Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet had been deleted and replaced and that it was "important to include the REVISED page when submitting your response." No bid specifications protest was filed by any person or entity concerning the ITB or addenda numbers 1 or 2. On July 3, 2014, SBBC opened bids timely submitted in response to the ITB by: Toshiba; ImageNet; Innovative; Lexmark International, Inc.; and Ricoh. Konica had also presented a bid to SBBC in the bid opening room prior to the opening of bids but after the announced time for submittal of bids. The Konica bid was delivered to SBBC but was not opened at the time of the bid opening. Toshiba, the incumbent, was the only bidder that violated the pricing requirements of the ITB. The bid submitted by Toshiba utilized the version of Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet that was released under Addendum Number 1 and only offered cost- per-copy pricing for the 60-month term option. Toshiba's bid did not submit the Revised-Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet issued under Addendum Number 2, nor did it contain any bids offering cost per copy pricing to SBBC for the 36 or 48-month term options. Although Toshiba's bid was not rejected as non-responsive for failing to bid on the 36 and 48-month term options and for failing to utilize and complete the Revised-Appendix A-Summary Cost Sheet issued under Addendum Number 2, SBBC's staff later concluded in hindsight that it should have been rejected for such non-compliance. Toshiba's bid included a "Pricing" note immediately prior to its Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet that stated: [Toshiba] is proposing a 60 month CPC as a response to the [ITB]. Based on the fact the [ITB] has no minimum, cancellation for convenience, ability to upgrade and downgrade with no penalty, it is in the best interest of our organization to bid a term of 60 months. This term allows us to provide the most aggressive price to the [SBBC] and maintain the excellent service and support level in place. SBBC's staff recommended that an award be made under the ITB for pricing offered for a 36-month contract term for Items 1, 2, and 3 for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017. On July 10, 2014, SBBC posted its initial ITB Recommendation/Tabulation which did not consider the Konica bid. The initial posted Recommendation/Tabulation notified bidders of SBBC's intended award of contracts for Items 1 and 2 to ImageNet as the primary awardee and to Innovative as the alternate awardee for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017, and recommended the award of contracts for Item 3 to Ricoh as primary awardee and to ImageNet as alternate awardee for a contract period of August 6, 2014, through September 30, 2017. Timely bid protests and bid protest bonds were filed by Konica and by Toshiba concerning SBBC's initial Recommendation/Tabulation of July 10, 2014. SBBC's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with the protestors on August 26, 2014, and determined that Konica's bid had been timely submitted and directed SBBC's Procurement and Warehousing Services Department (the Department) to evaluate Konica's bid for responsiveness. It also directed the Department to revise its recommendation on the ITB to reject Toshiba's bid for Item 2 as the device offered by Toshiba for that item did not meet the ITB's specifications which called for a single device capable of performing 95 copies per minute (cpm) and Toshiba instead offered two devices that performed at 85 cpm. After reviewing Konica's bid for responsiveness, SBBC posted a Revised Recommendation/Tabulation for the ITB on August 29, 2014, which (a) recommended award of Item 1 to ImageNet for a term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, as the primary awardee and to Innovative as the alternate awardee; (b) recommended award of Item 3 to Ricoh for a term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, as the primary awardee and to ImageNet as the alternate awardee; and (c) recommended the rejection of Toshiba's bid for Item 2 for its failure to meet the specifications for that Item. On September 4, 2014, Toshiba timely filed its notice of intent to protest the August 29, 2014, posted Revised Recommendation/Tabulation. On September 15, 2014, Toshiba timely filed its Amended Formal Petition Protesting Proposed Revised Recommendation/Tabulation. SBBC's Bid Protest Committee conducted a meeting with Toshiba on November 5, 2014, pursuant to section 120.57(3), SBBC Purchasing Policy 3320, and the ITB, and rejected Toshiba's bid protest. On November 10, 2014, Toshiba timely requested that SBBC forward its bid protest to DOAH for a formal hearing. Toshiba has presented a number of arguments in these proceedings seeking to avoid the circumstances Toshiba created for itself when it failed to comply with Addendum Number 2 and violated the ITB's pricing requirements and the ITB's requirement as to the term of the contract to be awarded, when Toshiba only submitted a single bid and restricted the contract term for which it would be considered to 60 months. First, Toshiba attempts to divest SBBC of its express authority to select proposals for any contract duration for which it solicited bids other than for a month term. Second, Toshiba argues that SBBC was somehow obligated to specify within the bid specifications those business considerations that would inform SBBC's selection of the duration of the contract term to be awarded under the ITB. Third, Toshiba argues that ImageNet was non-responsive regarding the ITB's specifications concerning manufacturer's certifications. Toshiba also argues that all bidders, including itself, were non- responsive with regard to the ITB's specifications regarding bidding preference laws. None of the arguments presented by Toshiba in opposition to SBBC's intended award of Items 1 and 3 are persuasive. The Selection of the 36-Month Term SBBC's recommended award for a 36-month contract period from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, is consistent with the terms and conditions of the ITB and its addenda. At the very start of this competitive solicitation, SBBC informed bidders through Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB and the Bid Summary Sheet at Section 5 of the ITB that it was seeking a contract through June 30, 2017-–i.e., a 36-month contract. SBBC also made it clear in its response to Question No. 6 of Addendum Number 1 that "[t]he contract will be for a full 36 months." Although SBBC revised the bid specifications through Addendum Number 1 to allow bidders to submit "additional pricing for 48 and 60 months term[s]," "to allow the School District to consider a 48 and/or 60 months term contract," and revised Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the ITB to provide for "an award for a term of 36, 48 or 60 months," it was clear under the ITB that SBBC contemplated that a 36-month contract could serve its needs. Addendum Number 2 further revised the bid specifications by providing the Revised–Appendix A–Summary Cost Sheet which informed bidders that "a Cost Summary Sheet must be completed for each options [sic] 36 months, 48 months and 60 months." SBBC intended to review the additional pricing offered for 48 and 60- month contract terms to determine whether those particular options were a better business decision for SBBC. Several factors were considered by SBBC in selecting the contract duration for the award under the ITB. The selection of the shorter 36-month contract term was consistent with the expressed terms of the ITB and addenda and the expressed preference of SBBC's governing board to refrain from entering into long-term contracts and enabled SBBC to be flexible in finding solutions to its copying needs and to take advantage of changes that may arise in technology; avoided problems the school district was currently experiencing with a long-term cost-per- copy contract which ranged from equipment performance issues to the long-term placement of technology in schools; and enabled the school district to conduct research to determine whether future implementation of a managed print solution would provide the school district with additional cost savings or financial benefits in contrast to the cost-per-copy services being procured through the ITB. Clearly, this selection was neither arbitrary nor capricious. SBBC's elected governing board has made it known by its actions taken at public meetings that it disfavors long-term contracts for the procurement of goods and services and has gone so far as to reduce the term of contracts from the dais. SBBC's staff determined that the pricing offered to SBBC for a 60-month contract term was not significant enough to recommend a contract longer than the 36-month term SBBC had been requesting since the release of the ITB. Any cost advantages offered by Toshiba's bids for Items 1, 2, and 3 were reduced by $525,000 per year due to the disqualification of its bid for Item 2, which failed to meet the ITB's specifications. Consideration of Managed Print Services Xerox Corporation informed SBBC that a managed print services (MPS) program could save millions of dollars per year and later submitted a no bid response to SBBC regarding the ITB because SBBC was not implementing a MPS program under the ITB. SBBC had also received proposals from vendors in October 2013 concerning a MPS program and concluded that there existed a potential annual savings of millions of dollars if such a program could be implemented. All of which were additional reasonable, rational reasons for SBBC to remain consistent with its decision to award the contracts for a term of 36 months and not something longer. The ITB contains standard terms and conditions which enable SBBC to terminate an awarded contract regardless of reason and with or without cause upon 30 days written notice to the other party. Toshiba wants SBBC to rescue Toshiba from its failure to submit required bids for 36-month and 48-month periods by forcing SBBC to award a contract obligating the agency for a longer duration under the ITB than desired by the agency and then have SBBC terminate the 60-month contract award for convenience after 36 months. SBBC includes termination for convenience provisions within its contracts for goods and services due to section 1011.14, Florida Statutes, which restricts the ability of district school boards to obligate public funds for a period beyond one year. The inclusion of the standard termination for convenience clauses in its ITBs enables SBBC to enter into contracts exceeding one year which affords the school district opportunities to obtain continuity of service and price advantages that would not be available under shorter contracts. While SBBC has the ability under the ITB to terminate contracts for convenience upon 30 days' notice, it rarely does so. SBBC has never exercised its right to terminate its two prior contracts for the services sought under this ITB. Any such termination requires action by SBBC's governing board during a public meeting. SBBC's staff would not engage in the sham of recommending a contract to its governing board for a contract term longer than the period for which it intends to procure services from a vendor. SBBC's procurement staff believes that using the termination for convenience clause in the manner Toshiba recommends can have an adverse effect upon the school district's ability to encourage bidders to participate in its competitive solicitations or to offer it their best pricing. Questions 1 and 59 of Addendum Number 1 of the ITB provide evidence of concern within the bidding marketplace that SBBC might exercise its termination for convenience clauses with regard to the services being procured under the ITB and support the perception of SBBC's that it should avoid a reputation for exercising such termination authority. Toshiba argues that SBBC somehow materially misled bidders through the ITB by stating in response to Question No. 3 concerning MPS of Addendum Number 1 that: The School District is not planning to implement a Managed Print Services at this time. The School District would like to receive Additional information regarding other districts that have implemented a Managed Print Services. There are no evaluation points associated with this ITB. SBBC's responses to Question No. 3 of Addendum Number 1 were accurate and did not mislead bidders. Toshiba is the only bidder to claim to have been misled. Section 6, Paragraph 10, of the ITB requested bidders provide SBBC with information about how the awardee could transition SBBC to a MPS model from the cost-per-copy model being offered under its bid. While SBBC requested such information from vendors within the bidding marketplace, there is no evidence that any bidder's provision or omission of such information within its bid submission was considered in the selection of the recommended awardees. In fact, ImageNet was recommended for award even though it did not provide this ancillary information about transition to a MPS delivery model. Rather, the recommended awardees for a 36-month contract term for Items 1 and 3 were determined solely on the basis of cost submitted for those items by the bidders, all in accordance with the ITB. A MPS program was a possible initiative being considered by SBBC's former Chief Information Officer prior to his departure from SBBC in February 2014, at which time the school district's current cost-per-copy contract was nearing its expiration. Although SBBC still had an interest in the possibility of a MPS program, it was not going in that direction at the time it needed to release a bid for copying services to replace its current expiring contract. Toshiba contends that SBBC was somehow required to disclose to bidders whether the potential future implementation of a MPS program might impact the contract award period that SBBC might choose under the ITB. A myriad of business considerations may inform an agency in selecting the length of its contracts for goods and services, and there is no law or rule that requires an agency to specify those factors within an ITB. Responsiveness of the Bidders Toshiba has attempted to argue that ImageNet, the recommended awardee for Item 1 and the alternate awardee for Item 3, was somehow non-responsive under the ITB and ineligible for award. In support of this argument, Toshiba has referenced Section 4, Paragraph 8, of the Special Conditions of the ITB which state as follows: MANUFACTURER'S CERTIFICATION: Bidder must submit with their ITB a notarized letter from manufacturer certifying that bidder is authorized to sell, service and warrant the multifunctional devices offered within this ITB. Failure of the bidder to provide this letter with their submitted bid or upon request shall result in disqualification of entire bid. If the bidder is the manufacturer, then bidder should state that their company is the manufacturer of the equipment provided in this bid (the letter does not need to be notarized). A bid is only disqualified under Section 4, Paragraph 8, of the ITB if (1) a notarized manufacturer's letter is omitted from the bid; and (2) the bidder fails to comply with a subsequent request from SBBC to provide the letter. No bidder, including Toshiba and ImageNet, included a notarized letter from a manufacturer with its bid. SBBC did not request any of the bidders to submit a notarized manufacturer's letter at any time after the submission of bids. As a result, none of the bids, including that of ImageNet, was non-responsive for a failure to satisfy Paragraph 8 of Section 4 of the ITB. Toshiba has also argued that all bids should be rejected due to Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB which concerns bidders' preference laws and states as follows: d) BIDDING PREFERENCE LAWS: ALL BIDDERS MUST COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THE LEGAL OPINION OF BIDDER'S PREFERENCE FORM IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED [sic] FOR AWARD. The State of Florida provides a Bidder's preference for Florida vendors for the purchase of personal property. The local preference is five (5) percent. Bidders outside the State of Florida must have an Attorney, licensed to practice law in the out-of-state jurisdiction, as required by Florida Statute 287.084(2), execute the "Opinion of Out-of-State Bidder's Attorney on Bidding Preferences" form and must submit this form with the submitted bid. Such opinion should permit SBBC's reliance on such attorney's opinion for purposes of complying with Florida Statute 287.084. Florida Bidders must also complete its portion of the form. Failure to submit and execute this form, with the bid, shall result in bid being considered "non-responsive" and bid rejected. No bidder, including Toshiba, included an "Opinion of Out-of-State Bidder's Attorney on Bidding Preferences" form with its bid. Each bidder's omission of that form was for good reason. Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB is a boilerplate provision within SBBC's standard bidding documents that is included pursuant to section 297.084(2), Florida Statutes, for any competitive solicitations in which personal property is to be purchased by SBBC. In instances in which it solicits bids to purchase personal property, SBBC includes a "Bidder's Preference Statement" form and includes that form among the checked "Submittal Requirements" listed in Section 2, Page 1, of the ITB. This ITB did not include a "Bidders Preference Statement" form among the bidding documents or list it as one of the required submittals. The state law and the boilerplate provision at Section 3, Paragraph 1(d), of the General Conditions of the ITB are only applicable to competitive solicitations for the purchase of personal property and do not extend to competitive solicitations for the purchase of services. As Section 4, Paragraph 12, of the Special Conditions of the ITB makes it clear that the multi-functional devices to be provided by the awardee under the ITB will "remain the property of the vendor," the standard bidder's preference provision contained within the ITB is plainly inapplicable to this procurement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained herein, dismisses the protest filed by Toshiba Business Solutions (USA), Inc., and upholds the awards of contracts under the procurement for a 36-month term from October 7, 2014, through November 30, 2017, to ImageNet Consulting of Miami, Inc., as the primary awardee for Item 1 and to Innovative Software Solution, Inc., as the alternate awardee for Item 1, and to Ricoh USA, Inc., as the primary awardee for Item 3 and to ImageNet Consulting of Miami, Inc., as the alternate awardee for Item 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 15th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Eleventh Floor 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) William G. Salim, Jr., Esquire Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim and Simowitz, P.A. 800 Corporate Drive, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 (eServed) Eric J. Rayman, Esquire Genovese, Joblove and Battista, P.A. PNC Center, Suite 1110 200 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Albert E. Dotson, Esquire Wendy Francois, Esquire Bilzin, Sumberg, Baena, Price and Axelrod, LLP 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Robert W. Runcie, Superintendent Broward County School Board Tenth Floor 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Pam Stewart Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent solicited contractors to replace a chiller in Building #45 at its Sunland facility located in Marianna, Florida. The project number for the replacement was HRS-95203000. The vendors were allowed until 10:00 a.m., Central Daylight Time, August 24, 1995, to submit responses to the request for bids. On August 24, 1995, Respondent received four responses. The responses were from Petitioner, Neel, JLS International and Smiths, Inc. On August 24, 1995, when the bids were opened JLS International and Smiths, Inc. were disqualified as nonresponsive bidders. On August 24, 1995, Respondent determined that Petitioner had submitted a base bid in the amount of $141,185.00 and as described on the tabulation form, an alternate bid in the amount of $14,750.00 for confined space compliance. The Neel bid as reflected on the tabulation was a base bid for $142,000.00. The forms upon which Petitioner and Neel had submitted their bid prices were forms identical in their format. The format was required by the Respondent. The Petitioner's bid stated: Base Bid: $141,185.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ N/A Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. *If Required (not included in base bid) ITEM UNIT PRICE Compliance for confined space for refrigerants & equipment *Note: Base bid price is compiled costs for construction duration & equipment delivery of 18 weeks. When Petitioner submitted its response to the request for bids, it offered no further explanation concerning the $14,750.00 price for "compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment" than has already been described. The Neel bid stated: Base Bid: $142,000.00 With foregoing as a Base Bid the following costs of alternate proposals are submitted in accordance with the drawings and specifications. Alternate No. 1 Add or Deduct $ Alternate No. 2 Add of Deduct $ Alternate No. 3 Add or Deduct $ If more or less work is required than that qualified by the specifications and drawings the following unit prices shall be applicable. ITEM UNIT PRICE Respondent had provided written instructions to the bidders concerning execution of the bid proposal form to the effect: Omit mention of alternates entirely, if there are none. Unit prices are to be used only if unit prices are applicable and approved by the Project Director. This project did not call for alternate bids or unit prices. The request for bids did not contemplate a quotation other than the base bid for all items, to include any costs associated with implementation of a design that complies with all applicable codes associated with the installation and with any laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Posting of the bid evaluation/tabulation and notice of contract award recommendation was given on September 8, 1995, indicating Respondent's intent to award to Petitioner in the amount of $141,185.00 as the base bid for the project. Prior to the posting of the bids on September 8, 1995, as was customary, Thomas McAuley, an account representative for Petitioner, who had submitted Petitioner's bid response had met with Respondent's project manager Glen Jenkins, a Professional Engineer III. The meeting was held to discuss Petitioner's bid response as the apparent responsive lowest and best bidder. In the conversation held between Messrs. McAuley and Jenkins, they did not discuss the $14,750.00 separate price quotation in the Petitioner's bid. They did discuss compliance with the codes that were going to be applicable to the project and whether the base price quotation took into account the code requirements. McAuley indicated his opinion that the base price quotation did account for compliance with code requirements contemplated by the terms in the request for bids. McAuley was specifically asked whether Petitioner was complete and thorough in its compliance with the bid specifications and in its prices, inclusive of all the items that were going to be mandated by the State of Florida, Department of Management Services. McAuley answered that question in the affirmative. In the specifications, under Article 7, Miscellaneous Provisions, within the request for bids is set forth Sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 related to permit and code compliance issues, which state as follows: State Building Permit. Current DMS requirements for state building permit applications and for permit inspections are attached. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to apply for and pay all costs associated with the state building permit (including the cost of preparing any permit documents on which the state building official may require the seal of a registered engineer). It shall further be the Contractor's responsi- bility to comply fully with all permit inspection requirements. Code Compliance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to implement a design complying with all codes applicable to this installation, and with all laws pertaining to refrigerant handling. Neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall be held responsible for stating or setting forth (in this or any other document, or verbally) any code requirement which may be applicable to this project. By disseminating this "Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions", the Owner merely sets forth minimum acceptance criteria for materials and workmanship, and neither the Owner nor the Project Manager shall thereby be held liable, in full or in part, for the Contractor's adherence or non-adherence to any governing code and/or legal requirement. Special Terms and Conditions for Cont- racts Under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Due to partial project funding under a federal NECPA grant, Contractor compliance with federal laws and regulations are a special requirement of this project. Special terms and conditions pertaining to wages and payrolls, records retention and access, apprenticeship and training, equal opportunity access, are set forth in the attached "Special Terms and Conditions for Contracts Under the National Energy Conserva- tion Policy Act". The contractor shall responsible for full compliance with the attached special terms and conditions. In the meeting between McAuley and Jenkins discussion was made concerning compliance with pertinent electrical codes. One question was asked about pipes in the system being installed in a manner to allow variable speed drives to be placed above the pipes. Jenkins considered that speed drive placement underneath the pipes would be contrary to code requirements. Related to the mechanical features in the project there was discussion about the provision of refrigerants in compliance with the mechanical code that pertained. In the meeting there was little discussion about code compliance within confined spaces, because the two individuals did not perceive that there would likely be a code requirement concerning confined spaces. Mention was made that some code inspector or code official who came to the job site might require attention to the confined spaces, even though that requirement was not found in the code. According to Jenkins, in his recount of the meeting with McAuley, if a code official required compliance for an item in the confined spaces that was not set forth in the code, that would constitute an item about which the Respondent had not requested information to be included in the base price quotation offered by the Petitioner. Further, Jenkins stated there would not be a problem for failing to offer a quotation for the features required by the inspector, because it was not sought by the Respondent in designing the bid requirements. As Jenkins describes, Petitioner's unit price for that work had been made known. This is taken to refer to the $14,750.00 quote for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. In that circumstance, Mr. Jenkins told Mr. McAuley that if a code official required something that was not contemplated by the code and the Respondent did not consider it worth fighting over, then Respondent would have to process a change order to install that equipment. This is taken to mean that Petitioner would be paid additional money under a change order for installing the equipment in the event that the Respondent did not choose to contest the decision of the code official. At the time that McAuley and Jenkins had the meeting, counsel for Neel had contacted Jenkins about protesting the decision to award the contract to Petitioner. That individual had stated the opinion to Respondent that Petitioner's discussion of confined space for refrigerants and the equipment at the additional cost of $14,750.00 might be perceived as potentially a code exclusion in violation of the requirements of Section 7.3 to the request for bids. Neel's counsel stated his belief that the vendors were expected to be in compliance with all codes and laws, even if it was not known to be a code requirement at the time the bid was submitted. He was concerned that someone might try and make it a requirement in the future. The Neel attorney explained that the reference to compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment set forth in Petitioner's bid response might be construed as a comment on code requirements through the contingency of someone's interpretation of the code. He believed that the responses to the request for bids needed to address that contingency as part of the basic quotation, not as a separate quotation. At the time McAuley and Jenkins had their meeting, Jenkins did not know of any requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment based upon his experience, but he had not researched the issue. Through information which Neel imparted to Mr. Jenkins before the meeting was held between Jenkins and McAuley, the Neel attorney expressed the opinion that there was not a present code requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, a view held by McAuley and Jenkins. At the time the meeting was held between McAuley and Jenkins, Jenkins was of the opinion that the requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment was not foreseen to be a likely code requirement. As contrasted with Neel's view, as explained to Jenkins, that its base bid was intended to cover the eventuality that there might become a requirement for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment, Neel's representative stated that Petitioner's bid had segregated that contingency for consideration by quoting the price of $14,750.00 separately. Neel did not appear at the hearing and there was no direct proof that the $142,000.00 base bid by Neel addressed the contingency that a future requirement might be imposed for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment. However, it may properly be assumed the Neel bid met the requirement for a base bid quotation to cover all costs to Respondent absent proof to the contrary. Later, when Respondent decided to award the contract to Neel, Respondent implied that the $142,000.00 base bid would meet code requirements contemplated by Section 7.3. Concerning the responsibility to determine which code requirements pertained and when, Respondent expected the vendors to derive that answer. This case was unlike most projects by the Respondent in which design professionals, engineers or architects create design documents that are completed in view of code requirements and the vendors assume that the bid documents prepared would be in conformance with code requirements. At hearing Mr. Jenkins, as project manager, opined that Section 7.3 obligated the contractor to meet existing requirements of the permitting authorities, and if during the pendency of the contract there was some change to the codes or code requirements set forth by code inspectors, then the contractor must assume the risk. Moreover, when the bids were opened and tabulated initially and the preliminary decision was made to award the contract to Petitioner, Mr. Jenkins perceived the quotation of $14,750.00 set forth in the Petitioner's bid to be a unit price for a scope of work that was not expected to be required at any point and was not been asked for by Respondent. Jenkins considered this quote as an alternate that was being proffered, something that Respondent might opt for in the future. Although not set forth in exact terms, Mr. Jenkins perceived this information in the Petitioner's bid response to be related to an alarm system and breathing apparatuses. He held this belief based upon his experience in association with compliance for confined spaces. Mr. Jenkins surmised that what was being described by the Petitioner was the type of installation that you would put into a closed mechanical room where a refrigeration machine was located that contained toxic refrigerant, which if released might kill a serviceman. In that connection when discussing refrigerant compliance with Mr. McAuley in their meeting, Mr. Jenkins indicated that the discussion had been limited because the type of machine proposed by the Petitioner was a 134A machine which is "ozone friendly" and not restricted by clean air amendment regulations. Following the posting on September 8, 1995, which recommended that the contract be awarded to Petitioner, Neel had 72 hours to file a protest. That protest was filed. Having considered the remarks by Neel's attorney in support of that protest, Mr. Jenkins became persuaded that Petitioner might not have intended to describe an alternate (unsolicited) purchase when discussing the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment for a price of $14,750.00; instead, Petitioner may have been describing how to comply with future code requirements. Consequently, Mr. Jenkins attempted to settle the issue by presenting the opportunity for the Petitioner to obtain a letter from the Department of Management Services permitting office establishing that the equipment described in the bid by Petitioner for compliance for confined space refrigerants and equipment was not then a code requirement. Mr. Jenkins wanted that information to be in writing. This opportunity to submit information was imparted to Stuart Zaritsky, Branch Manager for Petitioner in its Tallahassee office. Petitioner did not take the opportunity to send written information concerning the compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as not being required by applicable codes. Instead, Mr. Zaritsky called Mr. Jenkins and told him that Petitioner had placed calls to the Department of Management Services permitting office and was unable to get a definitive response at that time. On September 26, 1995, Mr. Zaritsky wrote to Mr. Jenkins and stated: The confined space for refrigerants and equipment compliance is based on ASHRAE recommendations only. If any of these items are required by code, then we will install it at no cost. Our base bid of $141,185 is based on the specifications, including paragraph 7.3 on page 13 and all other portions of the contract documents without any qualifications. If it is determined by the owner, that they wish to upgrade the machine room to ASHRAE 15 standards, and it is not required by code, the $14,750 would be the price to add refrigerant monitors, refrigerant purge fans and self-contained breathing apparatus. Should the jurisdictional authority of code compliance determine that these items are required by code, they will be installed as part of our base bid of $141,185. On September 29, 1995, Respondent gave notice of an amended bid tabulation finding Neel to be the responsive lowest and best bidder for the project in its quotation of $142,000.00. The September 29, 1995 correspondence notified the Petitioner that: After further review of issues raised by responsive bidders on the above project, the Department has determined that the bid sub- mitted by Natkin Service Co. on the above referenced project either: is nonresponsive, because the bid was not in compliance with Section 7.3 of the Statement of Work Scope and Contractual Conditions, since it exempted its bid from certain refrigerant handling requirements; or if responsive, is in the amount of $155,935.00. In either case, the bid submitted by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $142,000.00 is the lowest responsive bid. The September 29, 1995 determination that Petitioner was not responsive led to Petitioner's present protest. Sometime shortly before the amended posting of the bid tabulation on September 29, 1995, Mr. Jenkins spoke to Mr. McAuley concerning the opportunity to present information to address the question concerning whether compliance for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment was a code requirement. To assist the Petitioner Mr. Jenkins provided information which had been received from the Department of Community Affairs related to code provisions under enforcement by the Department of Management Services. This information was not provided by Mr. Jenkins as a determination of code requirements; it was provided to inform Petitioner concerning what Mr. Jenkins understood to be the latest code requirements. The expectation was still held that Petitioner would submit separate information from the Department of Management Services that would settle the issue concerning the possible need to comply with code requirements for confined spaces for refrigerants and equipment. As Mr. Jenkins described at hearing, the basis for finding the Petitioner's bid unresponsive was alternatively stated. First, the Respondent believes that Petitioner tried to avoid the responsibility for complying with code requirements, whatever they may be during the contract pendency; or second, Petitioner split its bid into two parts. One in the amount of $141,185.00 for matters unrelated to code compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment and the second in an amount of $14,750.00 for such compliance. If the former view is taken, Petitioner's bid is unresponsive. If the latter view is taken Petitioner's bid is responsive but exceeds the quotation by the responsive bidder Neel. At hearing it was not proven by competent evidence whether there was any necessity to meet code requirements for compliance for confined space for refrigerants and equipment as described in Petitioner's bid response at any point in time. Other provisions within the request for bids that pertain to the manner in which the vender would address its price quotation are as follows: 1.5 The Contract Sum shall initially be that lump-sum amount which the Contractor shall have enclosed in his sealed bid proposal. Subject to additions and deduc- tions by Change Order, the Contract Sum shall be the amount which the Owner shall pay the Contractor for the performance of the work, subject to the terms and conditions as provided in the Contract Documents. 2.6 The Contractor shall apply for, and pay all costs associated with, any permit which may be required by the Department of Management Services. Such permitting costs for which the Contractor shall be responsible shall include the preparation of any permit documents on which the building official may require the seal of a registered engineer. B-9 Instruction for bidders; They (the bidders) are also required to examine carefully any drawings, specifications and other bidding documents to inform themselves thoroughly regarding any and all conditions and requirements that may in any manner effect the work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest based upon the unresponsive of its bid and awards the contract for Project No. HRS- 95203000 to Neel. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: Paragraph B1 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B2 is rejected in the suggestion that Respondent should be bound by resort to extrinsic evidence to determine Petitioner responsive to the bid invitation. Paragraph B3 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph B4 is rejected in the suggestion that it was inappropriate to defer to the Neel protest as a means for Respondent to reconsider its position. Paragraph B5 is rejected in the suggestion that Neel has controlled the outcome in this case. Paragraph B6 is rejected in the suggestion that Petitioner has complied with the bid invitation requirements. Paragraph B7 is rejected in the suggestion that the contrary position stated by the Respondent in the informal review wherein Petitioner had been preliminarily determined to be the responsive bidder and the point of view at hearing would preclude a decision favoring the Respondent. Respondent's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Tommy McAuley, Account Manager Natkin Service Company 3428 A. Garber Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Chavers, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Informational Copies: JLS International, Inc. P. O. Box 490 Foley, AL 36536 Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. P. O. Box 1916 Thomasville, GA 31799 Smith's, Inc. of Dothan P. O. Box 1207 Dothan, AL 36302
