The Issue Whether Respondent's rejection of all bids for Lease No. 540:0920 was improper.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent published an invitation to bid seeking to lease approximately 9,907 net square feet of office space in Broward County (the Lease). There was no evidence of any irregularities in the preparation or the issuance of the invitation. The Petitioner, whose responsive bid was rejected by Respondent, timely and properly brought its protest and has standing to protest the Respondent's rejection of all bids for the Lease. Lynn Mobley was the statewide lease manager of the Respondent and had the responsibility to generally oversee the preparation of the bid package and the bid opening procedures. Barbara Lollie was a staff member under the supervision of Ms. Mobley and was in charge of the preparation of the request for bid proposals. Ms. Mobley's supervisor was a Ms. Barron. Five bids in response to the invitation to bid were duly received by Respondent. An evaluation committee chaired by Don Walker, Respondent's area administrator, was appointed to inspect the proposed properties and to evaluate the bids. The evaluation committee ranked the bids in the following order of preference: 1/ 1. In-Rel ($499,141.80) 2. Taft ($519,090.30) 3. Donlon ($541,119.90) 4. Procacci ($618,373.30) 5. Stirlingwood ($761,906.30) Thereafter the responses to the invitation were forwarded to Ms. Mobley's office for evaluation. Ms. Mobley's staff determined that the top two bids, those of In-Rel and Taft, were non-responsive. 2/ Ms. Mobley, who did not actively participate in the evaluation of the proposals, then advised Mr. Walker of that determination and advised him of two alternatives: to award the bid to the lowest responsive bidder or to reject all bids and re-advertise. The evaluation committee chaired by Mr. Walker had wanted to lease the property to either In-Rel or Taft. Mr. Walker told Ms. Mobley that he wanted to reject all bids and to re-advertise. Pursuant to the request for bids promulgated by the Respondent and Rule 13M-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent reserved the right to reject any and all bid proposals for the Lease. The request for proposal of bids specifically stated: The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the State, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. Following the telephone conversation between Mr. Walker and Ms. Mobley, Ms. Mobley sent a letter dated March 23, 1992, to all bidders which notified each bidder that all bids had been rejected. That letter did not state the reasons for the rejection of all bids. Mr. Walker sent a memo on March 20, 1992, to Ms. Lollie recommending the rejection of all bids. Although this memo predated the rejection letter and was subsequently made available to Ms. Mobley, the memo was received by Ms. Mobley's office after the rejection letter had been sent. The memo gave no explication of Mr. Walker's reasons for wanting to reject all bids. The Department of General Services (DGS) published lease rate guidelines for Broward County to inform the Respondent of maximum acceptable lease rates. The purpose of these DGS guidelines was to advise the Respondent that proposed lease rates above the guidelines would be summarily rejected. At the time of obtaining bid proposals, the DGS lease rate guidelines were the only established guidelines which could be consulted by the Respondent. At no time did the Respondent calculate a pre-bid estimate of what the Respondent felt was an acceptable range of lease rates in order to be used in determining whether lease rates were too high. The Petitioner's bid, along with the other responsive bidders, were within the DGS lease rate guidelines. Mr. Walker made the request for re-bid after he learned that the bids of Taft and In-Rel were non-responsive. Mr. Walker's decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was based only on the information that the two top choices of the evaluation committee had been found to be non-responsive and on his desire to reopen the bid process in the hope of attracting more bidders. 3/ Mr. Walker wanted to modify the specifications of the invitation to bid in two regards. First, he wanted to amend the specifications to permit the leased premises to be in more than one building. Second, he wanted the geographical boundaries in which the leased premises could be located to be expanded to hopefully attract additional bidders. Mr. Walker believed that a re-bid would provide a wider range of buildings at comparable prices from which to choose and would give him an opportunity to make changes to the bid specifications. His decision to recommend the rejection of all bids was not based on a lease bid analysis or on lease rate guidelines. The recommendation was not dictated by budgetary considerations, but by his desire to shop the bid. It was Mr. Walker's understanding that at the end of his telephone conversation with Ms. Mobley that the decision to reject all bids had been made and that all bids would be rejected. Ms. Mobley made the decision to reject all bids pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Walker after obtaining input from Ms. Lollie and Ms. Barron. Although Ms. Mobley had Ms. Lollie's analysis of the five bids, that analysis made no comparison of the rates contained in the bids with existing lease rates or the DGS guidelines. Ms. Mobley did not consult the DGS lease rate guidelines, although she was generally familiar with those guidelines, and she was unaware of any budgetary constraints that would dictate the rejection of all bids. When Ms. Mobley decided to reject all bids, she did not compare the bid proposals to the existing lease rates paid by the Respondent for leased office space in Broward County. The decision to reject all bids was not made on the advice of an attorney. Although Ms. Mobley testified that all bids on the Lease were rejected solely for price considerations, the evidence presented established that the decision to reject all bids was not based on price, price guidelines, or the Respondent's budgeting constraints. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Ms. Mobley rejected all bids because that was the action recommended by Mr. Walker. Respondent's invitation to bid did not contain any lease rate guidelines that would notify prospective bidders of a lease rate ceiling. There was no significant difference in the lease rates between the Taft and In-Rel bids that were favored but non-responsive and the third lowest bidder, the Donlon bid, which was responsive but rejected. Mr. Walker conceded that the Donlon bid was not rejected because of price considerations. Mr. Walker was of the opinion that the Donlon bid was at an acceptable price. He did not testify that the Petitioner's bid was at an unacceptable price and he did not testify as to what, other than the DGS guidelines, would be the maximum acceptable price. The DGS Lease Guidelines applicable to the bid for the Lease were as follows: A full service Lease (including electricity) -- $17.84 a square foot. 4/ Lease without electricity -- $15.18 a square foot. The present rate for the existing lease which was to be replaced by the Lease was $16.60 a square foot; this rate did not include electricity. If electricity was factored in at $2.50 a square foot, which was a factor regularly used by DGS, the present lease rate would be approximately $18.00 a square foot. The three responsive bids to the invitation were lower than the present lease after factoring in electricity. Ms. Goodman was of the opinion that Respondent's budget with respect to the Lease would be based on lease rates already in existence and consequently, that the responsive bids received and rejected were within the budget guidelines. Respondent offered no evidence to controvert that opinion. There was no evidence that the decision to reject all bids was based on economic considerations. All lease rates submitted by the rejected bidders were under the ceiling set by the DGS lease guidelines of $17.84. The Respondent acted arbitrarily when it rejected all bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent accept and evaluate the responsive bids submitted for the Lease and determine the proper recipient for an award of the Lease. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1992.
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
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an Invitation To Bid (ITB) for Bid No. 91-04, entitled "Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Filter Installations and Exchanges" in September, 1990. Two bids were received in response to Respondent's ITB 91-04; one from Petitioner for a composite total price of $748,355.00 and one from Continental Water Systems, Inc. (Continental), for a total composite price of $904.475.00. An intended contract award was delayed until the bids were evaluated. Subsequently, Respondent determined to award the bid to Continental on October 12, 1990. The issue in the ensuing bid dispute in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 90-6962BID was the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid on carbon specifications to be used in water filters. The bid document did not require manufacturers' specifications, requiring instead only generic specifications or a description of the product to be used. Respondent awarded the bid to Continental after determining Petitioner's bid to be nonresponsive, although the bid appeared facially responsive. In the course of evaluating the bids, Respondent's personnel went beyond the bid submissions and telephoned the manufacturer of the carbon proposed to be used in Petitioner's bid submittal. The manufacturer confirmed the content of Petitioner's bid that a lot analysis and hand selection could be done to select lots of carbon of a specified iodine number of 950 or greater in satisfaction of Respondent's specifications. Absent such a selection process, no manufacturer in this country produces a standard carbon which meets Respondent's bid specifications. While the ITB required bidders to submit specifications for products, it did not require submission of manufacturer's specifications. However, Petitioner's bid submittal included the manufacturer's specification sheet for an activated charcoal product known as GAC 30. The iodine number 950 appeared on the sheet with an asterisk next to it. At the bottom of the page was a typed note explaining that lots with this iodine rating would be specifically selected to meet or exceed all bid requirements. In reviewing Petitioner's bid, Respondent's personnel were aware that Petitioner had been using selected lots of GAC 30 in fulfilling a previous bid award for the same project from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which specified carbon with an iodine number of 950. Further, Respondent's personnel knew that lot analyses were provided to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to confirm the carbon's standards. As a result of that knowledge, a provision for an analysis of each carbon lot to be used was included in Respondent's ITB. On October 9, 1990, when Respondent's employee telephoned the manufacturer whose specification sheet was submitted by Petitioner, he was orally informed that while the iodine number for GAC 30 is 900, the actual iodine number for GAC 30 is often above 950 and that lot selections of carbon could be made meeting or exceeding 950. Later, per the employee's request for written confirmation, he received a facsimile letter dated October 10, 1990, from the manufacturer. Without regard for these findings, Respondent rejected Petitioner's bid because the actual manufacturer's specification for the carbon proposed by Petitioner did not meet bid requirements. 1/ While Respondent's personnel deemed it appropriate to consider information from the manufacturer of GAC 30 that its actual specifications were different from those submitted by Petitioner, the manufacturer's confirmation of Petitioner's explanation that lots would be selected to meet bid requirements was rejected. Petitioner is a corporation which, at the time of the bid submittal, had its principal office in Winter Haven, Florida. At that time, Petitioner had 12 employees. Petitioner is a prevailing small business party and was awarded the bid by Final Order of Respondent dated February 18, 1991. In the course of the administrative litigation culminating in Respondent's Final Order, Petitioner incurred attorney's fees in excess of $15,000.
The Issue Whether the Department of General Services should award state contracts for "walk-up convenience copiers" to Xerox Corporation in categories where Xerox was the only responsive bidder, or should reject Xerox's bid and solicit new bids on grounds that competitive bids were not received and there is no basis or excepting the award from competitive bid requirements; Whether the Department should disqualify Xerox's bid in one category for alleged material deviation from bid specifications where Xerox failed to initial a change in its bid price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DGS reject Xerox's single responsive bids and readvertise; and That Xerox's bid for category Group-I, Type 3, Class 12, monthly rental acquisition plan, be rejected as nonconforming. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Corrections (DOC) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly when it decided to award the contract under Bid Number 94-CO-6355, for Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service (the Contract), to the number two-ranked bidder, North American Intelecom, Inc. (NAI).
Findings Of Fact Background On or about August 12, 1994, the DOC issued Invitation to Bid Number 94-CO-5355, Inmate Pay Telephones and Long Distance Service. Michael H. Johnson, a General Services Specialist, prepared the ITB at the direction of Jim Morris, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of General Services. Johnson developed the evaluation criteria and point allocations in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The document was reviewed and approved by Morris, Jim Biddy, Chief of the DOC's Bureau of Finance and Accounting, and Max Denson of the DOC's Operations Office. Inmate pay telephone and long distance service requires more than just the installation of pay phones in correctional facilities. The service vendor must also provide a means of blocking inmate telephone calls and, when calls are authorized, preventing inmates from making harassing calls to members of the public. Additionally, the ITB includes a provision requiring some means for monitoring and automatically recording inmate telephone calls, and for deactivating the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney. A requirement is also included in the ITB that the system limit the length of inmate calls and generate monthly call detail reports. Other mandatory, no cost features to be provided under the Contract include a Personal Identification Number ("PIN") system capability, a three-way call detection and cutoff feature, a pilot site to test the call monitoring/recording system, on-site administrators to free facility staff from all tasks associated with the inmate phone system, and a semi-annual audit to ensure that the provider is meeting all technical and service requirements. The specifications in the ITB for provision of inmate pay telephone and long distance service are some of the most comprehensive in the country, requiring state-of-the-art hardware, software, and service in order to implement specified mandatory system features. Security concerns are prominent among reasons for having adequate service and support for the inmate pay telephone and long distance service. PIN-Driven System One of the primary features specified in the ITB is a PIN-driven system for blocking inmate calls. The PIN system requires each inmate to be assigned his or her own personal identification number for use with the telephone system. An inmate must key in his or her personal identification number before dialing an outgoing call. The system must automatically screen the telephone number dialed to ensure it is one which has received prior authorization for accessibility by the PIN. A PIN-driven system is labor-intensive and requires on-site administration to facilitate assignment of inmate PIN numbers and constant input and modification of each inmate's list of numbers for authorized outgoing calls. Project Staffing The DOC specifically requested the inmate phone system vendor to provide sufficient on-site administrators for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, support for proper administration of the PIN system. Noting that on-site administrators are to relieve DOC staff of all responsibilities relating to the inmate phone system, the DOC stated in the ITB that it did not want its staff to be involved with time-consuming service and maintenance problems. The DOC expressed a preference in the ITB for one on-site administrator being assigned to each major facility, except in those circumstances in which a single individual may cover several facilities in close geographic proximity to one another. Support services are important to maintain the proper functioning of the type of inmate phone system requested by the DOC. The ITB, taken as a whole, is a solicitation for an integrated telecommunications system, encompassing not only hardware, but systems software, service and project support. The ITB did not simply solicit manufacturers and models for various pieces of hardware; it contained a comprehensive description of functional requirements that had to be met. As a consequence, any determination that one bidder's "equipment" is identical to that offered by any other bidder must take into consideration proposed support and service, as well as proposed hardware and software applications. Bid Evaluation Procedure Specified in the ITB As established at final hearing by the unrebutted testimony of MCI's expert in telecommunications service bid response preparation, DOC's ITB differed from those in many other states. Unlike the instant ITB, many ITBs from other jurisdictions provide for a determination that bids meet specified minimum requirements and then dictate the award of a contract to the responsive bid with the lowest price. Conversely, DOC's ITB specified a detailed procedure to be followed in evaluating the bids, including evaluation criteria, points to be assigned to each criterion, and an evaluation committee to conduct the evaluation of bids. Johnson, the DOC employee responsible for the preparation of the ITB, understood that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder with the highest number of points allocated in accordance with the evaluation scheme described in Section 8.0 of the ITB. The DOC includes in its ITB both general and special conditions and specifications. The ITB, by its own terms, provides that special conditions and specifications shall have precedence over general conditions. The ITB contains numerous special conditions and specifications, including the bid evaluation procedures under Section 8.0. The bid evaluation criteria which are described by these special conditions and specifications identify the areas of the state's interest which must be addressed by the bids, as well as the weight to be assigned to each. Section 8.3 of the ITB emphasizes that any information gleaned from post bid demonstrations will not be used to change bid responses. The bid evaluation scheme specified in the ITB provided for points to be awarded to each bid using the following weighted criteria: CRITERIA POINTS CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS 15 REFERENCES 10 PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF 5 COMMISSION RATE 70 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 The points awarded for "commission rate" were to be determined by using a formula specified in the ITB which initially gave 70 points to the bidder proposing the highest commission rate, with all other bidders receiving a lesser number of points, depending on how close they came to the highest proposed commission rate. The points awarded for all of the other criteria were to be determined by a seven-member Evaluation Committee, members of which were selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger for their experience with management and actual operation of inmate phone systems, both from the institutional perspective and the regional office perspective. Each bid was required to be independently evaluated. The DOC issued two addenda to the ITB. The first addendum was issued August 23, 1994, and advised potential bidders of a change in location for the pre-bid conference scheduled for September 7, 1994. At the pre-bid conference, the DOC explained the award process to potential bidders. Johnson, the DOC representative, advised potential bidders at the pre- bid conference that the contract award would not be determined solely on the strength of the commission rate quote. On September 22, 1994, the DOC issued Addendum Number Two to the ITB which, among other things, changed the evaluation procedure by adding a new criterion and re-allocating the weight among the expanded criteria as follows: CRITERIA POINTS CORPORATE QUALIFICATIONS 10 REFERENCES 10 PROPOSED PROJECT STAFF 5 TECHNOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS 10 COMMISSION RATE 65 TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 The addition of "technological enhancements" was made at the request of Deputy Secretary Thurber, who wanted to be sure that the DOC had an opportunity to see what features above and beyond the minimum features specified in the original ITB were available for an inmate pay telephone system. When technological enhancements were added as an evaluation criterion, the weight to be given the commission rate in the evaluation scheme was lowered from 70 to 65 points. The DOC officials who reviewed and approved Addendum Number Two determined that the reduced weight for proposed commission rates was appropriate. At 65 percent of the available points, the reduced weight for the proposed commission is still higher than the 45 percent to 50 percent weight typically given by the DOC to the revenue side of a bid. Bidder Preparation MCI relied on the representation in the ITB and assurances of DOC's representative, Michael H. Johnson, at the bid conference that DOC's decision would not be made solely on the basis of cost. As a consequence of DOC representations, MCI prepared its bid to address the specifications in the ITB and thereby maximize its overall points under the ITB's evaluation scheme, as opposed to submission of a bid package concerned solely with scoring the highest possible points for "commission rates." Bid Opening and Initial Review On October 21, 1994, bids were submitted to DOC by MCI, NAI, AT&T, TEI, Robert Cefail & Associates (RC&A), 21st Century, RC&A/21st Century, and LDDS Metromedia. At the Bid Opening, Johnson again explained the award process to bidders on behalf of the DOC, and advised bidders that the bid tabulation was strictly for the purpose of documenting responses and that nothing was to be inferred from the proposed commission rates. Bidders were again advised that commissions would be only one aspect of the award. Johnson's understanding at the time of the Bid Opening was that the Contract would be awarded based on points awarded pursuant to the bid evaluation scheme specified in the Section 8.0 of the ITB. Johnson participated in an initial review of the bids, reading each of the proposals to determine whether the mandatory requirements were satisfied. Of eight bids received, five, including the bids submitted by MCI and NAI were determined by the DOC to satisfy the mandatory requirements. The Evaluation Committee As required in the ITB, the DOC formed an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the bids. Selected by Assistant Secretary Kronenberger, members of the Evaluation Committee were: Jim Biddy, Chief of the Bureau of Finance and Accounting; Jerry Pilcher, Chief of Regional Administrative Services for Region II; Kermit Kerley, Superintendent of the Hardee Correctional Institution; Stan Czerniak, Superintendent of the North Florida Reception Center; Charles Mask, Superintendent of the Corrections Mental Health Institution; Charles Dennard, Business Manager for the Polk Correctional Institution; and Robert Sandal, General Services Manager for Region I. Members of the Evaluation Committee were selected from the DOC's business managers and superintendents on the basis that their participation would provide an overall perspective with respect to management and actual operation of the inmate phone system. Evaluation Committee's Recommendation All five of the bids determined by the DOC to be responsive were thoroughly reviewed by Evaluation Committee in accordance with the bid evaluation procedures specified in the ITB, including Addendum Number Two, in an almost day-long session in the DOC's Central Office on January 5, 1995. The total points awarded by each Committee member for all of the four evaluation criteria were averaged to establish each bidder's total Evaluation Points. Every member of the Evaluation Committee scored MCI's bid as their number one or number two choice. NAI was ranked no higher than third by anyone on the Committee and was ranked fourth by five of the Committee's members. No member of the Committee gave NAI a higher score than MCI on any of the evaluation criteria. Comments on a majority of the evaluation forms of the seven members of the Evaluation Committee reflect a general concern for the adequacy of NAI's proposed project support. Specifically, Mr. Biddy noted that "[p]roposed project staff consisted of only 17 people [and that it was] questionable whether this would be sufficient for site administration as well as contract management." Similarly, Mr. Kerley noted on the NAI bid evaluation form that "17 staff may not be enough to support [the] system." Mr. Pilcher's comments indicated that "[p]roject support was not as I expected or not explained very well." Mr. Dennard indicated that NAI's bid provided "no breakdown of [the] 17 staff to support [the] contract [and] no mention of site administrators." The NAI bid indicates that a total of 17 personnel will be made available to support the Contract with more to be "added if the schedule so indicates." NAI's bid does not specifically identify the number of persons to be involved in on-site administration. However, NAI has committed only 17 people in support the Contract as a whole, ten of whom are expressly identified as performing tasks other than on-site administration. While NAI's bid indicates provision of additional personnel if required by the schedule, ambiguity about whether NAI would expand the number of on-site administrators for the entire term of the contract is evident. The "installation requirements" described in the ITB refer to time-limited activities necessary to initiate operation of the inmate telephone system, as opposed to the ongoing nature of the commitment necessary for on-site administration. In its bid response, NAI also agreed to cooperate with the DOC "to insure the proper distribution of on-site administrators." This offer does not suggest, however, that the number of on-site administrators committed in support of the Contract will be augmented by NAI. Such assurance relates to location and not number of on-site administrators. Testimony of NAI presented at final hearing that additional on-site administrators will be provided is not credited, inasmuch as such testimony constitutes an impermissible attempt by NAI to modify its bid after the bid opening. Based upon the substantial disparity in the proposed levels of customer service, the MCI and NAI bids cannot be considered to be identical. NAI's assertion at hearing that its bid included other system features which do not appear on the face of its written proposal constitutes a prohibited post-bid-opening modification. Such modifications included PCs, keyboards, printers and color monitors at each facility. These items are included on the face of the MCI bid. MCI offered 28 personnel in support of the Contract, including an express commitment for 20 on-site administrators. MCI's proposal to provide 20 on-site administrators is one of the highest number of on-site administrators offered by any bidder and a very costly aspect of MCI's bid since all employee salary and benefits must be covered for each on-site administrator dedicated to the project. The assignment of points for each bidder's proposed commission rate (Commission Points) was based on a scale which assigned 65 points to the bid with the highest commission rate quote. A lesser number of points was assigned to all other bids pursuant to a formula specified in Section 8.2 of the ITB, as amended by Addendum Number Two. The highest commission rate quoted by any bidder was proposed by NAI at 56 percent. NAI was accordingly assigned 65 Commission Points. NAI was also awarded 22.143 Evaluation Points, which, when combined with NAI's 65 Commission Points, produced a total of 87.143 points. MCI proposed a 53 percent commission rate and, in accordance with the formula set forth in the ITB, earned 61.51 Commission Points. MCI was also awarded 30 Evaluation Points which, when combined with MCI's 61.51 Commission Points, produced a total of 91.51 points. When the Evaluation Committee's other scores were combined with the scores for commission rates obtained by applying the formula in the ITB, MCI's point total was higher than that received by any of the other bidders. The DOC officials later involved in the decision to award the Contract to NAI indicated that they had no reason to question the work of the Evaluation Committee. After reviewing the bid evaluation forms produced by the Evaluation Committee, and based on his continuing understanding that the Contract would be awarded to the bidder receiving the highest number of points under the evaluation scheme specified in the ITB, Michael H. Johnson prepared a memorandum for signature of his supervisor, Mr. Morris, to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. Dated January 31, 1995, the memorandum recommended award of the Contract to MCI. Morris signed the January 31, 1995 memorandum and forwarded the same to Assistant Secretary Kronenberger. At prehearing deposition in this case on April 13, 1995, Kronenberger denied having received any recommendation from anyone regarding which company should be awarded the contract. Later at the final hearing following Johnson's testimony that he, Johnson, had been instructed to destroy the signed document by Morris (his supervisor), Kronenberger finally admitted that he had told Morris "we ought to pull that memo." These instructions were followed by Morris, who directed Mr. Johnson to destroy the January 31, 1995 memorandum recommending award of the Contract to MCI. Significantly, neither Morris, Kronenberger, nor Thurber--all DOC officials involved in the contract award decision--mentioned the existence of this document prior to Mr. Johnson's revelation on the witness stand that it had been destroyed. After-The-Fact Evaluation In a February 22, 1995 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Thurber, Kronenberger, after acknowledging that MCI received the highest number of points, formally recommended that the Contract be awarded to NAI. This memorandum was drafted by Morris at the direction of Kronenberger. Before making the recommendation to award the contract to NAI, Kronenberger had not read the ITB, the addenda to the ITB, or any portion of the bids. Morris was the only member of his staff with whom Kronenberger consulted. Kronenberger's decision was approved by Deputy Secretary William Thurber. Neither Kronenberger, Morris, nor Thurber read the bids at any time prior to the DOC's issuance of the notice of intended award to NAI. Kronenberger based his decision to recommend award of the Contract to NAI on his belief that NAI and MCI proposed to install "identical equipment," and that at least $1.1 million in additional revenue would be generated by the 3 percent higher commission rate offered by NAI over the three-year base term of the Contract. Although the February 22, 1995 Kronenberger memorandum states that the DOC could find no correlation between the proposed commission rates and equipment capabilities, the DOC officials who made the decision to award the Contract to NAI (Morris, Kronenberger and Thurber) performed no analysis of the proposals, did not complete a score sheet, did not talk with any of the members of the Evaluation Committee, and were unaware of the specific content of the bids and the proposed differences in staffing offered by the two bidders. In contrast to the assertion of the Kronenberger memorandum, the proof establishes a direct inverse correlation between the total average scores awarded by the Evaluation Committee to the top three bids and the commission rates offered in those bids. This inverse correlation proves that the bidders had to balance the cost of the hardware, software and support personnel aspects of their bids against the commission rate they could offer and that the cost of each hardware, software and support personnel aspect of a bid has a direct impact on the commission rate which could be offered. This balancing is precisely what is required by the ITB since all of these aspects of the bid were assigned specific weights in the specified evaluation scheme. Kronenberger's assumption, as set forth in his memorandum recommending award of the contract to NAI, that both NAI and MCI proposed to install identical "equipment" ignores the fundamental premise of the solicitation--that hardware, software and support were needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate phone system, as well as the fact that the vendors offered different approaches in responding to this requirement. System hardware proposed by MCI and NAI includes the Telequip System Automatic Call Processor ("ACP") 4000, a Dictaphone recording and monitoring system, and Philips & Brooks/Gladwin phone instruments. However, with regard to all aspects of the hardware offered, MCI's bid was more detailed and specific as compared with the NAI bid which generally identified system capabilities by referencing attached brochures. At best, NAI's bid is ambiguous as to whether it offered the same hardware component features. NAI's general references to the brochures in its bid failed to specify which features of a piece of equipment was being affirmatively offered. NAI's after-the-fact assertion at the final hearing regarding features to be provided cannot be credited since such constitutes an impermissible attempt to modify its bid after the bid opening. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip would permit operation of the attorney exception capability utilizing the Telequip ACP-4000 with the proposed Dictaphone recorder systems. Until MCI requested development of the necessary software, the attorney exception capability, which deactivates the automatic recording function when an inmate calls his or her attorney, was not available with the Telequip ACP-4000 when used in conjunction with the Dictaphone recorder. Software jointly developed by MCI and Telequip was also necessary to provide an international call capability because the standard Telequip ACP-4000 ordinarily utilizes a debit system to process international calls, and "the debit system is inherently incompatible with the PIN system and the allowed calling list feature that are requirements in the . . . ITB." The MCI bid offers more technological enhancements at no cost to the DOC, than does the NAI bid. Further, the items identified on MCI's list of technological enhancements do not appear anywhere on the face of the NAI bid. NAI's omission of the enhancements listed in the MCI bid adds further credence to the finding that the DOC had no reasonable basis to conclude that it would be getting those enhancements under the NAI bid at the time it was submitted. Moreover, the DOC's own synopsis of technological enhancements shows that it was aware of differences in the bids. Differences in the hardware, software and services offered in the MCI and NAI bids preclude a determination that the two bids offered "identical equipment." Monetary Considerations Revenue figures used by the DOC to project a $1.1 million difference in commissions were drawn from a period of time in late 1994 and early 1995 when the DOC's own summary reports indicate that NAI's billing exceptions range from 41 percent to 49 percent of all calls. Billing exceptions are the number of calls which exceed AT&T rates or could not otherwise be reviewed in monthly call detail reports. NAI's customer overcollections for telephone calls from inmates in the correctional facilities presently served by NAI provide an additional basis for uncertainty regarding the reliability of the projected $1.1 million difference in commissions. While the overcollections have not yet been quantified, NAI has admitted to the Florida Public Service Commission overcollections from customers receiving telephone calls from inmates under its current contract with the DOC in the amount of $394,318. Notwithstanding the ongoing PSC inquiry and reports of extensive billing exceptions under its existing contract with NAI, the DOC has no apparent incentive to closely scrutinize overcollections inasmuch as the more revenues billed by NAI, the greater the amount of commissions received by the DOC. Thus, while there is a 3 percent difference in the proposed commission rates between the two bidders, it cannot be determined from this record with any degree of certainty how that difference will translate into actual dollars to the DOC. In any event, the revenues generated by the contract for inmate pay telephones are placed in the Inmate Welfare Trust Fund, which does not support essential correctional facilities or services. Notice of Award and Protest On March 2, 1995, the DOC issued an intent to award the Contract to NAI. On March 8, 1995, within 72 hours of receipt of DOC's notice of intent, MCI timely filed a Notice of Protest. On March 20, 1995, within ten days of filing its Notice of Protest, MCI timely filed a Formal Written Protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5) and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule 33-20.005, Florida Administrative Code. With its Formal Written Protest, MCI delivered to the DOC a cashier's check in the amount of $5,000. On April 10, 1995, the DOC served its Motion to Dismiss MCI's protest, alleging that MCI has no right to a formal administrative hearing on the award of the Contract. On April 12, 1995, the undersigned Hearing Officer, after consideration of the parties' pleadings and oral argument, ruled that MCI is entitled to a formal administrative hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to determine whether the DOC's decision to award the contract to NAI was arbitrary, illegal, fraudulent, or dishonest. MCI has requested reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Florida Statutes, for costs incurred in responding to the DOC's Motion to Dismiss. The Hearing Officer has ruled on the motion by order issued concurrently with this recommended order.
Conclusions The Department adopts the Conclusions of Law contained in its Proposed Order, except for paragraph 189. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are also adopted, to the extent they do not conflict with the Department's. The following additional Conclusions of Law are now adopted into this Final Order. Service and personnel support were clearly part of the ITB, and were scored accordingly. Although Mr. Kronenberger considered service and support by recognizing the work already performed by Intervenor under its existing contract, sufficient consideration was not given for the $394,318 overcharge which Intervenor admitted to at the hearing. Since this overcharge was admitted to the Public Service Commission and not the Department, oversight is understandable. However, at this time the overcharge cannot be ignored. Certainly the significant amount of this overcharge has an impact on service provided. Although the Department still believes the equipment bid by Petitioner and Intervenor are "identical," service can no longer be considered the same due to the overcharge. Therefore, the award of the contract pursuant to the ITB should be made to Petitioner, MCI Telecommunications Corporation. RULING ON INTERVENOR'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 46-50 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraph 51 are denied. Although the equipment are "identical," the Department does not, and did not at the hearing, maintain that the bids of Petitioner and Intervenor are identical in terms of support and service. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 70 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 71 of the Recommended Order is denied. The Hearing Officer is merely reciting the terms of the ITB, that service and support are also an important part of the bid. Mr. Kronenberger never denied the importance of service and support. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 73-77 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exceptions to paragraphs 79 and 81 of the Recommended Order are accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 80 of the Recommended Order is denied to the extent it rejects the finding of fact that Intervenor admitted to an overcharge of $394,318. Intervenor did admit this fact. Intervenor's exception to paragraph 82 of the Recommended Order is accepted by the Department and incorporated into this Final Order. RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S FILINGS No response is provided to the Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Exceptions. There is no provision for filing such response under Chapter 120, and the Department is not required to respond to such pleadings. The Department has reviewed Petitioner's Request for Official Recognition and Enforcement of Ex Parte Communications Prohibitions. No Department employee who has testified or been deposed in this matter has discussed the merits of this action with the agency head. However, the Department does not agree with Petitioner's contention in its Request for Recognition that section 120.66, Florida Statutes, prohibits the agency head from conversing with the Department employees listed therein. This order may be appealed within thirty days by filing a notice of appeal with the agency and the district court of appeal. Except in cases of indigence, the court will require a filing fee and the agency will require payment for preparing the record on appeal. For further explanation of the right to appeal, refer to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. DONE AND ORDERED this 17 Day of July, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR, SECRETARY Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 (904) 488-2326 COPIES FURNISHED: Carloyn Raepple (via certified mail) Hopping Green Sams & Smith 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Hume Coleman (via certified mail) Holland & Knight 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Steven S. Ferst Department of Corrections Assistant General Counsel 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Mike Johnson Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Don W. Davis, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed in the official records of the Department of Corrections on this 17th day of July, 1995. LORETTA L. LATSON, Agency Clerk
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which declines the award to NAI and takes into account the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding the future course of awarding the contract for hardware, software and support needed to provide a fully functioning, secure inmate telephone system. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made with regard to purposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings: 1.-30. Adopted. 31.-32. Adopted in substance. 33.-49. Adopted. 50.-54. Adopted in substance. 55.-58. Adopted. 59-63. Adopted in substance. 64-70. Adopted. 71. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. 72.-82. Adopted. 83. Rejected, unnecessary. 84.-85. Adopted. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary to result. 88-92. Adopted. 93. Incorporated. 94.-96. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings: Adopted. Rejected, unnecessary. 3.-5. Adopted. Adopted, not verbatim. Adopted. Rejected, redundant. Adopted. 10.-12. Rejected, subordinate. 13.-17. Adopted. 18.-22. Rejected, argumentative and subordinate. 23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-25. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 26. Rejected, subordinate. 27.-35. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 36.-43. Rejected, argumentative, weight of the evidence. 44.-52. Rejected, redundant, argumentative, subordinate. 53.-54 Rejected, argumentative, subordinate to HO findings. 55.-58. Rejected,Relevancy, weight of the evidence. 59.-63. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected,Relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, stands for proposition that an agency is not bound by terms of ITB at all, argumentative. Rejected,Relevance. Rejected, argument. 70.-71. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 72.-76. Rejected, argument. 77.-78. Rejected, argument, weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected, subordinate, authority is to award within perimeters of legality and the ITB. Rejected, comment on testimony. 82.-83. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 84. Rejected, legal conclusion. 85.-89. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 90.-91. Rejected,Recitation of documents. 92.-95. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, recitation of documents. Rejected, relevance. 99.-107. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Intervenor's Proposed Findings: 1.-10. Accepted, though not verbatim. 11. Rejected, no record citation. 12.-14. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 15. Adopted, not verbatim. 16.-21. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 22. Rejected, no record citation. 23.-24. Rejected, subordinate. 25. Rejected, no record citation. 26.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Adopted by reference. Rejected, subordinate. 32.-40. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 41. Accepted except for last sentence which is rejected on basis of relevance. 42.-43. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Cheryl G. Stuart, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Linda P. Armstrong, Esquire MCI Telecommunications Corporation 1133 19th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Steve Ferst, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Hume F. Coleman, Esquire Holland & Knight 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32302 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Sec. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esq. Dept. of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
The Issue Whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's bid on the grounds that the bid did not meet a fatal item requirement.
Findings Of Fact On April 24, 1992, Respondent published a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of housekeeping services to South Florida State Hospital. Attached to the RFP as Appendix I was a blank copy of Respondent's "Standard Contract" which is also referred to as its "core model contract". Paragraph 1.a. of Section D of the RFP contains the following instructions to bidders: BIDDER RESPONSE a. State of Florida Request for Proposal Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, Pur 7033 The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, Appendix II must be signed and returned ... with the proposal or submitted by itself if you choose not to submit a proposal and wish to remain on the department's active vendor list. Paragraph 1.g. of Section D of the RFP, contains the following instructions to bidders: Required Bidders Certification Contract Terms and Conditions The proposal must include a signed statement in response to the RFP indicating acceptance of the terms and conditions of provisions of service as specified in the RFP and contained in the core model contract. Bidders were provided a copy of the RFP rating sheet which contained the following under the heading of Fatal Items: The following criteria must be met in order for the proposal to be considered for evaluation, failure to receive a "Yes" response for any time [item] will result in automatic rejection of the proposal. * * * Does the proposal include a statement agreeing to terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP? Petitioner was represented at a "Bidders' Conference" held May 15, 1992, at which the fatal items were discussed. Bidders were advised that it would be necessary for the responses to contain a statement agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract. The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, contains the following certification: I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same contractual services, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. In submitting a proposal to an agency for the State of Florida, the proposer offers and agrees that if the proposal is accepted, the proposer will convey, sell, assign or transfer to the State of Florida all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may now or hereafter acquire under the Anti-trust laws of the United States and the State of Florida for price fixing relating to the particular commodities or services purchased or acquired by the State of Florida. At the State's discretion, such assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the purchasing agency tenders final payment to the proposer. The State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, was signed by Richard A. Cosby on behalf of Petitioner and submitted as part of Petitioner's response to the RFP. Upon receipt of all responses, Respondent convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the responses. The evaluation committee determined that the response submitted by Petitioner did not contain the required statement agreeing to the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. Consequently, the evaluation committee rejected Petitioner's proposal from further consideration. Petitioner does not challenge the specifications of the RFP, but, instead, asserts that Mr. Cosby's execution of the State of Florida Request for Proposal, Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, was sufficient to meet the requirement the evaluation committee found lacking. The language of the Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, that most closely approximates the certification that the bidder accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and of the RFP is as follows: I agree to abide by all conditions of this proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the proposer and that the proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal, including but not limited to, certification requirements. The proposal submitted by Petitioner did not contain any other statement which could be construed as accepting the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. The broad language of the Contractual Services Acknowledgment Form, PUR 7033, upon which Petitioner relies does not state that the bidder accepts the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP. The evaluation committee properly determined that Petitioner's response failed to meet this fatal item. In this proceeding, there was evidence that the Respondent routinely inserts in its Request for Proposals the fatal item requirement that the bidders agree in writing to accept the terms and conditions set forth in the core model contract and the RFP, and that Respondent has never waived that fatal item requirement. There was no evidence that Respondent was using this fatal item requirement to discriminate against or in favor of any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent dismiss Petitioner's bid protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4311BID The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are accepted in material part by the Recommended Order. Petitioner's conclusions based on those facts are rejected for the reasons discussed in the Recommended Order. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Cosby, Vice President National Cleaning of Florida, Inc. 1101 Holland Drive, #32 Boca Raton, Florida 33487 Colleen A. Donahue, Esquire District 10 Legal Office Room 513 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1885 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's intended award of a lease for office space to Intervenor, Anthony Abraham Enterprise, is arbitrary and capricious and whether the proposal of the Petitioner, Adlee Developers, the current lessor, is responsive.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that on April 7, 1991, the Department issued an Invitation to Bid entitled, "Invitation To Bid For Existing Facilities State Of Florida Lease Number 590:2286, Dade County" This procurement was for the provision of 30,086 net rentable square feet to be used for office space in Dade County. A 3% variance was permitted. The facility was to house the District's Aging and Adult Services office which has been a tenant in Petitioner's building for several years and remained there during the pendancy of this protest process. According to the published advertisement, a pre-proposal conference was to be held on April 22, 1991, with all bids due by the bid opening to be held at 10:00 AM on May 30, 1991. The pre-bid conference was conducted by Philip A. Davis, then the District's facilities service manager and included not only a written agenda but also a review of the evaluation process by which each responsive bid would be examined. Petitioner asserts that the potential bidders were told, at that conference, that annual rental increases for the ten year lease period could not exceed five per cent (5%) and claims that Abraham's bid exceeded those guidelines. Thorough examination of the documentary evidence presented and the transcript of the proceedings, including a search for the reference thereto in Petitioner's counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact, fails to reveal any support for that assertion as to an increase limitation. The ITB for this procurement, in the section related to the evaluation of bids, indicated that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5-3 and 5-11 of HRSM 70-1, dealing with the procurement of leased space, the responsive bids would be reviewed by an evaluation committee which would visit each proposed facility and apply the evaluation criteria to it in order to determine the lowest and best bidder. The evaluation criteria award factors listed in the ITB defined a successful bid as that one determined to be the lowest and best. That listing of evaluation criteria outlined among its categories associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. As to the first, the committee was to look at rental rates for both the basic term of the lease and the optional renewal period. The rates were to be evaluated using present value methodology applying the present value discount rate of 8.08% and rates proposed were to be within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. The total weight for the rental rate category was to be no more than 40 points with 35 points being the maximum for the basic term and 5 points for the option. Evaluation of the location was to be based on 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 operations planned therefor. This included the proximity of the facility to a preferred area such as a co-location, a courthouse, or main traffic areas. This item carried a maximum weight of 10 points. Also included in location were the frequency and availability of public transportation, (5 points); the proximity of the facility to the clients to be served, (5 points); the aesthetics of not only the building but the surrounding neighborhood, (10 points); and security issues, (10 points). The third major factor for evaluation was the facility itself and here the committee was to examine the susceptibility of the offered space to efficient layout and good utilization, (15 points), and the susceptibility of the building, parking area and property as a whole to possible future expansion, (5 points). In that regard, the Bid Submittal Form attached to the ITB called for the successful bidder whose property did not have appropriate zoning at the time of award to promptly seek zoning appropriate to the use classification of the property so that it might be used for the purposes contemplated by the department within 30 days. In the event that could not be done, the award could be rescinded by the department without liability. The committee could award up to 100 points. The basic philosophy of this procurement was found in paragraph 1 of the Bid Award section of the ITB which provided: The department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the department and the state. After the bid opening, three of the four bids received, excluding Petitioner's which was initially determined to be non-responsive, were evaluated by the Department's bid evaluation committee according to the above point system which allowed no discretion or deviation from the formula in comparing rental rates between bidders. Once Petitioner's bid was thereafter determined to be responsive, it, too was evaluated by the committee. At this second evaluation session, relating to Adlee's bid only, the committee scored the bid and added its scores to the original score sheets upon which the other three bidders' scores had been placed. Abraham had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease and received the maximum award of 35 points for that category while Adlee received points. Abraham received an additional 2.29 points for the optional period rates while Adlee got 0. In the other categories, "location" and "facility", which comprised 60% of the points, Adlee's facility was routinely rated superior to Abraham's except for the area related to susceptibility for future expansion in which Abraham was rated higher by a small amount. Overall, however, Adlee was awarded 620.41 points and Abraham 571.03 points and as a result, Adlee was rated by the committee to be the lowest and best bidder. RCL, another bidder, was rated second, with Abraham third and DCIC fourth. Thereafter, the committee chairman, Mr. VanWerne, forwarded the new (and complete) evaluation results to the District Administrator on June 14, 1991 by an addendum dated June 27, 1991 which recommended award of the bid to Petitioner, Adlee Developers. No award was made at the time. Several factors not pertinent to the issues here caused that delay. Among the major of these was pending legislation which would have transferred the operation needing this space to another agency. This transfer was never consummated, however. On or before March 20, 1992, the new District Administrator, Mr. Towey, who had been appointed to his office in December, 1991, and who was made aware that this procurement had not been finalized, requested all available material on it so that he could study it and make his decision based on his own review of the submission. As a part of his determination process, he visited and inspected both the Adlee and the Abraham sites. One of the factors he considered was what appeared to be the significant monetary discrepancy between the two pertinent bids. Initial calculations indicated that Abraham's bid was approximately $835,000.00 lower than Adlee's over the ten year basic term of the lease. This amount was subsequently determined to be somewhat lower but the discrepancy is still significant. Nonetheless, because of that difference, Mr. Towey called a meeting with the members of the evaluation committee which had evaluated the bidders and had recommended Adlee. His stated reason for calling that meeting was to allow him to hear their reasons for rating the submissions as they had done and to take that information into consideration when he made his final decision. None of the committee members who testified at the hearing at Petitioner's behest indicated any feelings of pressure or intimidation by Mr. Towey. During his meeting with the committee members, Mr. Towey went over several of the evaluation criteria award factors to determine the committee's rationale. Of major importance was the issue of cost, of the availability of the facility to transportation to and from the building, employee security and the ability to control access to the facility, and the availability of on-site parking without cost to both employees and clients. It appears the Adlee facility is a multistory building with some parking available on site and would be easier to control. In addition, it is closer to public transportation access points. There is, however, some indication that on-site parking for clients would not be free and the closest free parking is some distance away. According to Adlee's representative, this matter would not be a problem, however, as adequate, free on site parking, which apparently was not initially identified as a problem, could be provided in any new lease. The Abraham facility is a one story building surrounded by on-site parking. In that regard, however, at hearing, Petitioner raised the claim that the Abraham site did not, in actuality, provide adequate parking because the zoning requirements of the City of South Miami, the municipality in which the facility is located, did not permit the required number of parking spaces to accommodate the prospective need. Petitioner sought and received permission to depose the Building and Zoning Director for the city, Sonia Lama, who ultimately indicated that the Abraham site was grandfathered in under the old zoning rule and, thereby, had adequate parking available. In any case, had this not been true, under the terms of the ITB, any zoning deficiencies could have been corrected after award, or the award rescinded without penalty to the Department. After the meeting with the committee, Mr. Towey indicated he would probably go against the committee's recommendation. One of his reasons for doing so, as he indicated to them, was the appearance certain amenities in the facility would give. In the period between the time the committee met and Mr. Towey was ready to decide, there were several newspaper articles published in the Miami area which were negative in their approach to Department leasing policies and this publicity had an effect on him. In his response to a reporter's question, in fact, Mr. Towey indicated he would not permit the lease of any property which contained such amenities while he was District Director. There is some evidence that the wet bar referred to here was a sink and counter used by agency employees to make coffee. However, before making his decision, Mr. Towey also met with Herbert Adler of Adlee. Mr. Towey advised him he was concerned about the fact that the Adlee property provided a wet bar, a private bathroom and some other amenities in that suite of offices occupied by the Department. Mr. Towey was adamant in his public and private pronouncements on the subject that there would be no such amenities in HRS offices in his District while he was in charge. At the meeting in issue, Mr. Adler made it very clear he was willing to remove all the offending amenities to bring the space into conformity with Mr. Towey's standards. Mr. Towey obviously took Adler at his word as he did not consider this matter to be an issue when he evaluated the bids. Based on his independent evaluation of the proposals, and considering all the pertinent factors, Mr. Towey decided not to concur with the committee's recommendation and instead recommended to the Department's Office of General Services that the bid be awarded to Abraham. Because his recommendation differed from that of the evaluation committee, under the provisions of Section 5-13, HRS Manual 70-1, he was required to forward additional justification for his position. In his forwarding memorandum dated March 20, 1992 to Mr. King Davis of the Department's Office of General Services, Mr. Towey listed as his reasons for disagreement with the committee's recommendation, (1) the lower term cost of Abraham's bid, (2) his opinion that the one story floor plan of Abraham was more convenient and accessible to clients, and (3) the provision for ample free parking at the Abraham site as opposed to the limited parking at the Adlee building. Petitioner claims that Mr. Towey's justification for disagreement was improper because, (a) the rental difference he cited was not based on the ITB formula and did not consider the difference in square footage offered; (b) the rental rate comparison compared a proposed lease with an existing lease, not with a proposal; and (c) the reference to on-site parking referred to the situation under the existing lease with Adlee and not to what could occur under a new lease. The major factor in Mr. Towey's decision was the price differential between the two offerings. While the difference may not have been as great as presented initially by the department staff, even taken in its most conservative light of about half that amount, and considering the appropriate figures, the difference was still considerable and significant. In the continuing period of budgetary austerity under which state operations have been and must continue to be conducted, the financial consideration loomed large in his thinking. As for the parking situation, no change for the better was provided for in Adlee's proposal and even if it were, it was but one of several factors. When Mr. Towey's March 20, 1992 memorandum in justification of his disagreement was evaluated at the Office of General services, it was determined that his decision was rational and objectively justified. Thereafter, by letter dated April 2, 1992, the Office of General Services authorized District 11 to award the lease to Abraham and this decision was transmitted to all responsive bidders by letter dated April 7, 1992. It was this action which prompted Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the protest by Adlee Developers, Inc., of the award of procurement No. 590:2286 to Anthony Abraham Enterprises. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 10th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2798 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted that the pre-bid conference was held but reject the finding that a 5% limit was mentioned. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted except for the next to last sentence which is rejected. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 30. Rejected. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell 200 East Broward Blvd. P.O. Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Paul J. Martin, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Suite 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Peter W. Homer, Esquire Greer, Homer & Bonner, P.A. 3400 International Place 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Nine bids were received for Contract E4571, Project/Job No. 99004-3516 ("E4571"). Petitioner's bid was timely received. Respondent opened bids on December 13, 1991. Respondent posted its intent to award E4571 to J & D Tropical Landscape Design on December 20, 1991. Section 1.2 of the Bid Specifications for E4571, as modified by the Special Provisions, states: A contractor's bid shall be in the form of a unit price for each unit expected to be accomplished. The Special Provisions to E4571 require each bidder to submit a single unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. Item 4 in the Special "Provisions provides: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to submit to the Department A SINGLE unit price for each pay item called for in the Bid Price Proposal. The Contractor shall be responsible for his/her method of averaging. Failure to comply shall result in the Contractor's Bid Proposal being declared "Irregular" and such Bid Proposals will be rejected. (emphasis added) Petitioner's Bid Proposal was properly declared irregular and rejected by Respondent. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of Item 4 in the Special Provisions by failing to submit a single unit price for each pay item, by failing to correctly average a unit price, and by failing to state the unit price in words. The Unit Price Sheet on page 23 of the Bid Proposals contains the following table listing item numbers A582- 2 through A584-4. Petitioner listed item number A583 as follows: ITEM PLAN ITEM DESCRIPTION AND UNIT PRICE $ AMOUNTS NUMBER QUANTITIES UNIT PRICE (IN FIGURES) (Exten- (IN WORDS) sion Price) 3/ A583 4 200.000 TREES (8' TO 20, 85 20400 PLANT ' HEIGHT OR CLEAR TRUNK) @ DOLLARS CENTS The actual extension price 4/ for 200 trees at $85 per unit is $17,000 rather than the $20,400 stated by Petitioner in the table on page 23. The "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner in the bottom right corner of the table is $37,013.20. The "Contract Total" that should have been stated if Petitioner intended the extension price of item number A583-4 to be $17,000 would have been $33,613. The "Contract Total" listed by a bidder on the Unit Price Sheet is the unverified contract price. The actual contract price is determined by Respondent pursuant to the formula given in Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications. Section 1.3 of the Bid Specifications foil E4571 states: The contract price is defined as the sum of the unit bid price times the planned work for each item as shown on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner would have been the lowest successful bidder irrespective of whether Respondent had replaced the extension price for item number A583-4 and the "Contract Total" stated by Petitioner with the actual extension price for item number A583-4 and the actual "Contract Total" . However, Respondent is precluded from doing so by Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications For Road ,and Bridge Construction ("Standard Specifications"), published by the Florida Department of Transportation (1991) and by the Special Provisions for E4571. Respondent follows "Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications for the purpose of evaluating bid proposals. Section 3-1 is used, in part, to determine the extension price for item numbers listed on the Unit Price Sheet. Section 3- 1 provides in relevant part: In the event of any discrepancy in the three entries for the price of any item, the unit price as shown in words shall govern unless the extension and the unit price shown in figures are in agreement with each other, In which case they shall govern over the unit price shown in words. Petitioner did not show the unit price in words for any item number on the Unit Price Sheet, including item number A583-4. There is a discrepancy in the three entries for item number A583-4 on the Unit Price Sheet. Petitioner failed to show the unit price for item number A583-4 in words, and the unit price and extension price are not in agreement. Under such circumstances, Respondent interprets Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications as requiring that Petitioner's bid be declared irregular and rejected. Respondent's interpretation of Section 3-1 of the Standard Specifications is reasonable and is consistent with the mandate in Item 4 of the Special Provisions for E4571. See Finding 4, supra. Furthermore, in practice, the correct unit price of a pay item is necessary to process payment under the contract and the contractor must submit invoices based upon the pay items and unit prices listed in its bid. The bid specifications for E4571 provide that a bidder is responsible for his or her own averaging of a stated unit price, and that if a bidder fails to provide a single unit price for each pay item on the Unit Price Sheet the bid shall be declared "Irregular" and will be rejected. The requirement to provide a single unit price for each pay item was emphasized by Respondent at the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Petitioner's representative attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. No challenges were made to the bid specifications by any bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the protest filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (964) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1992.
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)
The Issue The Department of Corrections sought bids for construction of a health services building for a correctional facility. A discrepancy existed between the written specifications and the architectural drawings for the project. An addendum was issued to clarify the matter. The low bidder (Intervenor) did not acknowledge receipt of the addendum until several hours after the opening of bids. The Department accepted the Intervenor's bid. The Petitioner timely protested the action. The issue in this case is whether, in accepting the Intervenor's bid, the Department acted contrary to the requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1990, the Department of Corrections (hereinafter "Department") issued an Invitation To Bid ("ITB") for PR-35-JRA, Project #90015, consisting of the construction of a Health Classification Building at the Columbia County Correctional Institution. In relevant part, the ITB requested price proposals for said construction, provided that the bid would be awarded to the responsive bidder submitting the lowest cost proposal, provided that "in the interest" of the Department, "any informality" in bids could be waived, and provided space on the bid form for acknowledgment of receipt of all addenda to the ITB. Bids were to be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 11, 1990, the time scheduled for bid opening. Documents issued with the ITB included architectural drawings and written specifications for the building. The architectural firm of Jim Roberson and Associates, (hereinafter "JRA") had been employed by the Department to prepare the drawings and specifications. JRA was responsible for preparation and distribution of related addenda. Further, a JRA representative presided over the opening of bids on behalf of the Department. Following release of the ITB and supporting documents, JRA became aware of a conflict between sink faucets required by the drawings and those required by the written specifications. The specifications provided that sink faucets operated by hand levers or foot pedals were to be installed in the facility. The architectural drawings JRA indicated that sink faucets were to operate by means of "electric-eye" activators, rather than by hand levers or foot pedals. On September 10, 1990, JRA issued an addendum (identified as Addendum #2) 1/ to clarify that "electric-eye" type operators were to be included in the bids. The addendum was sent by telephone facsimile machine to all anticipated bidders. In part the addendum provides as follows: "This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and modifies the original Specifications and Drawings, dated 31 July 1990, as noted below. Acknowledge receipt of this Addendum in the space provided on the Bid Form. Failure to do so may subject the Bidder to Disqualification." On September 11, 1990, the eight bids submitted in response to the ITB were opened by the JRA representative. The Intervenor, Custom Construction (hereinafter "Custom"), submitted the lowest bid at $898,898. The Petitioner, David Nixon (hereinafter "Nixon"), submitted the next lowest bid at $900,000. The bid form provided by the Department as part of the ITB materials to prospective bidders provided space for acknowledgment of addenda to the ITB documents. Upon opening the bid submitted by Custom, the JRA representative officiating at the opening noted that the Custom bid failed to acknowledge Addendum #2 in the appropriate space on the bid form. 2/ Robert L. Harris, president of Custom Construction, attended the bid opening. When the JRA representative noted the lack of acknowledgment of Addendum #2, Mr. Harris stated that he was unaware of the addendum. At hearing, Mr. Harris testified that his secretary told him that Addendum #2 was not received by his office. The JRA representative testified that his review of JRA's FAX transmission records indicated that the FAXed Addendum #2 was received by all bidders. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Addendum #2 was transmitted to and received by, all bidders. Upon leaving the bid opening, Mr. Harris immediately contacted his plumbing subcontractor, Jerry Stratyon, and discussed the situation. Approximately two hours after the bid opening, and after talking with Mr. Stratton, Mr. Harris notified JRA, in a letter transmitted by FAX machine to JRA, that his bid price did include plumbing fixtures required by Addendum #2. Mr. Harris concluded the letter, "[w]hen can we start work. I know you don't want the alternate." On October 8, 1990, JRA recommended to the Department, that the Custom bid be accepted. The letter of recommendation, in part, provides: The apparent low bidder however, did not verify receipt of Addendum No. 2 on the Bid Proposal. Our office did receive a, facsimile after the bid verifying Addendum NO. 2 receipt from the Contractor's Office." However, the actual letter from Custom to JRA states, not that Addendum #2 was received, but that it was included in the price bid by Custom's plumbing subcontractor. Both Nixon and Custom obtained plumbing bids from the same subcontractor, Jerry Stratton. The cost increase attendant to the requirements of Addendum #2 is approximately $2,400 over the plumbing fixtures indicated in the written project specifications. Mr. Stratton was aware of Addendum #2 and testified that the requirements of Addendum #2 were reflected in his price quotes to both bidders. Mr. Stratton provided the same price bid to Nixon and Custom. Mr. Stratton also provided bids to Nixon and Custom for HVAC work. Mr. Stratton was accepted as Custom's HVAC subcontractor. Nixon's bid indicates that another HVAC subcontractor will perform the cork should Nixon receive the contract. The ITB provided that bid modification or withdrawal was permitted on written or telegraphic request received from a bidder prior to the time fixed for opening. Mr. Harris did not attempt to either withdraw or modify Custom's bid prior to bid opening. No bid modification was permitted subsequent to the bid opening. The Department's policy is to waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of the State and would not be unfair to other bidders. The evidence does not establish that Custom Construction's failure to acknowledge the addendum was purposefully designed to permit withdrawal of their bid subsequent to the public bid opening. The omission of acknowledgment of Addendum #2 provided Custom an opportunity to withdraw the bid that was not available to other bidders. Custom could have informed the Department that the bid price did not include the requirements of Addendum #2, and the bid could have been withdrawn. Custom was therefore provided with a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders. The other bidders, all of whom acknowledged receipt of Addendum #2, had no opportunity to, and would not have been permitted to, withdraw their aids. The fact that Custom did not withdraw the bid is irrelevant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order rejecting the bid submitted by Intervenor as nonresponsive and awarding the contract to the Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1991.
