The Issue Whether the Petitioner was the lowest responsive bidder in Lease No. 590:1975, and therefore entitled to the contract award.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, the Department made the determination that it would not exercise its option on leased space owned by the Petitioner Dyess, in Clewiston, Florida. Bid documents were prepared by the agency for its current office space needs. Bid proposals were solicited through newspaper advertisements and personal contact with owners, developers, and realtors within the Clewiston area. The Department included Dyess in its solicitations. He was sent an Invitation to Bid for Existing Facilities by the Department. This bid package contained all of the bid documents for the bid referred to as Lease Number 590:1975. The Invitation to Bid was issued by the Department for approximately 7,962 square feet of net rentable office space in Clewiston, Florida. The invitation was prepared using HRS Facilities Form R01-87. The form used by the Department for soliciting and accepting competitive proposals for the leased space was required to comply with all conditions and requirements adopted by the Department of General Services, as set forth in Rule 13M-1.015(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The Department of General Services is the agency which administers real property leasing for the State of Florida for leased space of 2,000 square feet or more in privately owned buildings. During the bidders' conference held on April 26, 1988, Mr. Michael J. Sedgwick, the agency's representative, was questioned about the agency's interpretation of the term "dry and capable of being physically measured" which is set forth on page two of the Invitation to Bid and page three of the Bid Submittal Form. Page two of the Invitation to Bid is a glossary which defines various terms used within the bid documents. The term "existing building" is defined as follows: To be considered as existing, the entire space being bid must be dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rental square footage at the time of the bid submittal. Paragraph 10 on page three of the Bid Submittal Form reiterates the definition of an "existing building" as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. The language in the bid documents which defines the term "existing building" is identical to the language in Form BPN 4136, which has been promulgated as a rule by the Department of General Services as the format for specifications for the solicitation of leased spaces by the State of Florida. In response to the request for an interpretation, Mr. Sedgwick contacted Mr. George Smith, who administers the leasing program for the Department in Tallahassee, and obtained the following definition: "Dry and measurable" consists of four things: a slab, four corners, a roof, and a valid building permit if construction is in progress. The definition given by Mr. Smith was verbally communicated to the prospective bidders who attended the conference. This definition was verbally communicated to the Petitioner by Mr. Sedgwick on April 27, 1988. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid in Lease Number 590:1975 on the Department's Bid submittal Form by May 24, 1988. On page three of this form, each bidder was required to acknowledge the bid requirements contained on that page by placing his initials in the bottom right hand corner. The Petitioner Dyess acknowledged the requirement that the proposed space must be an "existing building" at the time of the bid submittal. On May 24, 1988, the date of the bid opening, Petitioner's building did not meet the requirements of an existing building as defined within the bid documents or the Department's verbal clarification of the definition. The building did not have a roof, a slab, or a valid building permit. After the bids were opened, the District VIII Bid Evaluation Committee visited each of the proposed lease locations. When the Petitioner's proposed location was reviewed by the committee two days after the close of bids, the addition was found to consist of the following: two partially completed block walls which connected the two existing buildings. The existing buildings were still intact, but it was apparent that an expansion was taking place, and that the completed project would be one building. A slab had not yet been poured in the addition, and it was without a roof. The plans submitted to the Department with the Petitioner's bid suggested that this expansion was capable of producing the square footage required by the Department. The City of Clewiston was aware of the Petitioner's expansion project, but he was not required by this authority to have a building permit at the time the project was viewed by the committee and evaluated by the Department. The Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Department because, on the date of the bid submittal, the proposed addition was not an "existing building" as defined by the bid documents and the further verbal interpretation by the agency. The bid submitted by the Intervenor Tibbetts did not contain the complete contract for the purchase of the property. However, the right to purchase was evidenced by a document submitted with the bid. Full Disclosure Statements of Ownership are not required under Rule 13N-1.015, Florida Administrative Code, until after a bid is awarded. The property was not properly zoned at the time of the Intervenor Tibbetts' bid submittal.
Findings Of Fact Introduction In February, 1988 respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (RFP) inviting qualified and interested vendors to submit proposals for providing approximately 19,300 square fee of office space in the central area of Broward County for DOR's district office. The contract was identified as Lease Bid No. 730-0083. The space was to be made available on July 1, 1988 or 30 days after the bid was awarded, whichever was later. According to the RFP, the term of the lease was five years with an option to renew for a second five year period. Sealed bids were to be filed in Tallahassee no later than 2:00 p.m. on May 2, 1988. The RFP scheduled a "preproposal conference" on April 4, 1988 at DOR's district office. It stated further, that any questions concerning the specifications should be directed to Thomas D. Cooper, DOR's assistant director of administration. Under DOR's bidding process, a four person evaluation committee made up of DOR district employees was assigned the responsibility of reviewing all bids and inspecting the proposed office sites. Using twelve prescribed evaluation criteria, one of which was the rental rate, the committee assigned numerical scores to the top seven bids. Its report was then forwarded to Tallahassee as a nonbinding recommendation. There, the assistant director of administration was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the committee's recommendations and to make a further recommendation to the executive director. As always, the final decision rested with DOR's then acting executive director, Sam D. Alexander. It was DOR's intention to ultimately award the contract to the vendor submitting the lowest and best proposal. Fifteen proposals were timely filed by various vendors, including petitioners, Intercontinental Properties, Inc. (Intercontinental) and Nu-West Florida, Inc. (Nu-West) , and intervenor, 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation (Plantation). After reviewing the proposals and office sites, the DOR evaluation committee assigned the following numerical scores to the top three bidders: Intercontinental-87 percent; Nu-West - 87 percent, and Plantation - 85 percent. However, it recommended that the bid not be awarded to Intercontinental because of its unfavorable site location and because no local government permits had been obtained to construct a drive-through facility. The committee characterized Nu-West's proposal as a "class operation" and noted that 1the committee is unanimous in it's (sic) recommendation that Nu-West Florida Inc.'s bid offers more for the Department when all factors are considered." Finally, the committee criticized Plantation's site location and anticipated delays in remodeling its building. This evaluation was forwarded to DOR's acting executive director on May 17, 1988. On Wednesday, June 1, 1988 DOR's assistant purchasing director, Barbie Foster, gave telephonic notice to all bidders that the contract would be awarded to Intercontinental and that other bidders had 72 hours in which to file a protest. At 11:30 a.m. that same day, DOR posted a "bid tabulation sheet" reflecting the unit cost (per square foot) of office space submitted by twelve vendors and recommending that the contract be awarded to Intercontinental. The tabulation sheet indicated also that unless the parties "file(d) a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes," they waived their right to a hearing under chapter 120. Nu-West filed its protest on June 3, 1988. By June 6, two other protests had been filed, including that of Plantation. On June 9, 1988 DOR issued its first written advice on the subject to the parties. The advice, which was in the form of a letter from Foster to the president of Intercontinental, read as follows: This letter is to notify you that as of 11:30 A.M., June 6, 1988, the Department has received three (3) letters of Intent to protest the recommended contract submitted for office space in Ft. Lauderdale, Bid No.: 87/88-238. Enclosed please find copies of the (3) letters submitted. As you are aware, the awarding process on this lease is now at a stand still until the protests are resolved. The Department's legal counsel will be in touch with you in the very near future. Should you wish to contact Mr. Bill Townsend, Director of Technical Assistance, please feel free to do so, he can be reached at (904) 488-0712. A settlement conference was held in Fort Lauderdale on June 17 in an effort to informally resolve the matter. At that time, or shortly thereafter, DOR learned that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West allegedly did not conform to specifications. On June 22, 1988 DOR issued its second notice of intent to award the contract and advised all vendors that the contract was being awarded to Plantation, the third ranked vendor, and that the proposals of Intercontinental and Nu-West were rejected as being nonresponsive. Such notice was in the form of a letter to each bidder advising the name of the successful bidder, giving a short summation of the reason why a particular vendor had been rejected and offering a clear point of entry to a formal hearing. In the case of Intercontinental, DOR advised that Intercontinental's bid was "non- responsive" since it failed "to comply with paragraph D4A, p. 14," it was "not the owner of record of the subject project," and it had not furnished its "authority to offer the facility." As to Nu-West, DOR found its bid "nonresponsive in the requirement of two drive-in stations as set forth in paragraph B14D, p. 14 of the Request for Proposal" because Nu-West had "indicated (it) would provide only one window and a drop box." These letters prompted the filing of formal protests by petitioners. Bid Requirements Pertinent to this controversy are two items in the RFP which formed the basis for DOR's rejection of petitioners' bids. First, Item B14 sets forth various miscellaneous requirements imposed on the bidder. Paragraph D. of that item provided as follows: The Department requires a drive-through teller facility similar to banking and savings and loan institutions. This may be located within the office or may be connected to the office by a pneumatic tube system (minimum of two stations required) (Emphasis added) This item was required because of a recently instituted DOR policy that all district offices have drive-in facilities for taxpayers. As old office buildings are vacated and new ones occupied, DOR requires that the new landlord provide teller facilities. At present, only three district offices in the state (Miami, Tampa and Tallahassee) have teller facilities but DOR plans eventually to install such facilities at all district offices. In this case, DOR envisioned a facility that would be similar to a small banking facility with two work stations that could handle two taxpayers simultaneously. It was necessary that teller facilities be provided since taxpayers often submit money and documentation and pose questions that must be answered by the tellers. As an alternative to two teller stations, DOR considered accepting one teller station and a drop box connected by a pneumatic tube to the main building. However, the use of a drop box without a pneumatic tube was unacceptable since DOR would "lose control" over deposits and lack the necessary security for handling taxpayer money. This item was considered to be material by the agency. Secondly, Item D.4.A. provided that: 4.A. Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s) , corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. If the Bid Submittal is offered by anyone other than the owner or owner's agent, proof of the bidder's authority to offer the facility; i.e., copy of bidder's Option to Purchase, must accompany the proposal. This option must be valid through the validity date established for bids. If a corporation foreign to the State of Florida is the owner of record, written evidence of authority to conduct business in Florida must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Emphasis added) The purpose of this item was to give DOR proof that the bidder was authorized to act for the property owner, or, if the bidder was not an agent, to give DOR written assurance that the bidder had an option to purchase, leasehold interest or some other form of interest in the subject property. This was because DOR could not be expected to sign a lease if it was unsure whether it would have the legal right to occupy the property. DOR considered this item to be a material item within the specifications. The first page of the RFP contained the following admonition to bidders: It is the bidder's responsibility to be familiar with all aspects of the bid package outlined below and attached hereto. Finally, page 14 of the RFP contained the following certification to be executed by the bidder when the bid was filed: I hereby certify as owner, officer, or authorized agent, that I have read the request for proposal package and all its attachments and acknowledge my understanding of and agreement to abide by all requirements and conditions contained therein. Intercontinental's Bid Intercontinental was not the owner of the property that was offered to DOR in Intercontinental's bid submission. This was confirmed at hearing by Intercontinental's leasing agent, Nestor Mendoza. According to Mendoza, the property was owned by a partnership using the name "441 South Partnership" but was leased to Intercontinental prior to the bid being submitted. Intercontinental filed its bid in Tallahassee on May 2, 1988. The certification on page 14 of Intercontinental's submission was signed in the following manner: Intercontinental Properties, Inc. Bidder's Name (typewritten) 59-1508950 Bidder's F.E.I.D. or S.S. Number (Illegible) Authorized Signature (manual)(Seal) Caroline Weiss Authorized Signature (typewritten) President Title (typewritten) Notwithstanding the requirement in item D.4.A., there was no documentation attached to Intercontinental's proposal reflecting that Intercontinental had authorization from the true owner to submit a bid or that it had a legal interest in the property. Therefore, DOR assumed that Intercontinental was the legal owner of the property. According to Mendoza, he carried documentation to Tallahassee on May 2 confirming Intercontinental's interest in the property but did not attach it to the proposal because he was under the impression that such documentation was necessary only if Intercontinental was "acting as an agent." Even though this "impression" was contrary to the requirements of the specifications, Mendoza maintained that he understood all RFP requirements. Mendoza was elated after receiving a telephone call on June 1, 1988 from Foster, who advised that Intercontinental had received the award. He was told also that, unless protests were filed within 72 hours, the firm would win the contract. In giving its preliminary intent to award the bid to Intercontinental, DOR overrode its committee's contrary recommendation. After a closer examination of Intercontinental's submission was made, DOR learned that, while Caroline Weiss, Intercontinental's president, had executed the bid submission, Intercontinental was not the legal owner of the property that was described in the proposal. DOR noted also that there was no documentation attached to the proposal, as required by item D.4.A. At a settlement conference held on June 17, 1988 Intercontinental maintained it had a leasehold interest in the property but declined, for whatever reason, to give DOR representatives any proof of this assertion. Because of this, DOR concluded properly that Intercontinental's bid was nonresponsive. During final hearing, Mendoza pointed out that, prior to the bid being submitted, DOR representatives had never questioned him concerning who was the true owner of the property and that he never made representations that Intercontinental owned the property. Intercontinental twice attempted to offer into evidence at hearing what purported to be a copy of a lease agreement in which Intercontinental had leased the property in question from another party. However, the document was never properly authenticated. Even if it had been authenticated, it was too late for Intercontinental to modify its bid submission since the documentation was required with Intercontinental's original submission filed on May 2, 1988. Nu-West's Bid Nu-West first learned of DOR's interest in new office space in February, 1988. After obtaining an RFP, Philip Saia, Nu-West's director of marketing and leasing, telephoned DOR's assistant director of administration to get clarification on several items in the specifications. Saia was told by Cooper to attend a prebid conference on April 4, 1988 in Fort Lauderdale. Also, he was told to telephone John Driggers, the author of the RFP and a district employee. Saia telephoned Driggers and was advised that all questions would be answered at the conference on April 4. Early on the morning of April 4, Saia met with Driggers and Bernard Fox, DOR district administrator, to discuss the item relating to the drive-through tellers and to show them Nu-West's facility. Saia's concern was that, due to space limitations and the cost of a pneumatic tube system, Nu-West would be priced "out of the ballpark" and would be unable to submit a bid. The three discussed other alternatives but reached no agreement. Driggers denied telling Saia that his proposal would comply with specifications but conceded he "probably led them to believe" that Saia's proposal would be "acceptable." Fox's principal concern was whether sufficient security could be provided for an unattached drop box. He voiced this concern to Saia. At the prebid conference later that day, another vendor queried the two DOR representatives (Driggers and Fox) about the drive-through teller requirement. Saia asked no questions. However, Saia contended that, in response to the other vendor's question, DOR representatives were "vague" and left the matter "very open." The actual dialogue between the vendor and Driggers is reflected in the transcript of the meeting received in evidence as DOR exhibit 1. According to the transcript the following exchange on the subject took place: (by unidentified vendor) On the drive through facility you asked about the pneumatic . . . you have a requirement for pneumatic tubes. (by John Driggers) Okay. On the drive through facility what we are trying to reflect there is we would prefer a facility for security purposes that would be contiguous with the office so that it would not be located away from the office. We would entertain a remote type facility that was connected with the office by pneumatic tubes or something that would be feasible. We don't necessarily kick out the possibility that we might use a facility that would not be contiguous to the office itself. However, we would look at that very carefully to make sure that it did meet requirements and that we could feel that it would be a secure place to use for the employees and for the . . . We do accept cash in these offices. What I'm trying to do is to give you some options there because there is no telling what kind of facility that you could come up with that would be acceptable. (Emphasis added) Driggers also advised vendors that if they had any further questions, they should be addressed to Fox. Saia concluded that, given the space limitations in Nu-West's building and the need for a local government site approval plan, the most cost-effective way to meet the requirement was to have one drive-through teller "adjacent to the building" and a drop-box in a separate location not contiguous to or connected with the main building. The use of a drop box was based on Saia's impression that DOR wanted the capability of receiving customer deposits after regular business hours and that a "facility" was not necessarily a teller window. He reasoned that this was comparable to the type of facilities used by banks and would be "a good solution to the problem." To reinforce his idea, Saia met with Fox a second time on April 19, 1988 and showed Fox his proposed plans. According to Saia, Fox told him the plans were "very acceptable." However, Fox's recollection of the conversation was different, and he remembered making no such commitment that the plans were acceptable. Instead, Fox told Saia that a drop-box with one window was better than only one window but that his overall concern was with security. In any event, Saia relied on this meeting to formalize the drop box plan in his bid submission. He went so far as to submit the plans to the City of Lauderdale Lakes for site review approval. Nu-West's submission was timely received by DOR. On page 8 of 14 of the RFP, Nu-West responded to the drive-through teller requirement with the following statement: Drive through teller window and one outside drop box will be provided in the manner shown on the enclosed site plan, subject to final approval by the City of Lauderdale Lakes, which has been applied for. (Preliminary approval has been obtained). The attached site plan is depicted on Joint Exhibit 3A and reflects a single drive-through teller facility. The drop box did not have a pneumatic tube system connecting the box to the main facility. This constituted a material deviation from the specifications. It is noted that of the fifteen vendors filing proposals, only Nu-West failed to provide for two drive-through tellers. A week or so after Nu-West's bid was submitted, the DOR evaluation committee visited Nu-West's office site. The team stayed on the premises for two hours. Saia recalled that even though the team discussed the proposed single drive-in teller facility idea and was shown its proposed location, he heard no objections. In its written evaluation report of Nu- West's bid dated May 17, the committee made no mention of any deficiency in the drive-through teller proposal and described Nu- West's proposed site as "a class operation." Nu-West was also given a grade of 87 and unanimously recommended for award of the contract. On June 2 Saia was advised by telephone that Intercontinental had been awarded the bid. Thereafter, Nu-West timely filed its protest. At the settlement conference held on June 17, Saia was not told his bid had been rejected because it was nonresponsive. He did not learn this until he received a telephone call a few days later from DOR's acting executive director. This was followed by DOR's letter of June 22 advising that Plantation had been awarded the bid and that Nu-West's bid had been rejected on the ground the proposal did not provide for two drive-through tellers. When this final decision was made by DOR, neither Cooper or Alexander were aware of any representations that might have been made to Saia by Fox or Driggers. Nu-West is willing to modify its proposal to provide a second drive- through teller. According to Saia, it can be accomplished with a $72,000 allowance Nu-West set aside to cover any deficiencies incurred during renovation. However, these modifications should have been filed with the original bid package in order to conform to specifications. Plantation's Bid Plantation was ranked number three numerically by the evaluation committee but, after the disqualification of Intercontinental and Nu-West, it had the highest numerical score and was considered the lowest and most responsive bid. Although Nu-West's proposed location in Plantation was questioned by another vendor as being in an inaccessible area of the county, DOR representatives concluded the office site was satisfactory. All material specifications were met by this bidder. 2/ Using a present value of lease payments, Plantation's bid was $1.23 per square feet cheaper than Nu-West's bid proposal but was slightly higher than Intercontinental's proposal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding Lease Bid No. 730-0083 to 241 East 76th Street Company d/b/a Fountains of Plantation. DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings 5th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid specifications, together with other applicable authority, require that a bid, in order to be responsive, contain any written list of subcontractors.
Findings Of Fact On September 26, 1989, Respondent issued a document entitled, Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, West Orange High School, Winter Garden, Florida, Engineers Project No. 89-016. As amended by three addenda, the above-described specifications shall be referred to as the "ITB." Respondent duly advertised for bids ore September 26, October 3, and October 10, 1989. The advertisement did not state that Respondent reserved the right to waive minor irregularities. In response to the ITB, Florida Mechanical, Inc. ("FMI") and B & I Contractors, Inc. ("B & I") timely submitted bids. For the base work and alternate 1, which Respondent ultimately decided to select, FMI bid $1,439,000, B & I bid $1,438,000, and a third bidder, S. I. Goldman, Company bid $1,621,000. These bids are recorded on a Bid Tabulation Sheet prepared by the engineer retained by Respondent for the project. The Bid Tabulation Sheet contains eight columns. Four columns record bid amounts for the base work and various alternates. The remaining columns are entitled, "Bidder," "Bid Bond," "Addenda," and "Subs." Each of the three bidders were named in one of the rows beneath the "Bidder," column. Each bidder had one "X" in its "Bid Bond" column and three "X"s in its "Addenda" column. However, only FMI and S. I. Goldman Company had "X"'s in their "Subs" columns. By resolution adopted on November 29, 1989, Respondent directed that all bids were rejected and that the Superintendent would correct any ambiguities and uncertainties in the ITB and solicit new bids. The resolution noted that Respondents staff had recommended that, if any bid were accepted, it should be that of B & I. However, [FMI] submitted with its bid a list of Major Sub-contractors of the form displayed in the [ITB], and B & I did not submit wish its aid a list of Major Sub-contractors[.] The resolution concluded that Respondent based on advice of staff and counsel, found that the [ITB is) ambiguous and/or uncertain as to whether or not a bidder must submit along with his bid a list of Major Sub-contractors, (b) that because of such ambiguity and/or uncertainty, it would be unfair and/or improper for [Respondent] to accept either of the bids received by it, and (c) that as a result thereof [Respondent] should reject all bids received by it for ,the Project and should solicit new bids for the Project as soon as is reasonably feasible after correction by [Respondents] staff of any ambiguity and uncertainty as aforesaid in the [ITB]. FMI and B & I each timely filed a notice of intent to protest and formal written protest of Respondent's decision to reject each company's respective bid. S. I. Goldman did not protest the decision and is not a party to the subject case. At a meeting on December 12, 1989, Respondent elected to refer the bid protests to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing., At the beginning of the hearing, the parties filed a written stipulation, which stated that the only issue for determination was which Petitioner should be awarded the contract and not whether Respondent should seek further bids or award the contract to another bidder. The stipulation also stated that the Petitioners and Respondent agreed to abide by the recommendation of the hearing officer. At the hearing, the parties further stipulated that the sole issue for determination is whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. In addition, the parties stipulated that both Petitioners had standing and the protests were timely and sufficient. The ITB requires that each bidder familiarize itself with all federal, state, and "Local Laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the work." Under the section entitled, "Preparation and Submission of Bids," the ITB states: "Each bidder shall use the Bid Form that is inserted herein, and may copy or reproduce the form on this own letterhead." Among other requirements, the ITB requires two bonds. The first is a "bid guarantee" of at, least five percent of the amount of the bid. The form of this guarantee may be cash or a Bid Bond." The other bond described in the ITB a 100% public construction bond. The surety on this bond must have been admitted to do business in Florida, must have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operation for at least five years, and must have at least a Bests Financial Rating of "Class VI" and a Bests Policyholder Ration of "A." The Bid Form contained in the ITB is two pages. Among other things, the Bid Form requires that the bidder receiving written notice of acceptance of its bid must provide the prescribed payment and performance bond and execute the contract within ten days after notification. The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "Form of Bid Bond." The provisions on this page identify the A.I.A. document to use and state that the Bid Bond "shall be submitted with the Bid Proposal Form." The next document in the ITB is a single page entitled, "List of Major Subcontractors." The List of Major Subcontractors states: Bidders shall list all major subcontractors that will be used if a contract is awarded. Additionally, bidders shall identify in the appropriate box whether or not that trade specialty is minority owned. Another paragraph defines minority ownership. The remainder of the form consists of ten rows for the "bidder" and nine major subcontractors, such as concrete, electrical, HVAC, and controls, and blanks where the bidder can indicate which of these entities are minority owned. The next document in the ITB is the Owner-Contractor Agreement, which is followed by tie Form of Construction Bond, General Conditions, and Supplementary General Conditions. Section 7.11 of the Supplementary General Conditions establishes certain requirements to be performed after the submission of bids. This section provides: Pre-Award Submittals: Before the Contract is awarded the apparent low bidder shall provide the following information to the owner. A copy of the Contractors current State of Florida General Contractor's or Mechanical Contractors License. Pre-Construction Meeting. After the Notice to Proceed and within eight (8) business days of the Owner [sic], the Contractor shall meet with the Owner, Engineer and Subcontractors that the Owner may designate... The Contractor shall provide the following to the Owner. * * * 2. A written list of all Subcontractors, material men and suppliers with such information as requested by the Owner or Engineer. * * * The remaining documents in the ITB are the technical specifications for the job. The three addenda supply additional technical information not relevant to this case. Respondent has promulgated rules with respect to the bidding process ("Rules"). The ITB does not refer to the Rules, which define and use many terms that are found in the ITB. For instance, Rule 1.1.25 defines the phrases, "Performance and Payment Bond," which is the same phrase used in the Bid Form in the ITB. The Rules define several other capitalized terms that are also used in the ITB, such as Bid Bond, Bid Guarantee, Bidder, and Contractor. Rule 4.1 similarly states that the bidder is familiar with federal, state, and "Local Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations that in any manner affect the Work." Rule 6.1 describes the process by which a bidder is to prepare and submit bids and the Bid Guarantee in language similar to that contained in the ITB. Rule 6.2 discusses the listing of subcontractors. Rules 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 state: General Contractor shall include as an integral part of his bid a List of Subcontractors he proposes to use. The Bidder shall enclose this list in a 4" x 9" envelope, sealed and marked "List of Subcontractors" and identified ... The Bidder shall enclose said envelope with his bid proposal in the mailing envelope. The List of Subcontractors enclosed with tee Proposal of each Bidder will be examined by the ... Engineer before the Proposal is opened and read. In the event that the form is not properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened... Rule 6.3 requires a Statement of Surety as another "integral part" of each bid. Rule 6.3.3 states: The Statement of Surety will be opened examined by the ... Engineer prior to the opening of the Proposal.... Although similar to Rule 6.2, Rule 6.3 lacks the warming that if the Statement of Surety is not "properly executed and signed, the Proposal of that Bidder will be returned to him unopened." Rule 19.1 sets forth the requirements, for the surety. These requirements are different than those set forth in the ITB. Rules 19.1.1 and 19.1.2 require, as does the ITB, that the surety be admitted to do business in the State of Florida and shall have been in business and have a record of successful continuous operations for at least five years. However, Rule 19.1.1 requires that the surety be represented by a reputable and responsible surety bond agency licensed to do, business in the State of Florida and have a local representative in the Orlando area. Rule 19.1.3 requires minimum Bests ratings of "A" in "management," and, as to "strength and surplus," "AAA+" in financial rating and $12,500,000 minimum surplus. Rule 19.1.3.3 also requires that the surety be listed on the U.S. Treasury Departments Circular 570. The bids of FMI and S. I. Goldman Company contained a completed List of Major Subcontractors. The bid of B & I did not. No bidder included a Statement of Surety with its bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Orange County enter a Final Order awarding the subject contract to Florida Mechanical, Inc. ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of FMI All of FMI's proposed findings have been adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of B & I 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: adopted, except that the staff recommended that, if the bid was to be awarded, that it be awarded to B & I. 6: adopted in substance. 7: rejected as conclusion of law and, to the extent fact, subordinate. 8-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as unsupported by the greater height of the evidence. 19-21: rejected as subordinate. 22: rejected as beyond the scope of the issues and irrelevant in view of the stipulation. In the stipulation, the parties agreed that the issue to be addressed would not be whether the intended agency action of Respondent was lawful (i.e., not arbitrary, fraudulent, dishonest, or otherwise improper), but rather whether the ITB, together with other applicable authority, required that the responsive bid contain any written list of subcontractors. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Schott, Superintendent The School Board of Orange County, Florida P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802 Charles Robinson Fawsett, P. A. Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32801 James F. Butler, III Smith, Currie & Hancock 2600 Peachtree Center Harris Tower 233 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30043-6601 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esq. Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue P.O. Box 305 Orlando, FL 32803
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance, acted illegally, arbitrarily, fraudulently, or dishonestly in rejecting all bids for lease #460:0119 and not awarding subject lease to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance established a requirement to lease 5371 square feet of office space in Daytona Beach, Florida, and a "Request for Space Need" was approved by the Department of Management Services on February 11, 1998. The Department of Insurance subsequently issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for lease #460:0119 (Respondent's Exhibit 1). A non-mandatory pre-bid conference was held on June 1, 1998, in Daytona Beach and two prospective bidders, Petitioner and Nova Village Market partnership attended. The RFP provided that proposals which did not meet all mandatory requirements of the RFP would be rejected as non- responsive. The RFP provided for evaluation criteria are awards factors. The awards factors totaled 100 points with no minimum point total required. Ten of the points were allotted for moving costs defined as the costs of relocating communications, networks, furniture and other equipment. This factor gave the current landlord an automatic 10-point advantage since there would be no relocation costs. Moving costs provisions tend to discourage the presentation of bids because the bidders have to overcome an automatic 10-point advantage provided the current landlord. The RFP also provided that all proposals could be rejected, however, such "rejection shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification." None of the conditions of the RFP were questioned or challenged by interested parties. Two responses were received by the Department of Insurance in response to the RFP and these were opened in Respondent's Tallahassee office on July 8, 1998, by Mr. Kip Wells of the Department. One was received from the current landlord, Nova Village Partnership, hereafter Nova, and the other from the Petitioner. The Nova proposal was deemed non-responsive. Neither Nova nor Petitioner contested the determination that Nova's proposal was non-responsive. Only one responsive proposal, the Petitioner's proposal, remained. On July 9, 1998, the Department representative, Mr. Kip Wells, called Petitioner to schedule an appointment for 9:00 a.m., on July 10, 1998, to visit and evaluate the proposed facility. No persons from the Department appeared at the scheduled appointment. At 10:45 a.m., on July 10, 1998, Kip Wells called Petitioner to say that since Petitioner's proposal was the only responsive proposal received, and that "all bids" were being rejected. Mr. Wells testified at hearing. His reason for rejecting the remaining bid was: When I saw that it was obvious the current landlord was not going to be very cooperative, I decided that one choice was not enough. If we were going to have to make a move, we needed more than one thing to choose from. So, I immediately - - since I had already set up with local people in Daytona to tell them that I was coming down to evaluate the bids, I sent them an E-mail and told them that I would not be meeting the following day to evaluate the bids. Mr. Wells decided to reissue the RFP without any moving costs criteria, and redistribute those 10 points among the other award factors. Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest and then a Formal Protest, both in a timely fashion. There is no state policy prohibiting the award of a lease to a sole bidder on a RFP. The "Leasing Policy" of the Department of Insurance states that "The Lease Administrator, with assistance from the Division employees, will establish bid or quote specifications. These specifications will include special needs for the Division(s) as well as the evaluation criteria upon which to evaluate the proposals." Neither the Department's Lease Policy (Petitioner Exhibit 3) nor the State's Real Property Leasing Manual (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) give the Lease Administrator the authority to reject or evaluate bid responses. Neither does he have a vote in the bid evaluation process. His responsibility is to coordinate the process. Randall Baker, Manager of Private Sector Leasing of the Bureau of Property Management of the Department of Management Services (hereinafter DMS), testified. The DMS prepares a manual as a guideline for user agencies to assist in the leasing of property. The DMS manual is not binding on agencies and DMS has no review oversight; however, their comments on agencies' leases are reviewed by the state auditing authorities and failure to follow the guidelines can result in audit criticism. Baker confirmed that the agency's written procedures as outlined in the RFP were consistent with the DMS guidelines. The DMS manual states as follows regarding the receipt of only one responsive proposal: When only one responsive proposal is received it may be considered and accepted providing the following conditions are documented: Adequate competition was solicited. The rate is within established rental rate guidelines. The proposal meets stated requirements. The proposal was processed as though other proposals were received. The Petitioner's bid was responsive to the RFP and the lease rate bid by the Petitioner was less than the average rate for state leases in the Daytona area and less than the amount budgeted by the Department for this lease. The lease rate by the Petitioner was reasonably priced and competitive. Although the agency failed to complete the process as envisioned, see paragraph 20 below, this was in no way the fault of Petitioner. The Department's leasing policy requires that the lowest and best response to an RFP be determined through cost analysis and evaluation by an evaluation committee. Mr. Wells did not forward Petitioner's bid to or discuss with the evaluation committee Petitioner's bid, but unilaterally rejected it. It was clear from Mr. Wells' testimony that this was his individual decision and was based upon his personal belief that it was the best thing to do.1 At hearing, the stated justification for rejecting "all bids" was that it gave the Department the opportunity to delete the requirement of moving costs from the awards factors; however, the evidence does not indicate that the moving cost provision result in non-competitive bids. The sole responsive bidder was within the local lease price range and within budget. Neither the Respondent nor DMS has established a policy prohibiting the acceptance of a sole responsive bid if there is competition solicited. The Department of Insurance has accepted a sole bid on at least one project in the past. There was no evidence that the RFP was not an open and fair competition. The evidence shows that it was properly advertised, that all conditions were known, and that all interested parties had an equal opportunity to participate. In sum, there was adequate competition in submitting the bids. Mr. Baker testified regarding the policy of DMS. The DMS policy is that if there is one responsive bidder, there has been competitive bidding. The RFP provides that the Respondent may reject all bids if it has strong justification. See paragraph 5 above. Mr. Baker also provided examples of "strong justification for rejecting proposals." His examples include facilities which are proposed outside the required geographic area, prices considerably in excess of state guidelines and agency budgets, specification changes due to modification of the agency's program requirements, and "intervening external forces." No evidence establishing a strong justification for rejecting the Petitioner's bid was presented. Without completing the process and evaluating the Petitioner's bid, the agency never considered whether the bid was in the state's best interest. However, this was not the fault of the Respondent, and the agency's failure to follow its procedures should not inure to its benefits. Further, Because there was no minimum score required on the evaluation criteria of the RFP, there is no need to evaluate Petitioner's proposal because it is the only responsive proposal. For all the reasons stated above, the rejection of Petitioner's bid was contrary to the terms of the RFP, contrary to state policy, and arbitrary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds that: Respondent's actions in rejecting Petitioner's responsive bid were arbitrary; The Respondent did not follow the requirements set forth in the Department of Insurance Leasing Policy, nor the Department of Management Services Real Property Leasing Manual, or the Request for Proposal itself; That no adverse interest to the State or the Department would have occurred had Petitioner's responsive bid been accepted; and therefore, Petitioner's claim shall be upheld as the lowest cost and best proposal for RFP #460:0119, and that the Department of Insurance shall award Petitioner Lease #460:0119. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts Bids for State Project No. 86170-301 were accepted by Respondent on or about March 5, 1993. Eight companies provided bids. The bids were evaluated by a three person committee consisting of James Wolfe, Teresa Martin, and Ray Pippitt. Some of the bidders bid the job strictly according to plans, and some of them bid the job as already sleeved. The bid tabulation was posted on March 17, 1993, noticing Department intent to reject all bids. Petitioner filed a protest on March 25, 1993, and a formal protest on March 29, 1993. Additional facts proved at hearing The Petitioner is the low bidder in a field of eight responsive bidders who submitted bids for the subject project. The subject project included the placement of an irrigation system and landscaping items. Sleeving is part of most highway irrigation projects and is an integral part of the irrigation pay item for the subject project. The sleeving shown on the plans for the subject project were for paved areas. The sleeving process consists of jacking pipes underneath existing pavement and then inserting smaller irrigation pipes inside the pipes that were jacked under the pavement. Theresa Martin is the District Contracts Administrator for the Department in the District in which the subject project was proposed to be undertaken. Ms. Martin reviews each bid to insure completeness, to verify various prices, and to input the bids into a computer system, after which she provides recommendations for the awards committee. Only bids that the computer program shows to be either 15 percent above or 15 percent below estimate are required to go to the awards committee for review. On the subject project, the computer program showed that some of the bids were 15 percent below estimate. Ms. Martin followed all standard procedures in the handling of the bids on the subject project. She handled the bids on the subject project she same as she has handled any other project. After conducting her review of the bids on the subject project, Ms. Martin prepared a report which was given to the estimator, Mr. Ray Pippitt. On March 8, 1993, Ms. Martin received a telephone call from a representative of Reed Landscaping, Inc., as well as a telephone call from a representative of Siga, Inc., another bidder on the project. The caller from Reed Landscaping, Inc., a Mr. Bob Dalin, asked Ms. Martin if the sleeves would be constructed by the current contractor prior to Reed Landscaping, Inc., beginning work on the landscaping irrigation system. Mr. Dalin indicated that if the sleeves were not going to be constructed by the current contractor, then Reed Construction, Inc., had bid the job too low. Mr. Larry Hughes of Siga, Inc., told Ms. Martin that he had heard that the job would be sleeved prior to work beginning on the subject project and that if that were true, then Siga had bid the job too high because it thought it would be responsible for sleeving. Mr. Hughes indicated that this would add ten to twelve thousand dollars to Siga's bid. Mr. Ray Pippitt, the Deputy District Design Engineer, reviewed the bids and the computer program for the subject project, as well a the report prepared by Ms. Martin. There was a difference of over 200 percent between the low and high bids on the irrigation pay item for the subject project. This was a substantial discrepancy from what would normally have been expected. The irrigation pay item comprized approximately 19 percent of the overall bid price. Page 16 of the plans for the subject project contained another potential source of confusion; namely, a note calling for both lump sum and unit pricing for the irrigation pay item, which includes the sleeving. Based on conversations with bidders on the subject project and with the project manager on an existing project that was in the course of being performed, Ms. Martin and Mr. Pippitt formed the opinion that sleeving would be done by the roadway contractor who was already on site. Ms. Martin and Mr. Pippitt both recommended rejection of all bids based on the apparent confusion as to the sleeving item and based on the apparent differences between the plans and actual field conditions at the time of letting bids for the subject project. The possibility of internal confusion in the bid language, the possibility of inconsistency between the bid plans and actual site conditions, and the possibility of other confusion among the bidders regarding the need for sleeves were not apparent to the Department of Transportation prior to the opening of the bids.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petitioner's bid protest and denying the relief requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-1944BID The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: The Petitioner has divided its proposed findings of fact into two groups; one group under the caption "Preliminary Statement Of Fact," which contains five numbered paragraphs, and another group undet the caption Finding Of Fact," which contains eleven unnumbered paragraphs. Attention is addressed first to the "Preliminary Statement Of Fact." Paragraph 1: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 2 and 3: Accepted in substance with some unnecessary details omitted. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Rejected as consisting primarily of statement of position or argument, rather than proposed findings of relevant fact. Attention is addressed now to the unnumbered paragraphs following the caption "Finding Of fact." First, second, and third unnumbered paragraphs: Rejected as consisting primarily of statement of position or argument, rather than proposed findings of relevant fact. Fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh unnumbered paragraphs: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details in view of the parties' stipulation that "[s]ome of the bidders bid the job strictly according to plans, and some of them bid the job as already sleeved." Eighth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected in part as subordinate and unnecessary details and also rejected because the second sentence is not fully supported by the evidence and contains inferences which are not fully supported by the evidence. Nineth unnumbered paragraph: Rejected as irrelevant and as subordinate and unnecessary details. Tenth and eleventh paragraphs: Rejected for several reasons, including the fact that these paragraphs constitute subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, there are conflicts in the evidence regarding portions of the findings proposed in these paragraphs and I have resolved those conflicts in favor of the Department of Transportation's version of the facts. And as a final matter it is noted that under either version of the facts, the facts as found by the Hearing Officer or the facts proposed in these two paragraphs, the ultimate conclusion would be the same because neither version of the facts is sufficient to show that "the agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly," Findings submitted by Respondent: Except as specifically noted below, the substance of all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent has been accepted. Paragraph 8: The difference between the high and low bids on the irrigation pay item appears to be slightly more than 200 percent. Paragraph 10: Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Albert Laskow Reed Landscaping, Inc. 951 Southwest 121st Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33325-3807 William H. Roberts, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby note the following findings of fact: Notice and Invitation to Bid on State Project Number 72001-3448 (the project) was extended to various contractors by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, on August 1, 1985. Sealed bids on the project were opened August 28, 1985. The scope of the project involved cleaning and painting the structural steel of the Buckman Bridge over the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida. (State Bridge Numbers 720249 and 720343). The bids were opened and Petitioner was the apparent low bidder on the project with a bid amount of $193,000. The Department of Transportation, on October 2, 1985, rejected all bids "due to error in quantities in plans." According to the contract plans and specifications utilized by the Department of Transportation for the project, the beams, girders, bracing and trusses were composed of 2,540 tons of structural steel. The plans were in error and the tonnage of structural steel was less than 2,540 tons. Petitioner, upon visiting the job site as required, immediately recognized that there was less steel in the bridge than shown in the plans. In submitting and formulating his bid, the Petitioner considered the amount of work and materials which would actually be required to complete the project. 6 Prior to the bids being posted on the project, the Department of Transportation discovered that the amount of structural steel noted in the plans was grossly overestimated. On October 2, 1985, the Department of Transportation notified bidders in writing that all bids submitted on the project were rejected and that the plans would be revised and the project relet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the petition of Industrial Enterprise Sandblast and Painting, Inc., protesting the rejection of all bids on State Project No. 72001- 3448, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 December 1985. APPENDIX Respondent's Findings of Fact FINDING RULING Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 1. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 2. Accepted, but not included because subordinate. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 4. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE THOMAS E. DRAWDY, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 A. J. SPALLA, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 562 HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 LARRY D. SCOTT, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8064 INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE SANDBLAST & PAINTING, INC. P. O. BOX 1547 1502 FOX RUN DRIVE TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32486-1547
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 24th day of March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June, 1988, HRS determined that it needed 23,871 square feet of office space to house some of its social services for indigents in Northern Escambia County. Since HRS desired more than 2,000 square feet of office space, it was required to bid lease number 590:1987 competitively. To that end, Respondent prepared an Invitation to Bid and a bid submittal package. The package contained various bid specifications, bid evaluation criteria and the numerical weight assigned to each of those criteria. Specific areas of importance to Respondent in the selection of its office space were: client safety public access, ingress and egress availability of public transportation. The above areas were important to HRS since the agency would render indigent services to approximately 1000 people a month, many of whom are handicapped or lack good mobility due to age or infirmity. The majority of Respondent's clients are served within a 10 day period during each month. A great deal of pressure is placed on the surrounding area due to the in flux of people. Additionally, many of Respondent's clients utilize public transportation since they do not own or have access to personal vehicles. Because of servicing so many people the above factors received a great deal of weight under HRS's consideration of the property it desired to lease and occupy. All of the above areas were covered by Respondent's weighted bid evaluation criteria. Additionally, in order to submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor was required to meet one of the following qualifications at the time the bid was submitted: (a) be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas; (b) be the lessee of the space being proposed and present with the bid a copy of the lease with documentation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas; (c) submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas; or (d) submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to, in turn, sublease. The District Administrator of HRS, Chelene Schembera, is ultimately responsible for bidding, selection and leasing of all HRS facilities within District I, including Escambia County, Florida. In order to accomplish this task Ms. Schembera appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and grade the responsive bids under the criteria established in the bid package, and to recommend to her the committee's choice of the lowest and best bid. Ms. Schembera's purpose in establishing the bid evaluation committee was to secure input from a cross section of people who had a variety of backgrounds and knowledge that would be material in evaluating the office space, in light of the uses for which it was intended and the relative public worth of the work space. Ms. Schembera appointed individuals who were familiar with the type of work to be done in the proposed space, as well as persons familiar with the bid process. On July 21, 1988, HRS received five bids on the lease. Intervenors submitted the apparent low bid which Northside consisted of one building located at the Brentwood Shopping Center in Pensacola, Florida. At the time that the Intervenors submitted their bid, they included documentation which showed that they had a contract to purchase the subject facility; they have since closed on that transaction. This bid package did not include the four acres adjacent to the Brentwood Shopping Center property and no contract to purchase or other documentation was submitted as to the four acre parcel of property. Petitioner submitted the apparent second lowest bid which consisted of one building located at Fairfield Plaza in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner's interest in Fairfield Plaza is that of a lessee under a Master Lease with rights to sublet the property. All appropriate documentation was submitted with the bid. This property was the subject of a semi-friendly foreclosure action at the time that the Petitioner's bid was submitted. Petitioner was still in possession and control of the property. Both Petitioner's and Intervenors' property were within the mandatory geographical area designated in the bid package. Both bids were responsive under the minimum bid specifications and bidder qualifications. The other three bids which were submitted by HRS are not in contention The committee members personally inspected the sites offered by the Petitioner and the Intervenors. While at the Intervenors' site, the committee's concern over the property's minimal parking (as compared to Fairfield) and limited safe public access, ingress and egress were raised. The only access to Intervenor's property was from a very busy multi-lane highway. Certain turns onto and off the property were extremely dangerous. In order to make its bid package more acceptable, Intervenors' representative orally amended the bid package to include the southerly four acres contiguous to the Brentwood property. The Inclusion of the southerly four acres would adequately increase Intervenors' parking. The amendment would also create additional and safer public ingress and egress since the four acres abutted on Murray Lane which intersects Highway 29. This amendment substantially worked to Intervenors' advantage and was a material change to the previously submitted bid. The improper amendment cannot be considered here. Following the on-site inspections, the committee members met and rated the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenors according to a Bid Synopsis evaluation sheet which they had been previously provided. The committee members' review of the Intervenors' property included the improper bid amendment. Even with the improper amendment, the unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee was to award the lease to the Petitioner and Fairfield Plaza. The evaluation committee based its decision on the scores attributed to each property on the Bid Synopsis sheet by the individual committee members. The committee utilized all the weighted bid criteria. However, two factors were of primary importance. One was its determination that the property offered by the Intervenors presented greater problems for ingress and egress due to the congested nature the area. The other consideration was that service to Fairfield Plaza from public transportation was both more frequent and direct. The property offered by the Intervenors had less public transportation service. The stops were less frequent and a significant number of clients would be required to transfer buses to reach Brentwood when utilizing such public transportation. All bus passengers would be required to walk from the bus stop close to Brentwood and attempt at their peril to cross a very busy, dangerous and congested highway. The reasons given by the individual committee members for distinguishing and preferring one bid over another were rational and reasonable considerations and were covered by the bid evaluation criteria. Each individual member gave a rational and reasonable basis for the scoring he or she used on the Bid synopsis score sheets. The scoring was done by each member after discussion of the two buildings and without influence from the other committee members. In essence, the committee felt that Petitioner's property was the better property for the money. Importantly, every committee member came to the conclusion that Petitioner's property was the lowest and best bid. There is no statutory or rule requirement that one scoring method be preferred over another. The only requirement is that the method be rational and reasonable especially where highly subjective, but legitimate criteria are involved in the selection of a piece of property. On these facts, the individual scoring methods used by the individual committee members were not arbitrary and capricious, but were very rational and reasonably related to the relative importance the committee members gave the above factors. The District Administrator initially adopted the committee's recommendation and reported that recommendation to King Davis, the Director of General Services for HRS. The Director of General Services later informed the District Administrator that he and his staff were concerned with the fact that the recommendation was to award the lease to the second lowest bidder. The staff's review considered the improper amendment as part of the Intervenors' bid. Over a ten year period the Petitioner's rental cost was $62,381.00 more than the Intervenors'. In addition, the estimated energy consumption for the first year for the Petitioner's property was approximately $4800 more than for Intervenors. King Davis and his staff did not believe that the justifications cited in the recommendation letter would be considered crucial enough to override awarding the lease to the lowest bidder, should the agency get involved in a bid protest over the award. He and his staff did not disagree that the reasons assigned by the committee and Ms. Schembera were legitimate considerations. Their ultimate concern was that the reasons given by the committee and Ms. Schembera would not be given as great a weight by a Division of Administrative Hearings' hearing officer; and therefore, fail to withstand a potential bid challenge. But the conclusion that the lack of ingress and egress and public transportation could not outweigh the cost differences assumed that Intervenors' bid included the four acres. Without the four acres, the problems with ingress and egress, congestion and public transportation become even more important and can outweigh minor price differences in rent and energy. This is especially true when one considers the impact that the influx of at least 1000 people would have on an already congested and unsafe area. Put simply, the conclusion that the above factors can and do outweigh price and cost considerations in these facts is not an arbitrary and capricious decision, even though others may disagree with that decision. Instead of reconvening the committee after receiving the recommendation from King Davis and discussing the same with him, the District Administrator made the determination that the lease should be awarded to the Intervenors. The District Administrator, acquiesced in Mr. Davis' assessment that HRS could not succeed in a bid challenge. She did not like his advice. In fact, even at the hearing Ms. Schembera still believed Petitioner's property was the lowest and best for HRS purposes. However, through circular reasoning she also concluded that Intervenors' property was the lowest and best bid because she chose it. The agency's ability to succeed in a bid challenge which may or may not happen is not covered by any of the weighted bid evaluation criteria contained in the bid package and is not an appropriate reason to prefer one bid over another. The foregoing is particularly true when the reason given (surviving a bid protest) is based on the occurrence of a future event which may not occur. To reject a bid for a reason outside the bid criteria and one based on an unknowable future event is an arbitrary and capricious act on the part of Respondent. A court-appointed receiver was ordered to take control of the property belonging to the Petitioner on September 28, 1988, after the bid award was announced. Petitioner still retains its right of redemption of the property, and such an interest is sufficient to confer standing on Petitioner to maintain this action. Moreover, the evidence was clear that Petitioner had both the ability and wherewithal to perform the lease should it receive the bid award. Perfected ownership or control is not required. With Petitioner's apparent ability to perform, the fact of the foreclosure action and the receiver should not work against the Petitioner in this bid protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding lease number 590:1987 to Eccelston Properties, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Findings based on stipulation The School Board of Broward County, Florida, ["Board"] issued bid number 94-307D [Lease of School Board Owned Parking Lot - Term Contract] on the 22nd day of November, 1993. Three bidders responded to the invitation to bid. They were: Bliss Parking, Inc., a Florida Corporation ("Bliss"); Fort Lauderdale Transportation, Inc., d/b/a USA Parking Systems ("USA"); and Carl A. Borge. An initial review of the tabulations of the bids indicated that Bliss and USA had submitted the identical percentage of shared revenue to the Board in their respective bids. After the review of the bids, Board staff posted a recommendation to award the bid to USA. [See the "remarks" portion of Exhibit B.] A bid protest was filed by Bliss because of the "remarks" portion of Exhibit B. After a review of Bliss' bid protest, Board staff amended its recommendation to reject all bids because of the issues raised in Bliss' protest. After Board staff notified all bidders of this amended recommendation, USA filed a notice and formal protest. The Board, at its meeting on March 1, 1994, heard the presentation of USA and Board staff. The Board, after deliberating the matter, deferred the item until the meeting of March 15, 1994, wherein seven Board members would be present. At the March 15, 1994, Board meeting, by a vote of 4 to 3, the Board granted USA's protest and awarded the bid to USA whom the Board had determined was the highest bidder meeting bid specifications. All bidders were notified of the Board's action and on the 16th day of March 1994 Bliss timely filed its notice of protest and its formal written protest. Bliss appeared with counsel before the Board on the 5th day of April 1994. After considering arguments of counsel for Bliss and reviewing the material in Agenda Item H-1 and in consideration of its previous actions, it voted to reject Bliss' protest seeking the rejection of all bids received and re-bidding of the item. Bliss subsequently requested a formal hearing under Chapter 120.57, Florida Statutes. Findings based on evidence adduced at hearing The General Conditions portion of the Invitation To Bid includes the following provision: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications must be submitted in writing and received by the Department of Purchasing no later than five (5) working days prior to the original bid opening date. If necessary, an Addendum will be issued. A related provision in the Special Conditions portion of the Invitation To Bid reads as follows: 21. INFORMATION: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mrs. Sharon Swan, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (305) 765-6086 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Swan nor any employee of the SBBC is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Questions should be submitted in accordance with General Condition #7. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. The Special Conditions portion of the subject Invitation To Bid includes the following provisions: REFERENCES: A minimum of three (3) references must be provided by completing page 14 of the bid. Failure to provide references with the bid or within five (5) days of request by the Purchasing Department will be reason for disqualification of bid submitted. All references will be called. SBBC reserves the right to reject bid based on information provided by references. Page 14 of the Invitation To Bid has three sections, each of which reads as follows: COMPANY NAME: STREET ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER: CONTACT PERSON'S NAME: NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES: LENGTH OF CONTRACT: At page 12 of the Invitation To Bid, the following note appears under the Bid Summary Sheet portion of the document: "NOTE: Calculation of high bidder shall be the bidder offering the highest percent of shared revenue meeting all specifications and conditions of this bid." The Special Conditions portion of the Invitation To Bid also contains a procedure for resolving tie bids, which reads as follows, in pertinent part: TIE BID PROCEDURES: When identical prices are received from two or more vendors and all other factors are equal, priority for award shall be given to vendors in the following sequence: A business that certifies that it has implemented a drug free work place program shall be given preference in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 287.087, Florida Statutes; The Broward County Certified Minority/ Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Palm Beach or Dade County Certified Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Florida Certified Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Broward County vendor, other than a Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor: The Palm Beach or Dade County vendor, other than a Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor; The Florida vendor, other than a Minority/Women Business Enterprise vendor. If application of the above criteria does not indicate a priority for award, the award will be decided by a coin toss. The coin toss shall be held publicly in the Purchasing Department; the tie low bid vendors invited to be present as witnesses. The Petitioner filled out all three sections on page 14 of the Invitation To Bid and submitted that page with its bid. The three references listed by the Petitioner were companies for whom the Petitioner provided parking services or parking facilities, but none of the three references listed by the Petitioner was a land owner from whom the Petitioner leased land for the operation of a parking facility. Mr. Arthur Smith Hanby is the Director of Purchasing for the School Board of Broward County. In that capacity he is in charge of the bidding process for the School Board. Specifically, he was in charge of the bidding process for the subject project. In the course of evaluating the bids on the subject project, the evaluation committee reached the conclusion that there was a problem with the bid submitted by the Petitioner with respect to the references listed in the Petitioner's bid. In the original bid tabulation and recommendation posted on January 4, 1994, the recommendation was that the contract be awarded to the Intervenor, whose bid amount tied with the Petitioner's bid amount. 4/ The reasons for the recommendation were described as follows in the "remarks" portion of the tabulation and recommendation form: REJECT BID FROM BLISS PARKING, INC. REFERENCES WERE GIVEN ON PAGE 14 OF BID. ALL REFERENCES WERE CALLED. BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THESE REFERENCES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIAL CONDITION #10, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BID FROM BLISS PARKING, INC. BE REJECTED. EVALUATION OF THIS BID CEASED AT THIS TIME. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL REASONS WHY THIS BID COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. The sole reason for the rejection of the Petitioner's bid was that the references listed by the Petitioner were not the types of references the evaluation committee wanted to receive. The evaluation committee wanted references from entities who, like the School Board, were land owners who had leased land to a parking lot operator. The evaluation committee was of the opinion that references from other sources would not adequately protect the interests of the School Board. There is nothing in the Invitation To Bid that addresses the issue of who should be listed as references. Specifically, there is nothing in the Invitation To Bid requiring that references be submitted from land owners who had leased land to a parking lot operator. At the time of the issuance of the subject Invitation To Bid, the Petitioner was operating the subject parking lot for the School Board. There were no material differences in the bids submitted by the Petitioner and the Intervenor other than the differences in the types of references they listed. The Petitioner's references who were contacted did not provide any adverse information about the Petitioner. The evaluation committee spoke to two of the references listed by the Petitioner, but did not speak to the third listed reference. The third reference listed by the Petitioner was a court reporting firm located across the street from the location of the subject parking lot. The evaluation committee did not speak to anyone at the court reporting office because the telephone number listed for that reference was not a working number. The evaluation committee made an unsuccessful attempt to locate the telephone number of the court reporting firm in the telephone book.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner's bid is responsive to the Invitation To Bid and that the School Board then take one of the courses of action described in paragraph 26, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June 1994 at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June 1994.
