The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioners' challenge to the preliminary determination to reject their bid as not responsive to Respondent's Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590: 2286? 1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Earlier this year, Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590: 2286 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The first page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is seeking an existing facility in Dade County to lease for use as office space containing approximately 30,086 net rentable square feet. The space proposed must be an office environment. Converted factories/warehouses in industrial areas are not acceptable. The facility shall be located within the following boundaries: North By S.W. 8th Street, South By S.W. 88th Street, East By S.W. 37th Avenue, Southeast By South Dixie Highway, and West By S.W. 87th Avenue. Any facility located on a parcel of land which abuts any of the street boundaries is consider[ed] within the boundaries. Occupancy date of 8/01/91. Desire a Ten (10) year lease with three (3)- two (2) year renewal options. Information and specifications may be obtained from Mr. Philip A. Davis, Facilities Services Manager, 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite S721, Miami, Florida 3312, (305) 377-5710. Please reference lease number 590: 2286. Program requirements will be discussed at a pre-proposal conference to be held at 10:00 a.m. on 4/22/91 at 401 N.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite S721 Miami, Florida 33128. Bid opening date will be on 5/30/91 at 10:00 a.m. at the above mentioned address. Minority business enterprises are encouraged to attend the pre-proposal conference and participate in the bid process. The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services reserves the right to reject any and all bids and award to the bid judged to be in the best interest of the state. The second page of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined were "dry and measurable" and "existing building." "Dry and measurable" was defined as follows: These are essential characteristics to describe "existing" proposed space. To be considered as "dry and measurable" the proposed space must be enclosed with finished roof and exterior walls in place. Interior floors need not be completed. Exterior windows and doors need not be installed. The proposed area is not required to be completed. These characteristics conform to standard lessor construction practices. This definition is identical to the definition of this term found on page 1-5 of Respondent's leasing manual, HRSM 70-1. "Existing building" was 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 rentable square footage. at the time of bid submittal. On the ninth page of the ITB, the following advisements, among others, were given: The department reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida. Such rejec- tion shall not be arbitrary, but be based on strong justification which shall be communi- cated to each rejected bidder by certified mail. * * * The department reserves the right to waive any minor informalities or technicality and seek clarification of bids received when such is in the best interest of the state, but not limited to the correction of simple mistakes or typo- graphical errors. Such corrections will be initiated [sic] and dated on the original bid submittal by the bidder. Attached to the ITB and incorporated therein was a document entitled "Standard Method of Space Measurement." It read as follows: The purpose of this standard is to permit communication and computation on a clear and understandable basis. Another important purpose is to allow comparison of values on the basis of a generally agreed upon unit of measurement (net square footage). It should also be noted that this standard can and should be used in measuring office space in old as well as new buildings, leased office space as well as State-owned office space. It is applicable to any architectural design or type of construction because it is based on the premise that the area being measured is that which the agency may occupy and use for its furnishings and its people. This standard method of measuring office space measures only occupiable space, undistorted by variances in design from one building to another. It measures the area of office building that actually has usable (rental) value and, therefore, as a standard can be used by all parties with confidence and a clear understanding of what is being measured. Area Measurement in office buildings is based in all cases upon the typical floor plans, and barring structural changes which affect materially the typical floor, such measurements stand for the life of the building, regardless of readjustments incident to agency layouts. All usable (rentable) office space, private sector leased, State-owned, or other publicly owned shall be computed by: Measuring to the inside finish of permanent outer building walls to the office side of corridors and/or other permanent partitions, and to the center of partitions that separate the premises from adjoining usable areas. This usable (rentable) area shall EXCLUDE: bathrooms, public corridors, stairs, elevator shafts, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts, air-conditioning rooms, fan rooms, janitor closets, electrical closets, telephone equipment rooms, - - and such other rooms not actually available to the tenant for his furnishings and personnel - - and their enclosing walls. No deductions shall be made for columns and projections structurally necessary to the building. The attached typical floor plan illustrates the application of this standard. 3/ Petitioners submitted a bid in response to the ITB. 4/ In their bid they proposed to lease to Respondent space on the first and second floors of a building located at 8500 S.W. 8th Street in Miami, Florida. The space offered by Petitioners is currently occupied. At the time of bid submittal, all of the proposed space on the second floor was "dry and measurable," as that term is defined in the ITB. It encompassed a total of 26,540 square feet. At the time of bid submittal, only a portion of the proposed space on the first floor, amounting to 4,400 square feet, was "dry and measurable," as that term is defined in the ITB, inasmuch as the proposed space on this floor included a breezeway area that did not have either a front or back exterior wall in place. 5/ Subsequent to the submission and opening of bids, Petitioners enclosed this breezeway area by erecting exterior walls. Accordingly, the entire space offered by Petitioners was not "dry and measurable" at the time of bid submittal as required by the ITB. Bids were opened by Respondent on May 30, 1991. By letter dated June 18, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioners that their bid had been deemed non-responsive. The letter read as follows: The bid you submitted for lease No. 590: 2286 has been determined to be non-responsive because the proposed space is not dry and measurable. The breezeway area proposed on the ground level of your premises at 8500 S.W. 8 Street, Miami, does not have exterior walls in place. The invitation to bid on lease No. 590: 2286 provides on page 2: "Dry and Measurable- These are essential characteristics to describe "existing" proposed space. To be considered as "dry and measur- able," the proposed space must be enclosed with finished roof and exterior walls in place. You have the right to file a protest. The protest must be filed in accordance with S.120.53(5), Florida Statutes and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in S.120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. To comply with the referenced statute, a written notice of intent to protest must be filed with the contact person listed on the Invitation to Bid for lease No. 590: 2286 within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten calendar days after the notice of protest is filed, a formal written protest and protest bond must be filed with the contact person. The bond must be payable to the department in an amount equal to one percent of the total lease payments over the term of the lease or $5,000, whichever is less. This determination was the product of, not any unlawful bias or prejudice against Petitioners, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. Petitioners subsequently filed a protest of this preliminary determination to find their bid non-responsive. It is this preliminary determination that is the subject of the instant bid protest proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order rejecting Petitioners' bid for Lease No. 590: 2286 on the ground that said bid is non-responsive. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 25th day of September, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Respondent on the ground that the proposed space was not "dry and measurable" at the time of the bid.
Findings Of Fact The bid specifications in the solicitation by the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES) for its Lease No. 540:0977 (office space in Orange County) required that proposed space be in an existing building "dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage at the time of bid submittal." The requirement that proposed office space in response to Lease No. 540:0977 be "dry and measurable," as described in the preceding finding, is a long-standing, standard requirement found in the bid specification form developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS) (formerly the Department of General Services (DGS)) for use by all agencies of the State of Florida. DMS' (and, formerly, DGS') long-standing interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement in the standard bid specification form is that the building must have a roof and walls, with windows either in place or covered over so that the building interior stays dry in adverse weather conditions. In response to the DLES solicitation for bids for its Lease No. 540:0977, the Petitioners submitted a bid for space in a former Publix strip shopping mall, formerly known as the Northgate Shopping Center, located at 5023 Edgewater Drive, in Winter Park, Florida. At the time of the bid, the mall was unoccupied and in the process of being renovated and was a designated construction site. The building had been gutted, and the glass in the front of the building had been removed. The glass could be referred to as "windows" but actually would make up the top two-thirds of the front wall of the building. As a result, without the glass, the front "wall" consisted of a three to four foot rise of concrete blocks, and the front of the building was otherwise open. There was a 12-foot, eight-inch overhang over the front "wall," but wind-blown rain could enter the building, and apparently did. (There was standing water on the floor of the gutted building. There also were missing or unsecure doors along the back wall of the building.) When Susan Early, the DLES employee in charge of the bid solicitation, received the Petitioners' bid and saw the photographs of the building required by the bid solicitation, she questioned whether the building was "dry and measurable." To help answer her question, she asked another DLES employee, who was located in the Orlando area, to go to the site, take pictures, and send a report of her findings, together with the photographs. The report and photographs indicated to Early that the building was not "dry and measurable." But, instead of relying on the information she had, she sent another, Tallahassee-based DLES employee to the site and received confirmation of her understanding as to the condition of the building. She then contacted Mary Goodman, the person at DMS who had the most experience in the area of soliciting and evaluating bids of leased office space, and who ultimately would be responsible for approving the DLES lease. Goodman advised Early that the DLES should reject the Petitioners' bid as non-responsive because it was not "dry and measurable." The DLES also rejected, as being non-responsive, the only other bid received in response to the bid solicitation. In the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, DOAH Case No. 88-3357BID, entered September 21, 1988, the Division of Administrative Hearings rejected a bid as not offering "dry and measurable" space because the building "had a roof, a slab, and walls, which comprised 50 percent of the vertical plane from the slab to the roof." The bidder's argument that the building "had a four foot overhang" and that "the overhang prevented rain from entering the building" was rejected as not being credible "given the large amount of window space which was not enclosed." The winning bid, which was upheld as being a "dry and measurable" was an abandoned bowling alley that "had walls, a slab, and portions of the exterior walls were boarded over, possibly in the location of existing windows or window openings. The roof did have a hole, which was approximately three feet in length and allowed water to leak into the building." (Citations to the record omitted.) The facts derived from the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, supra, do not in themselves prove that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid. Although the Petitioners' bid in this case was for a building that once had a certificate of occupancy, the Petitioners' bid in this case is more similar in other respects to the rejected bid than the successful bid in the Koger Company case. For example, like the rejected bid in the Koger Company case, the Petitioners' bid had partial exterior walls. The Petitioners proved that they also submitted a bid for the lease of office space in the Northgate Shopping Center in response to a bid solicitation by the Florida Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission). The bid was evaluated, along with others, and the lease was awarded to another bidder. It can be inferred from this that the Department of Corrections made a determination that the Petitioners' bid was "dry and measurable." However, those facts alone do not prove the DLES, in this case, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly. They only would prove that the two agencies interpreted the phrase "dry and measurable" differently. There also was evidence that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) interprets the phrase "dry and measurable" differently than DLES does. But it was not proven whether HRS would have accepted a bid for space having the characteristics of the Petitioners' bid. The Petitioners argued persuasively from the evidence presented that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities. Sometimes, space in a building under construction or substantial renovation can be leased at lower rates. Presumably for that reason, the Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission) and HRS interpret the requirement differently. But, given the requirement that bid space be "dry," it cannot be said that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, enter a final order rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Department in Winter Park, Florida, Lease Number 540:0977. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3922BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should be noted, however, that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Rejected as not proven, according to the DLES interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement, that the bid space was "existing." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected in part as not proven, in part as argument, and in part as irrelevant. It also should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. In part, rejected as irrelevant and not proven. (Evidence as to the HRS manual and related facts was excluded as being irrelevant.) The rest is accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Irrelevant and unnecessary. (It was established at the hearing that the Petitioners' bid was rejected only because the bid space was not "dry"; DLES does not contend that it was not "measurable.") Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In part, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary (what Mr. Taylor's definition is.) In part, cumulative. In part, rejected as argument. In part, accepted and incorporated (that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities.) Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. (Assuming it acts consistently from case to case, an agency's choice not to waive technicalities cannot be called "acting fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.") Rejected as being argument and as not proven. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Except for the number of square feet, which is in error, accepted and incorporated. 2.-5. Accepted and incorporated. 6. Rejected as contrary to the findings of fact and the greater weight of the evidence that there were no walls in front. (They extended only about a third of the way up to the ceiling.) 7.-8. Accepted and incorporated. 9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Taylor 170 East Lake Elbert Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact During March 1988, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid by which it sought to lease 17,973 net usable square feet of office space to be located within a specified geographic area in Tampa, Florida, under a nine year lease with two additional three year option periods. This Invitation to Bid is referred to as Lease Number 590:1927. Three bids were received in response to the Invitation to Bid, and they were opened on May 13, 1988. Bids were received from the Petitioner, 8900 Centre, Ltd., and the Allen Morris Management Company. All bidders were determined to be responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Despite the fact that petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter dated June 10, 1988, of its intent to award Lease Number 590:1927 to 8900 Centre, Ltd., as the lowest and best bidder. Petitioner has timely filed its protest seeking review of that decision. It is undisputed that Petitioner submitted the lowest bid. For the first year of the lease, Petitioner bid $7.85 per square foot, while 8900 Centre bid $7.95 per square foot. Thereafter, Petitioner proposed a yearly increase of 50 cents per square foot, reaching $11.85 per square foot in the ninth year of the lease, while 8900 Centre proposed annual increases of approximately 75 cents, reaching $14.00 per square foot in the ninth year. This equates to an actual dollar difference over the nine year term of approximately 185,000. However, using a present value methodology and a present value discount rate of 8.81 percent referred to on page 17 of the bid submittal form, the present value difference in these two bids is approximately $1,000 per month, which would result in a present value difference between Petitioner and 8900 Centre of approximately $108,000 over the nine year period. Neither the Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, nor the actual bids were offered into evidence. One page of the bid submittal form, designated as page 17 of 18, was offered and received in evidence. This portion of the bid submittal form states that the "successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best." It also sets forth evaluation criteria, and assigns weights to each criteria. The evaluation criteria include associated fiscal costs (35 points), location (40 points) and facility factors (25 points) . A synopsis of bids was also offered and received in evidence showing the points awarded to each bidder by the Respondent's bid evaluation committed. Out of a possible 100 points, 8900 Centre received 95.17 points, while Petitioner received 82.25 points and the Allen Morris Management Company received 70.67 points. Petitioner asserts that the members of the evaluation committee were not qualified or knowledgeable in basic construction, design and engineering principles, and therefore could not competently evaluate the bids submitted. However, Petitioner did not offer competent substantial evidence to support this contention. Only the chairperson of the committee, Susan Jennings, was called to testify, and she appeared thoroughly knowledgeable in the bid process, the needs of the agency, the bid requirements and the representations made to the committee members by each bidder, including Petitioner, when the committee made its site visit to each location. Since the actual Invitation to Bid, bid specifications, and evidence about the other committee members were not introduced, it is not possible to know what the specific duties of the committee were, how they were to carry out their duties their qualifications and training, and whether they failed to competently carry out these duties, as alleged by Petitioner. Despite Petitioner's lower bid, Respondent awarded this lease to 8900 Centre, Ltd., based upon the evaluation committee's determination assigning 8900 Centre the highest number of evaluation points. Out of a possible 35 points for fiscal costs, Petitioner received 34 and 8900 Centre received 31.5. Thus, Petitioner's status as low bidder is reflected in the points awarded by the committee. Since neither the bid invitation or specifications were introduced, no finding can be made as to whether the difference between these two bidders comports with any instructions or directions provided by the agency to potential bidders, or whether this difference of 2.5 points on this criteria reasonably reflects and accounts for the dollar difference in these two bids. Petitioner received 34.75 points out of a possible 40 points on the general evaluation criteria "location," while 8900 Centre received the full 40 points. Within this criteria, there were three subcategories, and on the first two subcategories (central area and public transportation) there was an insignificant difference of less than one-half point between Petitioner and 8900 Centre. The major difference between these two bidders which accounts for their significant difference on the location criteria, was in the subcategory of environmental factors, in which Petitioner received 15.17 points and 8900 Centre received the full 20 points. Petitioner did not present competent substantial evidence to discredit or refute the committee's evaluation in the subcategory of environmental factors. To the contrary, the only testimony from a committee member was that of Susan Jennings, and according to her, Petitioner failed to explain the availability of individual air conditioning and heating controls, or the possibility of separate program entrances, which could be made available under its bid. Although Petitioner sought to explain at hearing that these desires of the agency could be accommodated in its bid, there is no evidence that such an explanation was provided in its bid or during the bid process when the evaluation committee visited the Petitioner's site. The committee was aware, however, that 8900 Centre would provide individual heating and air conditioning controls, as well as separate outside entrances for the three programs which would occupy the leased space. Additionally, the committee was concerned, according to Jennings, that parking areas at Petitioner's facility were more remote and removed from the building entrance than at 8900 Centre, and were somewhat obscured by trees and shrubbery, thereby presenting a potential safety concern for employees working after dark. Finally, every employee would either have a window or window access at 8900 Centre, while it was not explained that Petitioner's site would offer a similar feature. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the evaluation committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for environmental factors to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. The evidence reflects a reasonable basis for this difference. The other significant difference between these two bidders was in the subcategory for layout and utilization under the evaluation criteria "facility." Petitioner received 13.67 points while 8900 Centre received a full 20 points. Jennings explained that the separate outside entrances leading directly into the three programs that would occupy this space was preferred to a single reception area for all three programs. Petitioner offered the single reception area in its bid and site visit presentation, while 8900 Centre made it clear that each program would have its own entrance. Since these programs do not have a receptionist position, and none wanted to give up a secretarial position to serve as receptionist for all three programs, the committee did not consider the single reception area entrance to be desirable. Additionally, Petitioner's facility was a two-story building, while 8900 Centre is a single story facility. Jennings explained that the committee considered a ground level facility to be preferable to a two story building, particularly since the Medicaid program was to occupy the major portion of this space. The Medicaid program would have to be split up at Petitioner's facility, either in two separate buildings or on two levels of the same building, while at 8900 Centre, Medicaid could be accommodated in one, single story building, with the other two programs in a second, single story building. Finally, parking at 8900 Centre was directly next to, and outside the entrance of the building, while Petitioner offered to make assigned spaces available in a general parking area which serves its entire 100,000 square foot complex. The parking offered by Petitioner is more remote than that offered by 8900 Centre, and would be less secure at night due to a greater distance from the building entrances and the parking lot. Thus, Petitioner failed to establish that the committee erred in assigning a significantly greater number of points for layout and utilization to 8900 Centre than to Petitioner. There is a reasonable basis for this difference, according to the evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's protest to Lease Number 590:1927. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of December 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 88-3765 BID) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted, in part, in Finding of Fact 1, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 3-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but Rejected in 7. 6-7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected in Finding of Fact 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9 and 10, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 1, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 3-4. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5 and 6, but otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence in the record of this case. Adopted In Findings of Fact 5, 7-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the point difference in this subcategory is insignificant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael V. Giordano, Esquire 7821 North Dale Mabry Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33614 Jack Farley, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Fifth Floor, Room 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to August 2, 1984, DOT issued bid blanks for a mini- contract for State Project No: 76020-3515, for work consisting of cleaning and guniting a concrete box culvert located on State Road 19, in Putnam County, Florida, approximately one mile south of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The bid package, signed by C. A. Benedict, District Engineer, for the DOT, specifically reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The bid package broke the work down into three item numbers. The first was mobilization and called for one pricing unit. The second item called for maintenance of traffic at the work site and called for one pricing unit as well. The third area called for restoration of spalled areas (gunite) and called for approximately 437 cubic feet to be priced. In this regard, the plans furnished with the bid package and the bid package itself, in at least three separate locations, called for the bid as to the last item to be priced and paid for on a unit price basis. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid of seven bidders. It was determined to be faulty, however, in that though it properly priced the first two items, it failed to submit a unit price for the third item per unit, submitting instead a total price for the third item based on the entire cubic footage. Petitioner's bid indicated 437 cubic feet priced at a total of $17,832.00. Simple arithmetic permits a division which results in a unit price for each of the 437 cubic feet of $40,805. This last unit price, however, is not reflected on the bid submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner's bid is the only bid of the seven submitted which did not contain a unit price for each of the units in the third item. EDS has been in business since 1980. It performed one previous contract for DOT and is familiar with DOT's rules regarding bidding. It had ample opportunity to examine the plans and the bid blank before submitting its bid and admits that the unit price, though required, was omitted. Petitioner contends, however, that the omission is not a material variance and can be waived by Respondent. Respondent contends, on the other hand, that the failure to list the unit price in the third item is material. This determination is based on the fact that since the bid package calls for payment on a unit basis, the odd one- half cent per unit does not permit even money payment and requires rounding off. Even with this being true, the maximum difference would be one- half cent to be rounded off either upwards or downwards. At some point after opening, at least one of the unsuccessful bidders found out that Petitioner's bid failed to technically conform to the terms of the bid blank and at this point the second lowest bidder, Vann's Sandblasting, whose bid was $4,000.00 higher than that of Petitioner, and who had done several contracts for Respondent in the past, indicated that if petitioner's bid were not rejected, he would file a protest. The one-half cent variance, itself, is not material. Considering all factors, however, the failure to state the unit price may, under certain circumstances, be.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT Petitioner, EXPLOSIVE AND DIVING SERVICES, INC., be awarded the contract for State project No 76020-3515. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of February, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Gail S. Wood, President Explosive and Diving Services, Inc. Post Office Box 200 Clarksville, Florida 32430 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner and Lyell Hintz protest the Department's intent to award the bid for Lease No. 550-0209 to Southeastern Investment Properties, Inc. Issues derived from the pleadings, the joint prehearing stipulation and the evidence and argument at hearing are: Whether Petitioner has standing to protest the bid award; Whether Petitioner and Lyell Hintz have waived the right to contest evaluation criteria; If not, whether those criteria are valid; Whether the Respondent has properly applied the criteria to the bid proposals; Whether Southeastern's bid was nonresponsive; Whether Southeastern changed its bid after opening; Whether Petitioner's bid was defective for failure to include a waiver of existing lease; Whether the bid should be awarded to Lyell Hintz or Petitioner; and Whether all bids should be rejected and the lease re-bid.
Findings Of Fact The Bid Solicitation On or about January 31, 1991, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) advertised its request for proposals (RFP) for a full service lease for its District Five, Operations and Planning Office, Public Transportation Office and Construction Office. The RFP is identified as lease #550:0209. Specifications include net square footage of 13,640 + 3% (13,231 - 14,049), divided into 90% office and 10% storage space, to be available by July 1, 1991, or within 30 days of notice of bid award, whichever occurs last. The space is to be available in a northern section of Orange County designated on a map attached to the RFP, in the Winter Park/Maitland/Orlando area surrounding the intersection of Lee Road and I-4. The following evaluation criteria (award factors) are included in the RFP: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Rental, using total present value methodology for basic term of lease... (weighting: 15) Conformance of and susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization and to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid (not to exceed a weight of 10 award factors). (weighting: 10) Provision of the aggregate square footage on a single floor. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two floors. (weighting: 25) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operation planned for the requested space. (not to exceed a weight of 10 award factors) (weighting: 10) Offers providing 100 s.f. of street-level secured storage. (weighting: 10) * * * [deleted criteria given 0 weight and not relevant] Option period rental rate proposed is within projected budgetary restraints of the department. (weighting: 15) Accessibility to an I-4 Interchange. (weighting: 15) total award factors = 100 (Joint Exhibit #1, p. 7 of 10) Paragraph D.1., General Provisions, includes a notice that failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), F.S., constitutes a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, F.S. The notice references an attachment which includes the text of Chapter 90-224, Laws of Florida, requiring posting of a bond at the time of formal written protest. Paragraph D.6.A., General Provisions states: Each proposal shall be signed by the owner(s), corporate officers, or legal representatives(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 agent is to execute the lease, the authority must be supported by a properly executed Power of Attorney. 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. If there is an existing lease extending beyond the required availability date for all or any portion of the premises being offered to the agency a release of the applicable lease must accompany the Bid Submittal. (Joint Exhibit #1, p. 8 of 10) Paragraph D.8., General Provisions, provides the Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals, waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the state, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. Paragraphs D.12 and 13, General Provisions, establish a March 4, 1991 bid opening and a February 11, 1991 preproposal conference, respectively. On the RFP/Bid Proposal Submittal form, below the bidder's signature space, there is a list of required attachments and notice that failure to include such, if applicable, "...shall render the proposal nonresponsive and such proposal shall be rejected". (Joint Exhibit #1, p. 10 of 10) The relevant attachments include a map with location of the facility, photograph, floor plan, authorization as agent for bidder, and release of existing leases. The RFP/Bid Proposal Submittal Form was furnished to the DOT by the Department of General Services (DGS). As permitted, DOT made some modifications to the criteria to meet the specific needs of the agency. No protests of the bid solicitation were filed by any party. The Bid Responses Four proposals were timely received at the bid opening deadline, March 4, 1991: Clayton's Realty (Petitioner) submitted two proposals, Lyell Hintz submitted one proposal, and Southeastern Investment Properties, Inc., submitted one proposal. Clayton's bid for its building at 611 Wymore Road, Winter Park ("Clayton Bldg.") offers 13,984 square feet for $1,136,200.00 for the five-year rental period and $1,398,400.00 for the option years. Some of DOT's offices are already in this building. Clayton's bid for its building at 5600 Diplomat Circle, Orlando, ("Promenade Building") offers 14,049 square feet at $965,868.75 for the 5-year rental term, and $1,229,287.50 for the option period. Both of Clayton's buildings offer space on two floors. Lyell Hintz offers 14,049 square feet at 1241 S. Orlando Avenue, Maitland. The five year rental cost is $895,623.75, and the option period rental is $1,123,920.00. All of the space is offered on a single first floor. Southeastern Investment Properties, Inc., offers 14,049 square feet in the Adlee Building at 5151 Adamson Street, Orlando, for $1,009,139.67 for the 5- year rental term and $1,288,012.32 for the option period. Southeastern contends that it is offering 100 square feet of storage space on the first floor and the remainder of space on the second floor. Committee Analysis of the Bids An evaluation committee comprised of four DOT employees met on March 6, and March 12, 1991, to evaluate the bids. Their evaluation included a visit to each site with pre-established questions. The four employees were Nancy Houston, District Five District Director for Planning and Public Transportation; Donna Sovern, Ms. Houston's Administrative Assistant; Jim Hamelin, Resident Engineer in charge of construction in District Five; and Steven J. Nunnery, Office Manager for District Five Construction. The committee had prior experience in the leasing process on only one occasion. In November 1990, this same lease #550:0209 was bid. Lyell Hintz and Southeastern were the bidders. All bids were rejected after it was discovered that Southeastern's bids included typewritten language added by the bidder and in conflict with standard requirements. No protest was filed from that agency decision. In the November bid the committee simply utilized the criteria provided in the DGS packet. Later the Committee learned that criteria could be modified by the individual agency. With this understanding, the Committee changed the criteria for the March 1991 bids to provide that space be offered on no more than two floors, rather than two buildings; that points would be awarded for offers of 100 square feet of street level storage space, rather than all space on the street level; and that accessibility to an I-4 Interchange would be an additional evaluation factor. The committee felt these criteria appropriately addressed agency need to collocate programs and share facilities, to have ground floor storage for heavy samples and equipment, and to provide easy access by field staff and others using I-4 regularly. The committee devised a methodology for awarding points to each bidder in each category described in paragraph 3, above. The methodology is stated in the minutes of the evaluation committee meeting dated March 6, 1991. For item no. 1, the committee awarded 15 points (the highest) to the lowest bid. The percentage of difference between each bid and the lowest bid was multiplied by 15 to determine the point value. Hintz received 15 points; Clayton (Promenade Building) received 14 points; Southeastern received 13 points; and Clayton (Clayton Building) received 12 points. For item no 2, the committee stated it would take into account the design and other factors in the description of this item, including the parking requirement addressed in the invitation to bid. Southeastern received the maximum, 10 points; Hintz received 8 points; and the two Clayton buildings received 6 points each. As part of the November bid process, when the agency initially intended to make the award to Southeastern, Nancy Houston's husband, an architect in private practice, prepared without charge a layout of Southeastern's building to see if Southeastern could meet DOT's needs. At Clayton's and Southeastern's requests, that layout was provided to the bidders, except for Hintz. Since Hintz' building is basically a shell, and he assured DOT he would make the renovations they needed, Ms. Houston did not feel that he needed the floor plan. After the bids were rejected in November, the layout became a public record, available to anyone upon request. However, Ms. Houston opined at hearing that they could not get a good layout that would work for the Hintz building. This contradicts Mr. Hintz' testimony that the suggested floor plan attached to the RFP could easily fit in his building. The floor plan attached to the RFP is not the same floor plan prepared by Ms. Houston's husband for the Southeastern building and the fact that Hintz' building is a shell capable of a vast variety of layouts impeaches Ms. Houston's opinion. Item no. 3 requests aggregate square footage on a single floor, with fewer points for space on two floors. The committee methodology was to give 25 points for space on one floor and "reduction given accordingly" for two floors. (Joint Exhibit #6, attachment A, page 1) Hintz and Southeastern were each granted 25 (maximum) points. Although various committee members testified that two floors should have warranted 1/2 the points, or 13, Clayton's buildings were awarded 16 points each. Southeastern is not proposing to provide all space on one floor, as it is offering storage on the first floor and office space on the second floor. The committee considered this worthy of full points, as all of the office space is on one floor. Item no. 4 is related to environmental factors such as aesthetics of the building and surrounding areas. The committee methodology states that aesthetics of the building and area would be considered along with "...the economical factor relating to the conduct of our everyday activities from and in each space proposed." (Joint Exhibit #6, Attachment A) Southeastern was awarded 10 points (maximum); Clayton's Clayton Building and Promenade Building were awarded 6 and 8 points respectively; and Hintz was awarded 3 points. Item no. 5 relates to provision of 100 square feet of storage on the street level. The committee methodology provides that full ten points will be awarded if this is met; if not, the score would be "adjusted accordingly". Each bid was awarded the full 10 points. The committee members learned that Southeastern was willing to provide street level storage when they made their site visit and inquired. The space was not described in Southeastern's written proposal. Item no. 11 relates to rental cost for the option period. The methodology adopted by the committee for this item is the same as for item no. Hintz, the lowest bidder for the option term, received 15 points; Clayton's Promenade Building received 14 points; Southeastern received 13 points; and the Clayton Building received 12 points. Item no. 12, accessibility to an I-4 Interchange, is worth 15 points maximum. For its methodology the committee devised a formula of granting the closest building a full 15 points. The I-4/Lee Road interchange was selected as the reference hub. The Clayton Building, .2 miles from the interchange, was given 15 points. Southeastern's building .6 miles away, three times as far, was given 1/3 value, 5 points; the Promenade Building, .4 miles away, or twice as far, was given 1/2 full value, or 7.5, rounded to 8 points; and Hintz' building, 2 miles away, or 10 times as far, was given 1.5 points, rounded to 2. The total values thus awarded by the committee were: 86 points to Southeastern; 78 points to Hintz; 77 points to Clayton (Clayton Bldg.); and 76 points to Clayton (Promenade Bldg.). The committee, after meeting on March 6th and making its awards, decided to meet again on March 12th, after obtaining more information on phone service, zoning regulations, crime, and bidder's previous experience in renovations. Although some additional information was obtained and the committee did meet again, it determined that the additional information (not clearly related to any of the seven criteria above) did not warrant changing any of the scores. The committee recommended award of the lease to Southeastern. Southeastern's Bid Allegedly Defective Southeastern's bid is signed by Gilmore E. Daniel, Vice President of Southeastern Investment Properties, Inc., as agent for the owner, Cynwyd Investments, a partnership which operates under about 150 different partnerships. The building in issue is owned by an entity designated "Adlee Building, Cynwyd Investments General Partnership". Attached to Southeastern's bid is a letter on Cynwyd Investments letterhead, dated February 7, 1991, addressed to Mr. Gil Daniel, re: Adlee Building, 5151 Adamson Street, Orlando, Florida, stating: As leasing and managing agent for the above captioned property, you are hereby authorized to negotiate on our behalf with the State of Florida in order to procure the Department of Transportation as a tenant in our building. (Joint Exhibit #5) The letter is signed by Stephen Cravitz, CSM. Although the language of the letter is inartful (the agent was not "negotiating" a lease), the intent is plain on its face that the agent procure a lease. This is sufficient to convey authority for Gil Daniel to act on behalf of the owner. The requirement of the RFP, paragraph 6.A. is met. (see paragraph 5, above) There are several tenants currently occupying space proposed to be leased to DOT under lease no. 550:0209. There are three "agreements" attached to Southeastern's bid proposal for three tenants. Each agreement provides the tenant will move by April 15, 1991 "...contingent upon the landlord being the successful bidder for the State of Florida Department of Transportation lease no. 550:0209, and having an executed lease with the State." (Joint Exhibit #5) The tenants have not moved, but neither has the contingency been satisfied; and when or if it is, the tenants will move. These agreements are sufficient "release" to meet the requirements of RFP paragraph 6.A. The remaining tenant does not have a lease. Clayton's Bid Allegedly Defective Clayton's bids did not include any releases from tenants. There is a tenant currently in part of the space offered in the Clayton Building. There is also a lease agreement dated August 28, 1989, between the Claytons and Canam Steel Corporation describing a lease term of three years and termination date of September 14, 1992. Edward Fielding, Jr. is Director of Operations in the Leasing Department for Charles and Malcolm Clayton. He is well aware of the requirements for state leasing as he and the Claytons have been involved for several years in leasing space to state agencies. Canam Steel Corporation provided a letter in April 26, 1990, stating that it is closing its Orlando operation and requesting that its lease be terminated. It still occupies the space, but Edward Fielding is assured that it wishes to leave, and will do so immediately upon approval by Clayton. The lease and release was not included with the bid packet, as Fielding properly determined that it was no longer binding on the landlord. The Clayton Building bid does not violate the requirement of RFP, Paragraph 6.A. F. Alleged Bias of the Committee in Favor of Southeastern and Improper Award of Points Hintz and Clayton contend that the bid process was thoroughly tainted with a bias in favor of an award to Southeastern. Clayton did not respond to the November bid; Hintz did, and did not protest the earlier process, although he apparently brought to DOT's attention the language added to Southeastern's bid response that led to the rejection of all bids and reinitiation of the process. The committee changed its evaluation criteria when it learned that DGS's form criteria are not binding on the agency. The committee's alterations and addition of the I-4 accessibility requirement were intended to better meet the specific needs of the programs that would be using the space. The changes did not specifically benefit Southeastern; it was neither the closest nor next closest building to the I-4 interchange. For those criteria which could be objectively quantified, such as rental rate and proximity to I-4, the committee attempted in good faith to devise formulae. That the point spread for the I-4 criteria was substantially wider than for rental rates does not invalidate those formulae. For those criteria requiring a subjective analysis, the conformance/design and environmental factors, Petitioner and Hintz failed to prove the committee's point awards were patently wrong or fraudulent. One committee member, James Hamelin, admitted that Clayton should have received 13, rather than 16 points for providing space on more than one floor, but that error, if it indeed was an error, inured to the benefit of Petitioner and made no impact on Hintz, the next highest scorer. None of the floor plans presented by the bidders with their proposals are attached to the exhibits received in evidence, and those floor plans are not part of the record in this proceeding. One committee member, Donna Sovern, admitted that all of the square footage proposed by Southeastern was initially on the second floor. When the site visit was made and the committee discussed the space, Southeastern offered 100 square feet of storage on the first floor. (Transcript, pp 200-201) Because of this, Southeastern was awarded the full 10 points for Item No. 5, requiring 100 square feet of street-level secured storage. Allowing Southeastern to change its bid thus provided an advantage of 10 additional points. Assuming that the change was appropriate, Southeastern should not have also received the full 25 points for Item No. 3, provision of aggregate square footage on a single floor, since the remainder of its space is on the second floor. The award of points in these two items by the committee is inconsistent and erroneous. Page 4 of 10 of the RFP describes the space to be included in the 13,640 square feet to be leased. The description includes storage areas. (Joint Exhibit #1) The bidders were on notice that "aggregate" square footage includes storage space. The total number of points awarded to Southeastern must be reduced by either 10 (the after-the-fact storage space on the first floor) or 9 (the difference between the full 25 points and 16, the points awarded to Clayton for space on two floors). This results in a total of either 76 or 77 points for Southeastern. In either case, Hintz becomes the highest scorer, and Clayton and Southeastern are tied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order awarding lease no. 550:0209 to Lyell Hintz. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 7. - 5. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in summary in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. and 11. Adopted in part in paragraph 5, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Southeastern's name is typewritten. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in part in paragraph 31, otherwise rejected as immaterial. and 15. Adopted in part in paragraph 33, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 18. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in part in paragraphs 20 and 27, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 21, 26 and 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in part in paragraph 29, otherwise rejected as irrelevant as points were not awarded or subtracted for the additional factors. Rejected as irrelevant. Lyell Hintz' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 2. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 13, 15, 16 and 21. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 18. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 31 and 32. - 11. Rejected as immaterial and contrary to the weight of evidence. The letter attached to the bid was sufficient authority. 12. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 13. and 14. 15. Adopted Adopted in in paragraph 25. paragraphs 3 and 25. 16. Adopted in paragraph 38. 17. - 21. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 22. 22. Rejected as argument rather than finding of fact. 23. Rejected as immaterial and unsupported by the evidence. 24. Adopted in paragraph 3. 25. - 34. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 23, 14 and 16. 35. and 36. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 24. - 50. Rejected as immaterial. According to the evidence these factors did not change the committee's evaluation. 51. - 53. Rejected as immaterial and, as to the DGS requirement, unsupported by the record. Respondent and Southeastern's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraphs 18 and 19. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in part in paragraph 3, otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 24. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, specifically the RFP which unambiguously included all storage and office space in the "aggregate." - 19. Rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the record. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in part in paragraph 34, but the letter requesting its lease be terminated is sufficient release. Adopted in part in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Marvin L. Beaman, Jr., Esquire 605 North Wymore Road Winter Park, FL 32789 Wings L. Benton, Esquire P. O. Box 5676 Tallahassee, FL 32314-5676 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire 423 Country Club Drive Winter Park, FL 32789 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. #58 Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Dept. of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "District") advertised for bids on Contract No. M-0137, Bid No. B-85-91, for the construction of a structure maintenance facility. The Specifications and Contract Documents for the project required that bidders submit a "Base Bid," which related to the essential components of the project, and three "add alternates," which related to additional items that the District might contract for over and above the Base Bid. The Notice To Contractors regarding this project included the following language: The right is reserved, as the interest of the District may require, to reject any or all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposal, or to readvertise for other or future proposals. Paragraph 2 of the Instructions To Bidders includes the following language: "The intent of the Proposal Form is to secure a price, based on unit prices, for the work described in the Contract. . . ." (emphasis added) Paragraph 4 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: The District reserves the right to reject any and all proposals (i) when such rejection is in the interest of the District; (ii) if such proposal is void per se; or (iii) if the proposal contains any irregularities, PROVIDED, however, that the District reserves the right to waive any irregularities and to accept the lowest responsible bidder's proposal determined by the Engineer on the basis of the gross sum for which the work will be performed, arrived at by a correct computation of the base bid plus the alternate bid item or items selected by the District. Bid items will be considered by the District on the has is of budgetary capability. (First emphasis in original; second emphasis added.) Paragraph 5 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: Proposals will be considered irregular if they show omissions, unauthorized alterations of form, additions not called for, conditional or unauthorized alternate bids, or other irre- gularities of any kind; also if the unit prices are unbalanced either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values, or incomplete in any manner, including failure to bid on all items on the bid form. Paragraph 8 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No proposal can be withdrawn after it is filed unless the Bidder makes his request in writing to the District prior to the time set for the opening of bids, or unless the District fails to accept it within sixty (60) days after the date fixed for opening bids. Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders reads as follows: No interpretation of the meaning of the Plans, Specifications or other Contract Documents will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation should be in writing addressed to the Engineering & Construction Division, South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Road, Post Office Box V, West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33402, and to be given consideration must be received at least Ten (10) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Any and all such interpretations and any supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the Specifications which, if issued, will be mailed by registered mail to all prospective bidders (at the respective addresses furnished for such purposes) not later than Five (5) calendar days prior to the date fixed for the opening of bids. Failure of any bidder to receive any such Addendum of interpretation shall not relieve any bidder from any obligation under his bid as submitted. All addenda so issued shall become part of the Contract Documents. The bid items are described in Section 01021 of the Specifications and Contract Documents. Subsection 1.01 of that Section describes what is included in the Base Bid as follows: The Base Bid includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for: Structure Maintenance Facility, complete. Building utilities including all rough-in required for alternate bid items whether or not alternate bids are accepted. Site work including utilities. All other costs of the project not attributable to Items 1 thru 3 above or Alternate Bid Nos. 1 thru 3 below. Subsection 1.02 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 1 as follows: In the Base Bid all structural supports to receive the monorail trolley beams and hoists are included. Alternate No. 1 includes all work shown on the plans and called for in the specifications for two 15 ton capacity monorail hoists and trolley beams complete and operational. Work includes all final utility connections to points indicated on drawings, shipping, unloading at site, installation and final check-out and instruction to owner on operation of equipment as well as all other costs not attributable to items previously mentioned. Subsection 1.03 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 2 as follows: In the Base Bid all mechanical and electrical rough-in is to be provided for the two offices and the toilet and locker rooms above. Alternate No. 2 includes all costs over the Base Bid for completing the offices, toilets and locker rooms including all plumbing and lighting fixtures, partitions, lockers finishes, structure and metal stair as indicated and specified in the applicable sections of these specifications. Subsection 1.04 of Section 01021 describes what is included in Alternate Bid No. 3 as follows: The Base Bid includes all site grading to finish elevations indicated. Alternate No. 3 includes all costs over the Base bid for providing subsurface preparation and asphaltic concrete paving to finish elevations indicated as described in Section 02513 for all areas where asphaltic concrete paving is shown. In September of 1984 the District had received bids for a similar project. Similar contract documents and bid forms were used for the project. Cox & Palmer Construction Company, Overland Construction Company, Inc., and Booth Construction, Inc., all submitted bids on the September 1984 project. All of the bids submitted on the September 1984 project, including the Booth bid, were submitted on an add alternates" basis. All of the September 1984 bids were rejected. A total of seven bidders submitted bids on the instant project. With the exception of Booth Construction, Inc., all of the bidders on the instant project calculated their bids on an "add alternates" basis. It was the clear intent of the architecture firm that prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents that the bids should be submitted on an add alternates" basis. There were no irregularities in the bidding process regarding the instant project prior to the opening of the first bid. At the duly appointed time a representative of the District began the process of opening and announcing the amounts of the bids. The first bid to be opened was the bid submitted by Overland Construction Company, Inc. The amounts bid by Overland were as follows: Base Bid $ 378,800 Alternate No. 1 64,000 Alternate No. 2 18,000 Alternate No. 3 11,200 Immediately after the announcement of the amounts bid by Overland, Mr. York, the Director of the District's Engineering and Construction Division, asked, "Is that an add-on or deduct?" Someone in the audience answered that it was an "add-on" bid. Mr. Gerachi, on behalf of Booth, promptly stated that the alternates should have been bid as "deducts". A general discussion ensued among members of the audience regarding whether the alternates should have been bid as "add-on" or "deducts." In order to continue with the bid opening process and to restore order in the room, a representative of the District announced that the matter would be resolved when the bids were tabulated and another representative of the District began the process of opening the rest of the bids. The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was the fourth bid to be opened. The amounts written on the Booth bid were as follows: Base Bid $ 396,586 Alternate No. 1 54,072 Alternate No. 2 14,597 Alternate No. 3 9,185 Immediately after the amounts of the Booth bid were announced, Mr. Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. stood up and stated that the Booth bid had been calculated on the basis of "deduct" alternates. The essence of his statement was that in calculating the amount of his company's Base Bid he had added to the base bid the sum of the three alternate bids with the understanding that the amounts shown for any of the three alternates would be deducted from his Base Bid if the District decided not to award a contract for one or more of the alternates. This statement following the opening of the Booth bid was the first time that anyone on behalf of Booth had made a specific unambiguous statement to representatives of the District responsible for this bidding process regarding the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated. 1/ The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company was opened after the Booth bid. The amounts bid by Cox & Palmer were as follows: Base Bid $ 392,225 Alternate No. 1 38,770 Alternate No. 2 19,200 Alternate No. 3 11,456 The bid submitted by Booth Construction, Inc., was prepared by both Vincent Gerachi, an estimator and project manager employed by Booth Construction, Inc., and by Alvin Booth, president of Booth Construction, Inc. Mr. Gerachi has been an estimator on construction projects for approximately 12 years. Mr. Booth has been in the construction business for approximately 30 years and has had his own construction company for about 18 years. Both Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth were uncertain whether the alternate bids were supposed to be bid as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Neither of them attempted to do anything to resolve their uncertainty until the morning of the very day on which bids were to be submitted. On that morning Mr. Gerachi called a representative of the District to ask whether the bid should be prepared with the alternate bids calculated as "add-ons" or as "deducts." Mr. Gerachi spoke to Mr. Brown at the District, who suggested that Mr. Gerachi call the architecture firm that had prepared the Specifications and Contract Documents. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 10 of the Instructions To Bidders (see paragraph 6 of these findings of fact, above), it is a customary practice of the trade for bidders to communicate directly with project architects to resolve any uncertainties in the Specifications and Contract Documents. Indeed, it is generally understood in the trade that it is the duty of the bidder to communicate with the project architect to seek resolution of any ambiguities. Mr. Gerachi tried to reach the project architect by telephone, but was unable to reach him because the architect had already left his office to drive to the bid opening. Mr. Gerachi did not have an opportunity to talk to the architect prior to filing the Booth Construction bid because the architect did not come into the bid opening room until about one minute after 2:00 p.m. Mr. Gerachi talked to Mr. and Mrs. Booth before turning in the Booth bid. Mr. Gerachi prepared the Booth bid with the alternate bids calculated as "deducts" from the Base Bid. In other words, the amount of the Base Bid on the Booth bid included the sum of the three alternate bids, which alternate bids were also separately stated on the Booth bid. Alvin Booth participated in the preparation of the bid and was aware of the manner in which the Booth bid was calculated before the bid was submitted to the District. Even though the Base Bid on the Booth bid is in the amount of $396,586, it was the intention of Booth Construction, Inc., to bid $318,732 for the work described as being within the scope of the Base Bid. The reason for the higher amount being entered for the booth Base Bid is that Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth misinterpreted the Specifications and Contract Documents and added to the Booth Base Bid the sum of the Booth bids on each of the three Alternate Bids. 2/ This misinterpretation of the Specifications and Contract Documents was caused by the culpable negligence or willful inattention of Vincent Gerachi and Alvin Booth. After all of the bids were opened a representative of the District announced that the District would consider the matter and notify all bidders of its decision at a later date. Thereafter the District, having concluded that Booth Construction, Inc., had acted in good faith and that the irregularities in the form of its bid were "minor irregularities," decided to treat the oral statements by Mr. Gerachi and Mr. Booth as amendments to the Booth bid, to treat the Booth Base Bid as being $318,732, and to award a contract to Booth Construction, Inc., for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 in the amount of $372,804, calculated as follows: $318,732 (Amended Booth Base Bid) 54,072 (Booth Alternate No. 1 Bid) $372,804 (Total Contract) Booth Construction, Inc., has the ability to perform the contract and can perform the contract for the proposed contract amount of $372,804. Booth Construction, Inc., is a responsible bidder. The District estimate of the cost of the work covered by the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 was $329,000. There are no irregularities in the bid submitted by Cox & Palmer Construction Company. Cox and Palmer Construction Company is a responsible and responsive bidder. The bid submitted by Cox & Palmer is the lowest responsive bid for the combination of the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1. 3/ The foregoing findings of fact include the substance of the majority of the findings proposed by the parties, although I have rejected a number of unnecessary details and editorial comments in the parties' proposals. Any proposed findings which are not incorporated in the foregoing findings are rejected on the grounds of not being supported by competent substantial evidence or as being contrary to the weight of the persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order to the following effect: Concluding that the irregularities in the Booth Construction, Inc., bid may not be waived and that the bid will be considered, as submitted, to be a Base Bid in the amount of $396,586; Concluding that in view of the foregoing treatment of the Booth bid, the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company is found to be the lowest responsive bid for the Base Bid plus Alternate No. 1; Concluding that the District will accept the bid of Palmer & Cox Construction Company and enter into a contract with Palmer & Cox Construction Company consistent with the amounts bid by Palmer & Cox Construction Com- pany for the Base Bid and Alternate No. 1; and Concluding that the petition of Overland Construction Company, Inc., is dismissed for lack of standing. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of July, 1985.
