Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is required by state and federal law to ensure that a certain percentage of funds available for construction, design and consulting service contracts be provided as opportunity for utilization by small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals (DBEs). DBE contract goals are established by the DOT for each construction contract. Every bidder must submit a form to the DOT which either documents compliance with the DBE contract goal or, if compliance is not met, must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that good faith efforts were made by the bidder to meet the goal. Prior to June of 1984, it was the practice of the DOT to allow contractors ten days after the bid letting to correct their DBE forms or to submit their good faith effort documentation. After holding numerous workshops throughout the State, the DOT amended its rules relating to participation by disadvantaged business entities. As pertinent to this proceeding, the amendment requires that all DBE documentation be submitted at the time of the submission of the bid proposal. Bidders are notified that: ".... Failure to satisfy these requirements shall result in a contractor's bid being deemed nonresponsive and the bid being rejected." Rule 14-78.03(2)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code. This rule became effective on May 23, 1984. All prequalified bidders were mailed a copy of the rule amendments prior to their effective date. Petitioner received a copy of the new rule prior to May 23, 1984. By notice dated June 28, 1984, contractors were advised that sealed bids would be received on July 25, 1984, on various road projects. The bid documents advised that the DBE goal for Project Number 50020-3516 was 10 percent. Form 932-10 entitled "Disadvantaged/Women Business Enterprise Utilization Affirmative Action Certification" advised bidders that Form 1 is required to accompany the bid documents. The specifications for Job Number 50020-3516 contain extensive provisions with regard to compliance with the DBE contract goals. Among these provisions is the following language contained in Section 2-5.3.2: "... Award of the Contract shall be conditioned upon submission of the DBE and WBE participa- tion information with the bid proposal and upon satisfaction of the contract goals or, if the goals are not met, upon demonstrating that good faith efforts were made to meet the goals." (Emphasis added.) The specifications lists as grounds for disqualification of bidders "failure to satisfy the requirements of 2-5.3." On July 25, 1984, Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of 8171,370.51 for Job Number 50020-3516. Attached to the bid was Form 932-10 and Form No. 1, the latter indicating that petitioner's proposed utilization of DBEs was 7.6 percent of the total contract amount. While noting that two other DBEs were contacted without success, petitioner provided no further documentation regarding its good faith efforts to comply with the 10 percent contract goal. Three contractors submitted bids on this project. The next lowest bidder was Baxter Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., which submitted a bid of $191,540.92 and demonstrated compliance with the DBE contract goal. The third bidder, Capital Asphalt, Inc., submitted a bid of $204,651.35, fell below the 10 percent DBE contract goal and, like the petitioner, failed to demonstrate that it made a good faith effort to comply. The DOT engineer's estimate on this project was approximately $147,000.00. By notice dated August 17, 1984, the DOT advised that all bids received on Job Number 50020-3516 had been rejected. Two reasons were given for the rejection: that "the low bidder failed to meet DBE Contract Requirements" and that "awarding to the second low bidder is not in the best interest of the State." During June, July, and August following the adoption of the new rules regarding DBE requirements, it was the general policy of the DOT Awards Committee to reject all bids on a project if the low bidder failed to meet DBE requirements and there was more than a one percent difference between the first and second low bids. Beginning in September or October, 1984, this policy was changed to one of awarding to the second or third most responsible bidder as long as the bid was within the State estimate. Consequently, the DOT has now determined to award this challenged bid to Baxter Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. In another bid letting occurring on May 30, 1984, on Project Number 55160-3517, petitioner failed to submit with its bid proposal the forms for demonstrating compliance with the DBE requirements. By letter dated May 30, 1984, and received on June 4, 1984, petitioner was advised to forward, without delay, the necessary Form No. 1. The Form returned by petitioner showed 8 percent DBE participation. Since the contract goal was 10 percent, petitioner was afforded another opportunity to comply, did comply and receive approval on June 11, 1984, and was later advised that yet another DBE form needed to be completed. On July 17, 1984, petitioner received a letter from the DOT advising that the contract had been awarded to petitioner as of July 16, 1984. For all bid lettings occurring since June or thereafter, the DOT has rejected bids from contractors who have not submitted evidence with their bid proposal of either DBE compliance or a good faith effort to comply. New forms have been utilized to require such submittals with the bid proposal and removing the prior 10 day grace period language. Also, on August 22, 1984, the DOT sent a "Notice to All Contractors" that: "... all submittals for evaluating Good Faith Efforts in meeting DBE/WBE goals must be submitted with the bid proposal in order to be considered for award of the contract. Failure to submit the Good Faith Effort documentation with the bid may result in rejection of the bid."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting as non-responsive the bid submitted by petitioner on Job Number 50020-3516, and awarding the contract to Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 27th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Bist, Esquire 300 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Frank A. Baker, Esquire 204 Market Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Paul Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner obtained bid specifications and submitted the lowest bid on Department of Transportation project No. 12075-3408 to construct rest station facilities on the I-75 in Lee County. The specifications established a goal of 15 percent of the subcontracts be let to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (Exhibit 1). If the successful bidder failed to meet this goal, he must show a good faith effort to meet the goal was made else his bid would be deemed non-responsive and rejected. Rules 14-78.01 through 14-78.09, Florida Administrative Code, which became effective in June, 1984, were the controlling regulations at the time the bids for the project were solicited. These rules eliminate the former classification of Minority Business Enterprises comprised of minorities and women and replaces it with a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and a Women's Business Enterprise (WBE) classifications. In the instant contract a goal was established only for DBE. Actions to be taken by the bidder to meet these goals were contained in the bid package, as were the criteria by which the bidder's good faith efforts to meets these goals would be evaluated by DOT. The bid specifications required the contractor, if he failed to meet the DBE goal established, to submit all documentation to support his claim that a good faith effort had been made. With his bid Petitioner submitted only a list of 28 subcontractors from whom it had solicited bids, of which 6 were WBEs. That list showed the date request for bid was sent by certified mail by Petitioner, the date return receipt was received, whether a bid was received, and date back-up phone call was made. That document showed three listed companies submitted bids. DBE/WBE utilization form No. 1 (Exhibit 1) submitted by Petitioner showed no bids were received. Petitioner explained this discrepancy at the hearing, that he had rejected the three bids received because they were more than one percent higher than the bid submitted by another subcontractor. Documentation of this fact did not accompany Petitioner's bid. Upon receipt of Petitioner's bid showing no DBE subcontractor, the bid was submitted to the Good Faith Effort Committee at DOT to evaluate the information contained in the bid to determine if Petitioner had submitted documentation to support his good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal. That committee found Petitioner had not provided adequate documentation of its efforts and recommended the bid be declared non-responsive (Exhibit 8). Prior to Rules 14-78.01 through 14-78.09, Florida Administrative Code, becoming effective in June 1984, the rules allowed the contractor an additional ten days after bid opening to submit evidence that good faith efforts had been made to meet DBE goals. After June 1984 all documentation of good faith efforts are required to be submitted with the bid where DBE goals are not met. In the event the DBE goal is not met by the contractor in his bid submission, the bid specifications (Exhibit 1) require the contractor to submit sufficient information to demonstrate he made good faith efforts to meet the goal. Those bid specifications further list nine items the Department will consider in evaluating the contractor's good faith efforts. These include submitting written notice by certified mail to all certified DBEs which perform the type work which the contractor intends to subcontract; whether the contractor selected economically feasible portions of the work to be done by DBEs; whether the contractor provided assistance to DBEs in reviewing plans and specifications; whether DBE goals were met by other bidders; whether contractor submits all quotations received from DBEs and, for those not accepted, an explanation of why not; whether contractor assisted DBEs in obtaining required bonding, lines of credit or insurance; whether contractor elected to subcontract types of work meeting capabilities of DBEs; whether contractor's efforts were merely proforma; and whether contractor has, on other contracts within the past six months, utilized DBEs. A list of certified DBEs is contained in Exhibit 7, which was available to Petitioner. Therein are listed many DBEs other than those on the list submitted by Petitioner with his bid. At the hearing return receipts for certified mail soliciting bids from DBEs by Petitioner were admitted into evidence, over objection, as Exhibit 3. Since the rules require all documentation of good faith efforts be submitted with the bid, that exhibit is not relevant. However, that exhibit clearly shows all certified DBEs were not solicited by Petitioner. Of those nine items Petitioner was notified would be considered by the Department in evaluating his good faith efforts to obtain the DBE goal, the evidence submitted with Petitioner's bid showed compliance with none. This gas the first bid submitted by Petitioner to Respondent. Other bidders met the DBE goals and the bid was awarded to the second low bidder.
The Issue 1. Whether the proposals submitted by Consultec and EDS met the mandatory requirements of the Request for Proposals, and, if not, whether the proposal submitted by GTE met the mandatory requirements; (2) Whether the evaluation of the proposals by HRS was infected with substantial, material irregularities which resulted in an arbitrary scoring and evaluation process; (3) Whether GTE has standing to contest the award of the contract to Consultec; and (4) Whether GTE has waived any of the issues it has raised due to its failure to timely challenge the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposals.
Findings Of Fact General Background of the RFP On January 6, 1987, HRS released a Request for Proposals for Florida Medicaid Program Fiscal Agent Services (RFP) for qualified organizations to implement and operate a certifiable Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) for the Florida Medicaid Program. There were several reasons why HRS wanted a new MMIS system for the Florida Medicaid Program. First, the current system was more than ten years old and, although enhanced and modified numerous times, had been determined to be archaic. Second, the federal government indicated to HRS that it would not participate in future funding of the operation of the current system. Third, the federal government recommended that Florida purchase a new system. In February 1986, HRS began the process of preparing the RFP to be used in selecting the fiscal agent for the new MMIS. The process began with the development of an Advanced Planning Document (APD). Since the federal government pays for the large majority of Medicaid services, the federal Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is very much involved in the various stages of the state procurement process. The purpose of the APD, which describes in detail the planned procurement process, is to obtain federal approval of the procurement process proposed by the state to ensure federal financial participation. The APD was submitted to and approved by HCFA. After approval of the APD, HRS contracted with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company-Compass Consulting Group (PMM Compass) for consultant services regarding HRS's Medicaid fiscal agent procurement. PMM Compass is a nationally known consulting firm in Medicaid procurements. Its function was to review the proposed evaluation section of the RFP and to prepare a detailed evaluation plan, including written evaluation instruments and an evaluation manual, evaluation procedures, and evaluation training and materials, which would be used in evaluating the fiscal agent business and technical proposals. After the RFP was prepared, it was submitted to HCFA for approval. HCFA oversees federal financial participation in the Medicaid program and reviews state RFP's for MMIS systems to ensure that federal acquisition regulations have been met. The HCFA approved the RFP on November 28, 1986. On December 8, 1986, the Information Technology Resource Procurement Advisory Council of the Department of General Services approved the RFP. On January 6, 1987, the RFP was issued. Section 60.800 of the RFP provided that any party adversely affected by the bid solicitation must file a notice of protest within 72 hours after receipt of the RFP. No one filed a protest contesting any of the provisions of the RFP. On April 6, 1987, proposals were received from the following three offerors: Consultec, Inc. (Consultec), EDS Federal Corporation (EDS), and GTE Data Services, Inc. (GTE), subcontracting with The Computer Company (TCC). The RFP The RFP was issued for the procurement of fiscal agent services for the Florida Medicaid Program. The contractor chosen will serve as the HRS fiscal agent to administer the state's Medicaid program. The contractor must furnish all computer hardware, computer software, personnel, and other necessary resources to process approximately 24 million Medicaid claims each year and to keep current track of all Medicaid providers and recipients. The contractor must design and implement the computer and personnel systems to provide these services, must implement necessary changes to the system during the life of the contract, and must perform certain tasks to turn the system over to the state or to the new contractor at the end of the contract term. The total dollar amount paid during the contract will be approximately 45 to 50 million dollars. The RFP is a two-volume document containing approximately 500 pages, including the Appendix which is Volume II. The RFP consists of nine sections which are numbered 10, 20, 30, and so forth through 90. Section 10 provides an administrative overview; Section 20 provides a summary of the present system; Section 30 outlines the scope of the work required setting forth the responsibilities of the contractor and of the state; Section 40 sets forth the Florida MMIS System requirements; Section 50 contains the terms and conditions of the contract; Section 60 sets forth the procurement procedures; Section 70 contains the required contents of the technical proposal, which includes sections concerning corporate background and experience, project organization and staffing, project management and control, work plan and schedule, MMIS system description, and data processing; Section 80 sets forth the required content and format of the business proposal, which contains each offeror's price information; and Section 90 relates to the manner in which the proposals will be evaluated. The RFP provided that the proposal should be submitted in two parts: the technical proposal and the business proposal. The technical and business proposals had to be sealed separately, though submitted simultaneously, and would be open at different stages. The technical proposals were opened on April 6, 1987; the business proposals were opened on June 15, 1987, after scoring of the technical proposals was completed. Each technical proposal was several volumes in length. The Evaluation Process The evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the formal evaluation plan developed by the RFP Project Director, Tom Arnold, and PMM Compass. Section 90 of the RFP set forth the manner in which proposals would be evaluated. The evaluation was conducted in five phases: Phase 1, Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements of Technical Proposals; Phase 2, Evaluation of Technical Proposals; Phase 3, Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements of Business Proposals; Phase 4, Evaluation of Business Proposals; and Phase 5, Ranking of Proposals. The way in which the proposals would be evaluated in each of the five phases was described in Section 90 of the RFP. Phase 1 The first phase of the evaluation process was to review the technical proposals submitted by the offeror to ascertain whether the proposals complied with all the mandatory requirements of the RFP. The purpose of Phase 1, as stated in Section 90.200 of the RFP, was to determine whether each technical proposal was sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. This phase of the evaluation was performed on a "pass-fail" basis and was conducted immediately following the proposal due date. Section 90.200 of the RFP lists the 27 questions that would be used to determine whether the technical proposals met the mandatory requirements of the RFP. HRS considered that an offeror met the mandatory requirements for the technical proposals if an affirmative answer could be given to all 27 questions. The 27 questions were divided into two categories, proposal submission and technical proposals. The questions under the proposal submission category were questions such as the following: Was the proposal received by HRS no later than 2:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) on April 6, 1987? Did the vendor submit separate, sealed business and technical proposals and the required proposal bond? Is this the only proposal? (Alternate proposals not allowed). Are there fifteen (15) copies of the technical proposal? Does each copy of the technical proposal contain the required transmission letter? The questions under the technical proposal category were simply questions to ensure that each of the sections required to be included in the technical proposal had in fact been included. There were eight questions to correspond to the eight sections that were required. Each question was worded in the same manner, such as, "Is a Corporate Background and Experience section included? All three offerors submitted technical proposals that were determined to be sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. Each offeror received a "pass" designation for all questions except GTE. GTE did not receive a pass on Question No. 4, which required that 15 copies of technical proposal be submitted. GTE submitted only 14 complete copies of its technical proposal by the deadline. However, HRS determined this was a minor irregularity, and GTE was allowed to submit the missing volume of its technical proposal the following day. In the appendix to the RFP a "minor irregularity is defined as follows: Minor irregularities are those exceptions which will not have an adverse effect on costs or performance. The first phase of the evaluation process was conducted by Tom Arnold, Tom Wallace, and Barbara Thrower of HRS. This phase was completed within 3 or 4 hours after the proposals had been opened. The mandatory requirements portion of the HRS evaluation manual was used in determining whether each offeror met the mandatory requirements. The same 27 questions listed in the RFP were contained in the evaluation manual. The evaluators were instructed in the manual to assign a "pass" score to each item for which their response to the question defined in the item is "yes." Phase 2 After determining that all of the technical proposals met the mandatory requirements and were sufficiently responsive to permit a complete evaluation, Phase 2 of the Evaluation Process was begun. The purpose of Phase 2 was to measure the individual merit of each technical proposal in each of several areas according to preestablished criteria. A maximum of 2,000 points could be received for each technical proposal. The basic categories evaluated and their maximum number of points were: Corporate Background and Experience 200 pts. Project Organization and Staffing 225 pts. Technical Approach 225 pts. Project Management and Control 150 pts. Work Plan and Schedule 200 pts. MMIS Description 800 pts. Data Processing 200 pts. Proposals were evaluated through four separate methods: (1) Review of the written response to the RFP; (2) Oral presentation; (3) Visits to sites where each offeror operated a baseline system; and (4) Reference checks. The RFP advised the offeror of the scoring system for the technical proposals and the ways in which information would be obtained. The offerors were advised by the RFP that detailed evaluation criteria had been developed for each of the categories listed. Further, for each of the categories listed, the RFP contained a paragraph which was meant to "describe generally the factors covered by the detailed criteria." Section 90.390 of the RFP set forth the manner in which points would be assigned to the technical proposal. Section 90.390 reads as follows: Scoring of the seven areas in each technical proposal shall be done using preestablished criteria and predefined scoring values. Each criterion within an area will be independently scored by evaluators. Indivi- dual raw scores from the evaluators, for each criterion, for each offeror's proposal, will be averaged then multiplied by a predetermined weight to get a weighted point value for that criterion. Scoring weights will not be available to the evaluation committee, but will be applied to raw scores by other designated staff. Weighted point values for all criteria in an offeror's proposal will then be tallied. The final technical score for each proposal is then calculated using the following methodology: A maximum of two thousand (2,000) weighted points will be assigned to the highest passing technical proposal. . . . The formula to be used to award all other offerors a proportional amount of points was also included. The formal evaluation and initial scoring of the technical and business proposals was performed by a Technical Evaluation Committee (Evaluation Committee) appointed by the Secretary of HRS. The Committee consisted of eleven members with backgrounds and experiences in MMIS program development, data processing, and financial analysis. While the members of the Evaluation Committee did not formulate the evaluation criteria which were used, they were well-qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided. Further, on March 24-27, 1987, prior to the receipt of Proposals on April 6, HRS Sponsored a three and one- half day training session for the members of the Evaluation Committee. Judith Hansen, a consultant with PMM Compass, headed the training sessions. During the course of these training sessions, the evaluators went over each of the criteria on which proposals were to be judged to ensure that all of the evaluators understood the scoring criteria in the categories they would be scoring. Ten of the Evaluation Committee members were responsible for evaluating the technical proposals in Phase 2 of the evaluation process. The individuals were divided into subgroups representing each of the seven categories to be evaluated. Five of the categories had three evaluators. The MMIS Description category had six evaluators, and the Technical Approach category had five evaluators. None of the members of the Evaluation Committee was an evaluator in each of the seven categories; the most categories scored by any one evaluator was four. Each member of the Evaluation Committee scored each of the proposals in the categories to which they were assigned; however, to ensure that each proposal was judged solely by the detailed evaluation criteria provided rather than against each other, an evaluator was permitted to have only one proposal before him to score at a time. Evaluators were also instructed not to discuss their scoring with the other evaluators but to independently score each proposal. The Evaluation Committee began reviewing the technical proposals on April 7, 1987, the day after proposals were submitted. Proposals were evaluated by the committee members at the Government Employee's Credit Union, a location away from their normal work place. Each evaluator was given a technical proposal and was allotted two days simply to read the particular proposal and become familiar with it. They then began to evaluate the proposal in the categories assigned. When the evaluators had finished the first proposal, they turned in both the proposal they were reviewing and their scoring manual for that proposal and received another offeror's technical proposal to read and evaluate. Each evaluator was given a separate scoring manual for each of the offerors which contained the criteria to be used in scoring the proposal in the assigned categories. Each category had criteria to be scored. Different categories had a different number of criteria. For example, the Corporate Background and Experience category had fifteen criteria; the Project Management and Control had eight; and the MMIS Description had 49 criteria. Each criterion in every category was to be scored from zero to ten by the evaluator. A zero was to be given when the offeror had omitted the particular aspect of the area or did not establish the capability to perform it. One to three points was "poor," four to six points was "average," seven to nine points was "good," and ten points was excellent. The scoring manual was organized with the criterion to be scored, and matters that might be considered under that criterion, on the left-hand page. The scoring sheet for that criterion was on the right-hand page. The scoring sheet contained a space for the numerical points awarded and also provided space for comments to indicate the reason for the score given. All proposals were initially scored based on the information provided in the proposals. The scores were Subsequently reviewed and revised, if appropriate, as additional information became available through the reference checks, the oral presentations, and the on-site visits. The evaluations of the technical proposals took over two months to complete. Throughout this period, but after the initial scoring was completed, debriefing sessions were conducted with the evaluators to ensure that the evaluators neither misunderstood nor overlooked relevant information from the proposals, reference checks, oral presentations, or site visits. Reference checks were conducted to verify both the corporate capabilities of the offeror and the qualifications of proposed senior project personnel. The reference checks were conducted by two members of the Evaluation Committee, Diana Flagg and George Strickland. These two individuals were chosen to conduct the reference checking because of their skills and abilities--they both had experience in contract management functions and dealing with state agencies-- because their workload was such that they had the time available. Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland were given a reference check manual that had been prepared as part of the evaluation package which contained the questions to be asked; however, they were not told which references to call. After discussing the matter, they decided to contact three (3) different states as corporate references for each of the bidders. They used the following criteria to determine which states to contact: (a) whether the state used the same baseline system proposed by the offeror for Florida; (b) whether the state had recent experience with the offeror; and (c) whether the state had experience with the development and operations of MMIS systems that would be similar to Florida's. The term "baseline system" refers to the proposed subsections of a certifiable, operational MMIS. An MMIS is comprised of six to seven federally required general system design subsections. The RFP defined "Baseline System" as "[t]he basic systems code used for the FMMIS consisting of, at the minimum, the Claims Processing Subsystem, the Reference Subsystem and the MAR Subsystem." The RFP required offerors to propose a certifiable operational MMIS and stated that the baseline system had to be operational in some state. Therefore, contacting the states that had the same or a similar baseline system as that proposed for Florida was the important factor in choosing the states to be contacted. Based on the three criteria stated, HRS decided to contact Montana, Ohio and Washington for Consultec; Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia for GTE/TCC; and Arkansas, Kentucky and Georgia for EDS. The corporate reference checks were conducted in the following manner: After deciding the states to be contacted, Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland jointly called the person listed by the offeror as the corporate reference for that state. Upon reaching the listed person, Mr. Strickland asked the corporate reference the predetermined questions in the reference check manual regarding that state's experience with the offeror. The reference was asked to rate the offeror on a scale of 0 to 4 and to give comments supporting the score where appropriate. To insure accuracy, both Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland recorded both the scores and the comments given by the reference for each offeror. After each call was completed, they compared their notes to make sure the reference's scores and comments were accurately transcribed. The personnel reference checks were conducted by Ms. Flagg and Mr. Strickland in the same manner. The personnel references called were those listed as references in the proposal for the individual, except in one case the listed reference referred the evaluators to another individual who had worked more closely with the person being checked. After the corporate and personnel reference checks were completed, the reference check manual containing the information received was made available to all of the evaluators for use in scoring the proposals. Oral presentations by each offeror were held on May 26, 27, 28, 1987. The orals provided the offerors with a chance to present their proposals and provided the committee with an opportunity to obtain answers to questions developed during their initial review of the proposals, to observe the offerors in action, and to request clarification of an offeror's proposal. The offerors were advised at the beginning of the presentation that any answers given at the oral presentation would be considered part of the proposal. In addition to the oral presentation, six members of the Evaluation Committee, plus the project director and the evaluation oversight manager, made visits to one installation site where each offeror's baseline system was operational. The site visits gave the evaluators an opportunity to see the offerors in action and to speak with state personnel in person about the offeror. The following site visits were made: June 1-2 EDS Little Rock, Arkansas June 3-4 GTE Data Services/The Computer Company Nashville, Tennessee June 8-9 Consultec, Inc. Jefferson City, Missouri Columbus, Ohio For Consultec, two locations rather than one were visited because while Ohio utilizes the Consultec baseline system bid in Florida, Consultec does not-run the system. In Missouri, on the other hand, Consultec is operating an MMIS system originally designed by EDS. Thus, by visiting two locations, HRS was able to evaluate Consultec's baseline system and analyze Consultec's operations and capabilities as a fiscal agent. The information received as a result of the site visits was recorded in the Site Visits Manual for each offeror. The manual contained the questions to be asked at each site and was part of the evaluation package. As with the Reference Check Manual, the Site Visits Manual was made available to all of the evaluators. On June 15, 1987, after the scoring of the technical proposals was completed by the Evaluation Committee, the raw scores assigned by each evaluator for each criterion were transferred to a summary scoring document. The scores were averaged then multiplied by the weight factor assigned to that criterion. The weighted scores for each of the criteria in each category were then added together, providing a total score for category. The following are the weighted scores received by each offeror, rounded to the nearest whole number: Corporate Background Consultec EDS GTE and Experience 107 139 98 Project Organization and Staffing 128 115 112 Technical Approach 132 121 127 Project Management and Control 87 95 75 Work Plan & Schedule 88 118 80 MMIS Description 425 473 418 Data Processing 126 135 135 1093 1196 1045 34. Since EDS had the highest total points scored, it received 2,000 points for its technical proposal. The others received a comparable point value determined by dividing the offeror's score by EDS's score and multiplying the result by 2,000. Consultec received 1,828 points, and GTE received 1,747 points. The completed technical evaluation points were locked in a bank vault and were not disclosed. On June 15, 1987, the business proposals were publicly opened. Prior to that time the sealed business proposals had been kept in the vault. Thus, no one knew the contents of the business proposals while the technical proposals were being evaluated. At the public opening, the business proposal summary pricing schedules were read to all offerors and posted at HRS. Phase 3 Following the public opening of the business proposals, HRS reviewed the business proposals for compliance with the mandatory requirements for business proposals contained in the RFP. HRS conducted this "pass-fail review" of the business proposals by determining whether the business proposals submitted by each offeror complied with the requirements of Section 90.400 of the RFP. The first two paragraphs of this Section read: The purpose of this phase is to determine if the business proposal is sufficiently responsive to the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. The following items will be reviewed as mandatory requirements: Section 90.400 of the RFP then lists 19 questions regarding the business proposals submitted by offerors. HRS considered an offeror as having met the mandatory requirements for the business proposals if an affirmative answer could be given to all 19 questions contained in Section 90.400. All three offerors submitted business proposals which were determined to have met the mandatory requirements for business proposals contained in the RFP. Phase 4 The business proposals then underwent a more detailed review by three of the HRS evaluators, all of whom were accountants and two of whom were CPAs. This review was to determine whether the business proposal for each offeror was consistent with that offeror's technical proposal and whether the calculations in the pricing schedules contained in the business proposals were accurate. For each offeror, the overall business proposal was determined to be consistent with the technical proposal. Minor arithmetic errors and inconsistencies were noted by the evaluators on each of the business proposals. For example, GTE's installation task salaries appeared to be unreasonable compared to the effort required to complete the tasks proposed in the technical proposal. Although all three evaluators noted this problem, it was determined that the inconsistency was not significant enough, considering the entire project, to merit rejection of the bid. The evaluators noted that Consultec had combined the building and utility categories on the pricing schedules, but found this also to be insignificant Section 90.520 of the RFP provides as follows: "Any business proposal that is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsisten- cies or inaccuracies may be rejected by HRS. (e.s.) As specified in the RFP, points were awarded for the business proposal as follows: the lowest evaluated operational price, the total fixed price per claim for the five-year contract period, was awarded 850 points; the lowest total installation price, the sum of the planning, design and development, acceptance testing and implementation tasks, was awarded 50 points; the lowest systems personnel billing rate was awarded 50 points; the lowest total field representative price was awarded 25 points; and the lowest hourly cost of CPU time was awarded 25 points. The other offerors in each category were awarded a proportional share of the maximum points allowable. The price per claim category received 850 of the 1,000 possible points because this payment represents the most important work to be performed under the contract and because payment will occur during at least five years of the contract. The fixed price per claim is of vital importance to the state because it allows the risk of claims volume variance to be transferred to the contractor. A 10 million variance in annual claims volume, from 19 million to 29 million was established in the RFP, with provision for dealing with claims volume outside the range parameters. There is considerable risk for abnormal claims variance due to program changes that can occur during the life of the contract such as federal establishment of new eligibility groups, new services, or redefined claims definitions. The state legislature may require additional Medicaid services or additional eligibles. However, a fixed price per claim limits the cost of handling increased processing services. The following table displays the points awarded for the business proposals by offeror: Consultec EDS GTE Installation Price 23 43 50 ($7,439,321) ($4,030,129) ($3,433,822) Price Per Claim 850 620 689 ($.2652) ($.3637) ($.3270) Composite Hourly Rate 29 21 50 for Systems Personnel ($95/hr) ($134/hr) ($55/hr) Provider Field Reps 23 25 21 for Five years ($1,892,820) ($1,810,380) ($2,124,450) Price for CPU Time 25 13 4 ($1,100) ($3,625) ($400) TOTAL 951 722 814 Phase 5 After the proposals were rated by the Technical Evaluation Committee, points awarded to the business proposals were added to the technical points to determine the ranking and recommendation of the committee. The ranking and recommendation of the committee along with supporting materials were conveyed to the Steering Committee, composed of four HRS executives. The Proposal Evaluation Committee's Report to the Steering Committee provided a 116 page detailed summary of the overall evaluation results, concluding with the Evaluation Committee's ranking of proposals, which were as follows: Consultec EDS GTE Technical Proposal 1,828 2,000 1,747 Business Proposal 951 722 814 Total 2,779 2,722 2,561 Ranking 1 2 3 In addition to receiving the Evaluation Committee's report, the Steering Committee, through Mr. Moody, one of its members, became aware of a letter written by Senator Grant to the Secretary of HRS concerning the evaluation of the proposals. Attached to the letter was a position paper prepared by GTE which attempted to compare the business proposals submitted by Consultec and GTE by considering the "future value of funds" or "time value of money" based on interest that could be earned on the difference between Consultec's installation price and GTE's installation price. Mr. Moody, a CPA, had been assigned the task of responding to the letter and the position paper. Mr. Moody raised the topic with the Steering Committee and also explained the deficiencies in the GTE analysis. After a thorough review of the Evaluation Committee's report, the Steering Committee was satisfied with the evaluation process. The Steering Committee unanimously recommended the selection of Consultec as the contractor for fiscal agent services for the State of Florida. The Secretary of HRS concurred with the recommendation, and by letter dated July 9, 1987, the offerors were notified of the intent to award the contract to Consultec. GTE filed its notice of protest on July 15, 1987, and its Formal Written Protest on July 24, 1987. After announcing its decision to award the contract to Consultec, HRS informed HCFA of its choice and submitted to HCFA a revised APD reflecting the costs contained in Consultec's business proposal. After reviewing this document and, having previously approved the evaluation process used in selecting the successful offeror, HCFA informed HRS that it did not need any additional information in order to approve the contract award and that the initial review indicated that approval would be granted at the appropriate federal financial participation rate. However, HCFA cannot give the state final approval while the contract award is being disputed. DID THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY CONSULTEC MEET THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE RFP? FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Among the several sections required in each technical proposal was one entitled "Corporate Background and Experience." The required contents of this section were set forth in Sections 70.400 through 70.440 of the RFP. Section 70.400 stated: The Corporate Background and Experience section shall include for the offeror and each sub-contractor (if any): details of the background of the company, its size and resources, details of corporate experience relevant to the proposed fiscal agent contract, financial statements, and a list of all current or recent Medicaid or related projects. The detailed requirements for each of the required elements listed in Section 70.400 was contained in the subsequent sections to the RFP. The requirement for financial statements was detailed in Section 70.420 as follows: Financial statements for the contracting entity shall be provided for each of the last three years, including at a minimum: balance sheets statement of income statements of changes in financial position auditors' reports notes to financial statements summary of significant accounting policies The word "shall" is defined in the Glossary of the RFP as "[i]ndicates a mandatory requirement or condition to be met." After the RFP was released but prior to the submission of bids, HRS provided an opportunity for all prospective offerors to submit written questions to HRS regarding the terms and conditions of the RFP. After receiving these questions, HRS sent all prospective offerors both the written questions submitted by the various prospective offerors and HRS' written responses to them. During this process, one bidder, EDS, submitted the following question to HRS: Since our parent corporation does not publish financial statements for each of its individual subsidiaries, will the financial statements for the parent company be satisfactory? In response, HRS provided all prospective bidders with the following answer: It is the department's intent to review the financial stability of each offeror. Offerors should present appropriate documen- tation to meet this requirement. From the answer given, it is apparent that HRS did not intend to preclude the submission of consolidated financial statements but did intend that each offeror should include "appropriate documentation" to allow HRS to review, and evaluate, the financial stability of the offeror. Like EDS's parent corporation, Consultec's parent, General American Life Insurance Company (General American), has a policy of not releasing the financial statements of its subsidiaries. Based on this policy and HRS' written response to the EDS question, Consultec submitted with its proposal the consolidated financial statements of its parent, General American. Consultec also submitted an annual report showing Consultec achieved a before tax income of $3.4 million in 1985. In its response to the RFP, Consultec indicated that the financial resources of General American backed any agreement Consultec entered into, as follows: The considerable resources of General American ensure Consultec's financial stability. Additionally, our access to the resources of our parent company (including manpower, data processing facilities, and financial support) ensures the successful performance of any contractual obligations. Because of this support, Consultec has greater capacity now than at any time in its corporate history to meet any and all contractual requirements and commitments. However, the General American consolidated, audited financial statements contained in the Consultec proposal contained no ascertainable information about the separate financial condition or financial performance of Consultec. Section 90 of the RFP explained how the technical proposals would be evaluated and specified what items would be considered "mandatory requirements." Technical proposal Mandatory Requirement No. 21 asks only the general question, "Is a Corporate Background and Experience section included? (Section 70.400)". A Corporate Background and Experience section was included in Consultec's submission. The detailed evaluation of criteria under the Corporate Background and Experience section occurred under the Phase 2 Evaluation of Technical Proposals. Oral presentations were considered a part of the technical proposal evaluation process. During Consultec's oral presentation, HRS asked Consultec to clarify its proposal by stating whether General American would be financially responsible for the Florida MMIS project. In a follow-up question, Mr. Tom Arnold asked Consultec if it would consider either submitting separate financial statements for Consultec or agreeing that General American would guarantee Consultec's performance if Consultec were awarded the contract. Consultec responded to this request by submitting a letter to HRS wherein Consultec stated that General American was willing to guarantee Consultec's performance under the contract. This letter was signed by Richard Martz, Senior Vice President of Consultec. RFP specifically stated that the state reserved the right to request amendments to the proposals or to waive minor irregularities. The purpose of the oral presentations was to clarify any information provided in the technical proposals. Further, the financial statements were considered in scoring only one criterion in the Corporate Background and Experience section which was worth a total of 10 points. Finally, GTE included in its proposal the financial statements of its parent, GTE Corporation, and all three evaluators considered the financial strength of GTE's parent in award points for that criterion. GTE also scored more points in this area than Consultec. Consultec received no material advantage over other offerors by submitting consolidated financial statements. If Consultec's failure to include its own financial statements in the technical proposal can be considered a deviation at all from the requirements of the RFP, in light of HRS's clarification of those requirements, it certainly cannot be considered a deviation that would require the rejection of its proposal. CONSISTENCY OF THE BUSINESS AND TECHNICAL PROPOSALS Sections 90.500 and 90.510 of the RFP provide: 90.500.--Each business proposal successfully meeting the mandatory requirements reviewed in Phase 3 will be examined to determine if the business proposal is consistent with the technical proposal and its calculations are accurate. 9O.510--Any business proposal that is incomplete or in which there are significant inconsistencies or inaccuracies may be rejected by HRS. The state reserves the right to reject all proposals. In its Formal Protest, GTE alleged that Consultec's business and technical proposals were not consistent because Consultec "front-end loaded" its proposal. "Front-end loading" means moving a cost from the later part of a contract to the front or charging for a cost that will not be incurred until later in the contract. Section 80 of the RFP describes the RFP's requirements for the business proposals. In the business proposal, each offeror sets forth the costs of its proposed FMMIS. The RFP directs each offeror to include in its business proposal "a firm fixed price for each of the requirements contained on the pricing schedule. . . ." One of the five requirements is installation costs. Section 81.210 of the RFP states that Pricing Schedule B of the business proposal summarizes the four major tasks involved in the installation phase of the Florida MMIS system as described in the RFP. Those four major tasks are described in the RFP at Sections 30.120 through 30.450. The offeror is directed to "schedule the fees for each of these tasks on the detailed Schedules B-1 through B-4" and is told that "[t]hese fees will form the basis from which the installation price is determined." Section 80.120 similarly states that "the installation price will be calculated as the combined sums of the prices of the Planning Task, Design and Development Task, Acceptance Testing Task and the Implementation Task." As required by the RFP, Consultec submitted a business proposal including Pricing Schedule B, which set out the price components of its installation price by task. One line item of the price components is labeled "computer resources." GTE's argument is that the cost of certain computer equipment (computer hardware and software) which Consultec included in the installation price under "computer resources," should have been allocated over the life of the contract and included in the operational price. Consultec's total price bid for the installation phase was $7,439,321, as compared to $4,030,129 for EDS and $3,433,822 for GTE. These differences are largely explained by differences in the cost item, "computer resources." These costs total $3,049,809 for Consultec, $1,130,856 for EDS, and $608,493 for GTE. The treatment of the acquisition price of the computer equipment to be purchased by Consultec is not consistent with generally accepted accounting practices. Proper accounting practices would distribute the cost of the equipment over its useful life rather than charging the entire purchase price as an initial cost in the installation period. Nevertheless, nothing in the RFP required the use of "generally accepted accounting practices" in allocating costs. Nothing in the RFP required that the costs of purchasing the computer equipment be made a part of the operations costs, by allocation over the life of the contract, as opposed to being charged as an installation cost at the time of purchase. Section 30.220 specifically states that it is the contractor's responsibility in carrying out the Design and Development Task, described as part of the installation phase, to [a]cquire the equipment to be used for the design, development, implementation, and operation of the new system." GTE has failed to show how Consultec's business proposal was inconsistent with its technical proposal. The purpose of requiring consistency between the two proposals, generally, is to ensure that each bidder has sufficient funds in its business proposal to perform the tasks required in the technical proposal. If computer hardware to be used during the life of the contract is purchased during the installation phase, the expense is incurred and paid for at that time, and inclusion of such cost as an installation cost is appropriate. GTE also argues that Consultec's business and technical proposals are inconsistent because Consultec has failed to provide sufficient data entry operators in their proposal. GTE attempted to establish this shortage through the testimony of Ms. Clark. However, there were discrepancies in her calculations and she was confused in her testimony. Further, her testimony was based on several assumptions that Consultec did not necessarily make or have to make. Finally, Ms. Clark's calculations indicated that Consultec was short 10 data entry operators in the first year of operation, yet Consultec provided 49 data entry operators the first year--the same number provided by both EDS and GTE in their proposals. In short, there was no competent evidence presented to show that Consultec's proposal provided for an insufficient number of data entry operators. After HRS announced its intent to award the contract to Consultec, HCFA reviewed Consultec's technical and business proposals to determine whether they were consistent with one another. After conducting this consistency review, it was HCFA's conclusion that Consultec's technical and business proposals were consistent. PRICING SCHEDULES - CORPORATE REGISTRATION In its formal protest, GTE alleged that Consultec "modified several of the pricing schedules in its proposals so that the cost categories submitted were different from those required." This was not included as an issue in respondent GTE's prehearing statement, and at the hearing, GTE presented no evidence that any such modifications were material or gave Consultec an advantage. In its formal protest GTE alleged that the corporate charter number provided by Consultec in its transmission letter was for a corporation named "General American Consultec, Inc." This was not included as an issue in GTE's prehearing statement, and there was no evidence presented to support this allegation. WAS THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS BY HRS INFECTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL, MATERIAL IRREGULARITIES? CRITERIA USED IN THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION. In evaluating the technical proposals, the HRS evaluators used an evaluation or scoring manual which contained the criteria to be used in scoring the technical proposal in each of the seven sections or categories. In its Formal Protest, GTE alleged that the scoring manual used by the HRS evaluators contained criteria and tests which were materially different from those set forth in RFP. The RFP evaluation criteria for the "Corporate Background and Experience" section of the proposal included, among others: (a) large scale data processing development and implementation experience, (b) medical claims processing experience, and (c) medicaid and MMIS experience. The RFP evaluation criteria for the "Data Processing" section of the proposal included, among others: (a) telecommunications network support, and (b) telecommunications experience. GTE has no previous MMIS contracts, but is the country's fourth-largest data processing company. It designed and submitted its proposal expecting to be graded on large-scale data processing experience, telecommunications network support and telecommunications network experience. Mr. Brandenburg, a Medicaid project director for GTE, testified that he felt HRS' scoring manual did not give any weight to an offeror's large scale data processing experience or telecommunications network experience even though these were listed as items HRS would consider in the RFP. However, several of the scoring criteria reference communication links, telecommunications network support, telecommunications network experience and number of persons engaged in claims processing operations. Further, in scoring GTE on criteria 8, 13 and 5 under the Data Processing section, the evaluators referred to GTE's section on telecommunciation experience and support. Section 90 of the RFP made it quite clear that proposals would be evaluated based on preestablished criteria that had been developed for each of the various sections of the technical proposals. The RFP stated that paragraphs 90.320 - 90.380 described "generally" the factors covered by the criteria. In essence, because "large-scale data processing development and implementation experience" was listed as one of the factors that would be covered by the criteria under Corporate Management and Experience, GTE assumed that it would be accorded more weight than it was in the evaluation criteria. Mr. Brandenburg felt that too much consideration was given to MMIS experience in the evaluation process and not enough to experience outside the MMIS industry. However, section 90.310 of the RFP provides: Offerors should note that the entire evaluation will place considerable emphasis on demonstrated experience directly applicable to MMIS transfer or replacement, modification development, and Medicaid fiscal agent operations. In summary, there was no competent evidence presented to support GTE's allegation that the scoring manual used to evaluate the proposals contained criteria that was materially different than those set forth in the RFP. THE EVALUATION PROCESS AND REFERENCE CHECKS Although the RFP set forth generally the criteria to be used in evaluating the technical proposal, the specific criteria used in evaluating the proposal were not included in the RFP. However, the RFP made it clear to offerors that there were predetermined criteria that would be used. The RFP indicated that information would be obtained from reference checks, from the proposal itself, from site visits, and from oral presentations. The RFP specified that the raw scores from the evaluators for each criterion would be averaged and then multiplied by a predetermined weight to get the point value for each criterion. None of the offerors protested the method of evaluating the proposals. Further, there was no evidence presented to suggest that the use of undisclosed weights was irregular. The initial recommended weights from the evaluation expert, PMM Compass, were modified by the Issuing Officer to reflect the areas most important to Florida, then reviewed with and approved by HCFA officials. Mr. Larry Platt of HCFA confirmed that the use of non-disclosed weights is very typical. Indeed, he had not been involved in any procurements in which weights were disclosed to offerors. He also confirmed that it was customary not to include the detailed evaluation criteria in the RFP. GTE also challenged the manner in which corporate reference checks were conducted. In this regard, Dr. Elton Scott testified that it would have been better if the HRS evaluators had contacted all the states where the offerors had certifiable MMIS systems even though this would result in as many as 18 states being contacted for one offeror and as few as 3 for another. Dr. Scott admitted, however, that if, due to time restraints or other reasons, less than all of the listed references could be contacted, it was reasonable to contact those states which used a baseline system similar to the offeror's proposed system for Florida, to contact states with recent experience with the offeror, and to contact states with experience similar to Florida's. Larry Platt has had extensive experience with state RFPs in his position with HCFA and his testimony is accepted. He testified that it was important that an equal number of references be contacted for each offeror and that a state's decision to contact three corporate references for each offeror was reasonable. He further testified that contacting states with recent experience with the offeror and states with the same baseline system were the criteria normally used in determining which states should be contacted as references. In support of its contention that the corporate reference checks were unreliable due to the number of references contacted, GTE introduced into evidence the depositions of Joel Schnedler, Jeff Harriott, Helen Condry, Ruth Fisher, and Robert Kelly, to show that, had additional references been contacted, GTE's corporate reference checks would have been better. However, with one exception, these individuals are Medicaid officials in states purposefully not contacted by HRS as corporate references. Mr. Schnedler is employed by the State of Missouri, which was not contacted because the baseline system operated by Consultec in Missouri was designed and installed by EDS. Ms. Condry is employed by the State of West Virginia, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because TCC's responsibilities in West Virginia are limited--TCC does not perform many of the provider relations and some of the other operations. Ms. Fisher is employed by the State of Delaware, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because the baseline system used in Delaware has not been certified by the federal government, a requirement for the baseline system proposed for Florida. Robert Kelly is an employee of the State of Pennsylvania, which was not contacted as a corporate reference for GTE/TCC because the baseline system operated in Pennsylvania was not developed, designed or installed by GTE or TCC. GTE contended that it received lower scores on the corporate background and experience questions dealing with MMIS experience solely because the experience shown in its proposal for that area was that of a subcontractor, TCC. In fact, the evaluators did not penalize GTE's proposal in this or any other manner. If the evaluators had not considered the MMIS experience of TCC in evaluating GTE's proposal, GTE would have received zero points in this area for the simple reason that GTE had no previous MMIS experience. Although Ms. Flagg testified that her scoring might have been different if GTE's and TCC's roles were reversed, it does not mean GTE did not receive proper credit for TCC's experience. If their roles were reversed, GTE and TCC would be performing different functions, and thus the scoring would very likely be different. The evaluation of the technical proposals in this case may not have been perfect; however, a review of the entire evaluation package and the evaluation manuals completed by the individual evaluators reveals that the evaluation was thorough and fair. The evaluation package was reviewed by HCFA section by section to determine whether the evaluation process ensured open and free competition. The evaluation package was approved by HCFA. Mr. Platt felt that the evaluation manual was "a very thorough job." Mr. Platt reviewed the evaluation itself after it was completed to ensure that the evaluation plan had been followed. He was satisfied with the process. The completed evaluation manuals show that the evaluators performed their tasks conscientiously and were well-informed. The analyses performed by Dr. McClave revealed high consistency among evaluators and good inter-evaluator reliability. These results support the conclusion that the evaluation procedure was reliable. There was no evidence to suggest that scores were assigned arbitrarily or that the evaluation process was infected with substantial material irregularities. PRESENT VALUE EVALUATION: As stated previously, the RFP provided that business proposals would be scored according to a preestablish point system for the five different types of costs required to be bid. The various categories of costs and the maximum number of points to be awarded to the low bidder for each category were: Max. Pts. Available Installation Price 50 Price Per Claim 850 Hourly Rate for Systems Personnel 50 Provider Field Representatives 25 Price for CPU Time 25 From the above scoring system contained in the RFP, prospective offerors knew or should have known that the State did not propose to evaluate bids on a present value basis. At the time that the RFP was developed, Mr. Arnold was aware of Section 287.0572, Florida Statutes, which requires the use of present value methodology to evaluate the cost of contracts "which require the payment of money for more than 1 year and include provisions for unequal payment streams or unequal time payment periods." Mr. Arnold did not believe that the statute applied to this RFP, and therefore did not change the scoring system. Merrill Moody is the Assistant Secretary for Administration. In that capacity, Mr. Moody oversees personnel, budget, finance, accounting, staff development and training, revenue enhancements, contracting, purchasing, leasing, management systems, audit, and quality control for HRS. Mr. Moody is a CPA, has been employed by HRS for nine years, and oversees a 60 million dollar budget. Like Mr. Arnold, Mr. Moody had considered whether Section 287.0572, Florida Statutes, applied to this procurement prior to the issue being raised by GTE. It was Mr. Moody's considered opinion that the statute did not apply because the contract does not call for an uneven payment stream. Dr. McClave, an expert in econometrics, testified that there is not enough certainty in this RFP to say whether or not there are unequal payment streams, and, accordingly, whether or not the statute applies. He also explained why the application of the statute would be an exercise in futility. First, the only part of the contract arguably subject to present value analysis is the installation phase. This takes place within the first year of the contract and, accordingly, makes it practically impossible to do a useful present value analysis. Furthermore, even if the installation phase payments could be construed as an unequal payment stream within the meaning of the statute, the statute does not require a present value analysis to be applied to unequal payment streams which are to take place under a contract whose duration is less than one year. To apply a present value analysis to the installation phase price would be counterproductive. During the installation phase, the contractor is to be paid at certain points during the first year at which milestones or tasks are completed. At such points, the contractor is to be paid a certain percentage of the total installation price. If a present value analysis were performed, the proposal most highly valued would be that in which all tasks would be finished on the last day of the contract, clearly not a result in the state's best interest. The application of present value analysis to the remaining four fixed price components of the bids is simply not necessary. Each one of the remaining categories called for a fixed price for a certain unit of services to be delivered to HRS by the contractor. There is clearly not an unequal payment stream or unequal time payment periods for these items. Where there is a fixed price for a unit of service, there is obviously no need to apply a present value analysis. If, for example, HRS knows that it will be charged $.2652 per claim by Consultec as opposed to $.3270 per claim by GTE, Consultec's price will always be lower regardless of claim volume. To apply a present value analysis to the cost per claim, systems personnel hourly rate, and CPU hourly rate would create uncertainty in the cost evaluation. This is because the RFP did not specify the number of claims or hours involved. The RFP contained an estimate of between nineteen and twenty-nine million Medicaid claims per year, a ten million claim difference. Likewise, the number of hours of systems personnel time and CPU time is not specified. To conduct a present value analysis assumptions would have to be made. If the assumptions prove wrong, the lowest present value cost bid could become the most costly contract. Dr. James E. Pitts, an expert in the field of economics, agreed with Dr. McClave's conclusion that given the range of possible volumes on the number of claims as well as in systems personnel and computer time, a present value analysis would provide a "horrendous" range of possible present values and the analysis would be extremely sensitive to the assumptions that would be made. Although a present value analysis of the cost of the proposal would require certain assumptions to be made, and thus swould provide a comparison of costs that is not as accurate as comparing the fixed rate costs, a present value analysis can be performed using reasonable assumptions. However, the present value analyses of both GTE and HRS show that Consultec's business proposal yields the lowest present value. Accordingly, had a present value analysis been performed, Consultec would remain the lowest bidder. GTE's expert Dr. Scott, HRS' expert Dr. McClave, and Consultec's expert Dr. Pitts all agreed that even when a present value analysis was used, Consultec's bid remained less than GTE's. THE EDS BID GTE alleged that the proposal submitted by EDS did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the RFP in two respects: (1) It submitted consolidated financial statements; (2) it proposed to supply one element of the FMMIS by using a subcontractor's "propriety" software. The first allegation has been previously discussed in reference to the Consultec proposal. The submission of consolidated financial statements did not make EDS's proposal unresponsive. The financial statements were used as a source of information from which the financial stability and corporate background of the offeror could be evaluated. As to the second allegation, GTE has simply failed to show how EDS's proposal materially deviated from the requirements of the RFP. EDS's transmittal letter stated that EDS would use Health Information Designs (HID) as a subcontractor to produce Drug Utilization Review Reports, thus subcontracting out a total of .78 percent of the work as measured by total contract price. The letter from HID stated that it would not "convey access to or title in any of HID's proprietary DURbase software or system documentation." When EDS was questioned at the oral presentation about how it would comply with Section 50.900, which would be part of the contract to be entered into and requires that HRS shall receive "a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use . . . all software . . . and documentation comprising the Florida MMIS", EDS responded that the purchase of DUR-based services was the procuring of services, not software. Further, if the subcontractor's statement in its letter is considered a deviation from the requirements of the RFP, then EDS complied with the requirements of Section 70.100 of the RFP by identifying and explaining the deviation in the transmittal letter. There was no evidence presented to show that the deviation was material or that the state could not accept the proposal with the deviation. Section 50.000 provides that modification of the contract can be made by mutual agreement of the state and contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order awarding the contract for the Florida MMIS system to Consultec. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3188BID GTE's proposed findings of fact 1-19. Accepted generally, though not with same wording or quotations. 20-21. Rejected due to contrary findings. 22-27. Accepted as true but not included in detail in RO because unnecessary. 28-33. Rejected as irrelevant, except to the degree these paragraphs reflect that Consultec intends to purchase computer equipment in the installation phase and charge the cost during the installation phase. Rejected - no competent substantial evidence (CSE) that Florida will pay for costs not attributable to this contract. Accepted in part; rejected in part by contrary finding. 36-40. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not supported by CSE. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by CSE. 44-45. Accepted. 46-53. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence accepted, second rejected. Rejected. 58-59. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted to the degree relevant. Accepted generally. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted generally. Accepted generally. Rejected. 66-70. Accepted to the degree relevant. 71. Rejected. 72-73. Accepted, except for last sentence which is rejected as not supported by CSE. 74-77. Accepted generally. 78. Rejected as irrelevant, there was no evidence of bias in scoring. 79-81. Rejected generally by contrary finding. Rejected as unnecessary, last part of last sentence rejected for lack of CSE. Accepted generally. 84-85. Rejected by contrary findings. HRS's proposed findings of fact 1-26. Accepted generally. 27-34. Accepted to the degree that Dr. McClave's analyses support the conclusion that the evaluation process was reliable. Accepted generally. Rejected, not supported by cited reference. Though criterion 2 related to the prime contractor, the criterion also related to financial resources not MMIS experience. Last part of paragraph accepted. 37-39. Accepted generally. Accepted generally; however, first sentence rejected because the evaluation manuals of all three evaluators reflect that the guarantee was factor in scoring. However, the comments also reflect that it was not the only consideration. Accepted in part. Part relating to GTE rejected as unnecessary. Last sentence rejected in that letter is not in the exhibit cited. 42-51. Accepted generally. 52. Rejected as unnecessary. 53-54. Accepted generally that Consultec had computer equipment costs in installation phase. Unnecessary. Accepted generally. Unnecessary. Unnecessary. 59-60. Accepted generally. 61-80. Accepted generally. 81-82. Unnecessary. Consultec's proposed findings of fact 1-18. Accepted. 19. Accepted, except as to date and when scoring was begun. 20-38. Accepted generally. 39. Accepted generally, except third from last sentence. 40-42. Accepted generally. Rejected, in that was not reflected in information known at time of evaluation. Accepted generally. Rejected as unnecessary, but accepted as true. 46-55. Accepted to the degree necessary considering Ms. Clark's testimony was not credible. 56-98. Accepted generally but included in order only to the degree necessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire M. Stephen Turner, Esquire BROAD AND CASSEL 300 E. Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Jann Johnson, Esquire Steven C. Emmanuel, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE CAROTHERS AND PROCTOR Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. Michael Madsen, Esquire James Hauser, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH AND MADSEN First Florida Bank Building Suite 701 215 South Monroe Street P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the deposition testimony received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact: On October 30, 1985, the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") received and opened sealed bids on State Project Number 72270-3431, in Duval County, Florida. Five bids were submitted for this project. The lowest bid, in the amount of $6,235,948.35, was submitted by Hubbard Construction Company ("Hubbard"). The amounts of the other bids were as follows: the second low bidder, $6,490,796.91; the third low bidder, $6,519,447.90; the fourth low bidder, $7,470,941.74; and the fifth low bidder, $7,477,038.49. All bids submitted were more than seven per cent over FDOT's estimate of the project price. The two lowest bids also appeared to be unbalanced and, as set forth in more detail below, the Hubbard bid was in fact unbalanced in several particulars. It is FDOT policy to give special review to bids that are more than seven per cent above the estimated price of the project. All bidders were made aware of this policy by the following language on the first page of the Notice To Contractors: Bidders are hereby notified that all bids on any of the following projects are likely to be rejected if the lowest responsive bid received exceeds the engineer's estimate by more than seven per cent (7 percent). In the event any of the bids are rejected for this reason, the project may be deferred for readvertising for bids until such time that a more competitive situation exists. Upon review of the bids submitted on the subject project, FDOT decided to reject all bids. By notices dated December 6, 1985, all bidders were advised that all bids were rejected. The stated reasons for the rejection of all bids were as follows: All bids were too high; the apparent first and second low bidder's bids were unbalanced and the apparent first low bidder failed to meet the WBE Requirements. Hubbard submitted its formal written protest to the FDOT regarding the proposed rejection of its bid on the subject project on January 3, 1986. This protest was made pursuant to Section 120.53, Florida Statutes (1985), the instructions to bidders and bid information provided by the Department, and rules of the Department, including Rules 14-25.04 and 14-25.05, Florida Administrative Code. Unbalancing occurs when a contractor puts a higher price on a particular item of work in the project in anticipation of using more of that item than the FDOT has estimated will be required. Unbalancing can also occur when a lower than estimated price is placed upon a particular item. When a bid appears to be unbalanced, the bid is submitted to the Technical Awards and Contract Awards committees for review. In this case, the FDOT's preliminary estimate personnel discovered six items that were unbalanced within Hubbard's bid. The first item of concern was an asphalt base item for which the FDOT's estimate was $4.00 per square yard and the Hubbard bid was $19.29 per square yard. The second item was clearing and grubbing for which FD0T's estimate was $50,000 and Hubbard's bid was $200,000. The third item was removal of existing structures for which FDOT's estimate was $190,762 and Hubbard's bid was $38,000. The fourth item was installing new conductors for which FDOT's estimate was $251,000 and Hubbard's bid was $141,000. The fifth item was removal of existing pavement for which FDOT's estimate was $78,000 and Hubbard's bid was $153,000. Finally, the sixth item was surface asphalt items for which FDOT's estimate was $98,000 and Hubbard's bid was $169,000. The FDOT has a policy that any bid that is seven per cent or more over the estimate will go before the Awards Committee for review. Further, the FDOT has a policy that whenever the bids are more than seven per cent higher than the estimate, the FDOT's Bureau of Estimates will then review their estimate and the apparent low bidder's bid to determine whether the original estimate was correct. The FDOT maintains a Women's Business Enterprises ("WBE") program. The FDOT's program requires that successful bidders provide for participation of women owned and controlled business in FDOT contracts. The program is implemented by the setting of so-called "goals" for certain projects. The goal is stated as a percentage of the total dollar bid for each project. Thus, the WBE goal for a project requires that the bidder utilize FDOT certified WBE's in constructing the project to the extent that the FDOT's goal is a percentage of the total bid. The FDOT has implemented rules to effectuate its WBE program. Rule 14- 78, Florida Administrative Code (amended effective May 23, 1984). In submitting a bid, the rules offer the bidder the option of meeting the WBE goals or submitting proof of a good faith effort to meet the goal and if a good faith effort is sufficient, the FDOT may waive the goal. The FDOT's bid package and specifications, as furnished to contractors, in no place referred to the Department's rule providing that only 20 percent of the amount of subcontracts with WBE suppliers shall count toward the goals on Federal aid projects. The specifications clearly state that WBE suppliers may be counted toward the goals. The specifications as furnished by the Department also imply that the 20 percent rule applies only to non-federal aid jobs. The project in question in this case is a Federal aid project. There is a conflict between the rule and the language of the specifications which creates an ambiguity in the specifications, as well as a trap for the unwary bidder who overlooks the requirements of the rule. The FDOT is in the process of amending the specifications to make them conform to the rule. The Special Provisions contained within the bid specifications established certain minority participation goals for this project--ten per cent for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and three per cent for Women Business Enterprises (WBE). FDOT personnel analyzed the bid documents submitted by Hubbard according to the criteria set forth at Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, and determined that Hubbard exceeded the DBE goal but failed to meet the WBE goal. Hubbard's WBE participation was two per cent. All other bidders on the project met both of the DBE and WBE goals. When Hubbard submitted its bid on this project, Hubbard thought that it had complied with the three per cent WBE goal by subcontracting 3.5 per cent of the contract price to WBE certified firms. However, 2 per cent of the contract price was to be subcontracted to a WBE for supplies to be furnished by a WBE who was not a manufacturer. Accordingly, when the 20 per cent rule discussed above was applied to that 2 per cent, the total amount of WBE participation which could be counted toward Hubbard's compliance with the rule was approximately 2 per cent, which was less than the 3 per cent goal. Once it was determined that Hubbard had failed to meet the WBE goal, FDOT personnel analyzed Hubbard's good faith efforts package pursuant to Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code. Hubbard's good faith efforts package failed to demonstrate that Hubbard had taken sufficient action in seeking WBE's to excuse its failure to meet the WBE goal for this project. Similarly, Hubbard's evidence at the hearing in this case was insufficient to demonstrate that Hubbard had taken sufficient action in seeking WBE's to excuse its failure to meet the WBE goal for this project. Most telling in this regard is that all four of the other bidders on this project were successful in meeting or exceeding the DBE and WBE goals.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Transportation issue a Final Order rejecting all bids on Federal Aid Project No. ACIR-10-5 (76) 358 (Job No. 72270-3431). DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of March 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN DOAH CASE NO. 86-0O24BID The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties. Rulings on findings proposed by the Petitioner, Hubbard Construction Company The substance of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner in the following paragraphs of its proposed findings have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8. The substance of the first sentence of paragraph 6 is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 6 is rejected as an unintelligible incomplete statement. Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. (The Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction were not offered in evidence.) Paragraph 9 is rejected for a number of reasons, including not being supported by competent substantial evidence, being to a large part irrelevant, being predicated in part on an erroneous notion of which party bears the burden of proof, and constituting in part legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. The first and third sentences of paragraph 10 are accepted in substance. The second and fourth sentences of paragraph 10 are rejected as irrelevant. The last sentence of paragraph 10 is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant and as including speculations which are not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant and as including speculations which are not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on findings proposed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation The substance of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent in the following paragraphs of its proposed findings have been accepted and incorporated into the findings of fact in this Recommended Order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Paragraph 9 is rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Beck, Esquire 1026 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue The issues to be considered in the course of this Recommended Order concern the question of whether Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. or White Construction Company, Inc. should be accepted as a successful bidder on State Project No. 53050-3514, Jackson County, Florida, as advertised by the State of Florida, Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Transportation, (DOT), advertised for bids on State Project No. 53050-3514, Jackson County, Florida. This was a project in which DOT had determined that 10 percent of the funding within the State Department of Transportation Trust Fund, as allotted for the project, would be devoted to economically disadvantaged individuals, also referred to as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). This decision was in keeping with Section 339.081, Florida Statutes. Consequently, interested bidders were called upon to submit bids reflecting a DBE participation of a minimum of 10 percent of the bid submitted. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. (Baxter) and White Construction Company, Inc. (White) responded to the bid opportunity. The bids were opened on July 25, 1984, and Baxter's bid was the apparent low bid. The bid amount was $882,641.25. White was the second low bidder offering a bid of $928,353. Both bids were within the DOT estimate of construction costs. When the bids were reviewed, Baxter's bid was rejected by DOT based upon the belief that the bid failed to meet the DBE 10 percent requirement or to offer explanation of good faith attempts by Baxter to comply with the DBE contract requirement amount. See Section 14-78.03(2)(b)4., Florida Administrative Code. No other claim of error was made by DOT on the subject of the acceptability of the Baxter bid. The White bid is conforming. In preparing the bid, bidders are required to use DBE Utilization Form No. 1 to reflect the amount of DBE participation as a percentage of the overall bid estimate. In submitting its form as part of its bid blank, Baxter indicated that the total project cost was $884,000, and indicated that Ozark Striping, a DBE subcontractor, would be given $20,000 of that work or 3 percent, and that Glenn Powell, DBE subcontractor, would be afforded 7 percent of the total contract in the amount of $55,000. The total percentage according to Baxter is 10 percent, thus meeting the required DBE participation. This form is found as part of the joint Exhibit No. 1 offered by the parties. In fact, the Ozark Striping participation was 2.26 percent, and the Glenn Powell participation was 6.22 percent, for a total of 8.48 percent of the estimate reflected in the Form No. 1. Contrasted against the actual estimate of $882,641.25, these projections constitute 8.49 percent of that estimate. Thus, they are less than the 10 percent required. Given the fact that this DBE projection is less than the 10 percent, and in the absence of any attempt to offer a good faith explanation why Baxter failed to comply with the requirement, the bid was rejected for this irregularity. The Contract Awards Committee of DOT, when confronted with the irregularity of the Baxter bid, then determined to recommend the rejection of all bids. This was in keeping with the fact that the difference between the unsuccessful apparent low bid, with irregularities, and the second low bid exceeded 1 percent of the contract amount. At the time of this decision to reject all bids, DOT felt that the difference would justify re-advertising the bids. That policy position had been abandoned at the point of final hearing in this cause, wherein DOT expressed the opinion that it would be better served to accept the bid of White, and not re-advertise, again for cost reasons. In the face of the initial action to reject all bids and in accordance with Section 120.53, Florida Statutes, Baxter and White appealed that decision and by that appeal requested recognition as a successful bidder. This led to the present Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes hearing. Baxter has never attempted to offer a good faith explanation of its non-compliance. It chooses to proceed on the theory that the mistake in computation can be rectified by allowing Baxter to submit a supplemental Form No. 1, bringing its total above the DBE requirement. In its contention, Baxter indicates that Glenn Powell could have provided $126,000 of the DBE goal, which is in excess of the 10 percent requirement. Baxter also alludes to the fact that it had contacted other DBE enterprises, such as Oglesby and Hogg, Michael Grassing, and J.E. Hill. All told, Baxter indicates that if given the opportunity, it would allow $146,000 of DBE participation to include $126,000 by Glenn Powell, and $20,000 by Ozark. This comment is suspect, given the lack of compliance in the initial bid response, and the realization that within that bid response on the item related to Glenn Powell, the original amount of work attributed to Glenn Powell was $100,000, and was struck through in favor of the $55,000, leaving a fair inference that Baxter was attempting to meet the DBE goal with a projection as close to the 10 percent as could be achieved. They fell short because in adding the $20,000 for Ozark, and the $55,000 for Glenn Powell, the addition in the Form No. 1 showed $85,000, which is more than 10 percent of the $884,000 shown on the form, when in fact the two amounts were $75,000, and less than the 10 percent required. Baxter characterizes its mistake in computation as a technical error, which can be remedied without harm to the bid process. The Baxter position must be examined in the context of action by DOT relating to compliance with DBE requirements. Prior to June 1984, a time before the subject July 25, 1984 bid opening, bidders had been allowed to amend the Form No. 1 to show compliance with the DBE requirements or demonstrate good faith efforts of compliance. That amendment as to compliance through listing of the DBE subcontractors or submission of good faith effort documentation had to be offered within 10 days per former Section 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code. Beginning with the June 1984 bid-lettings, all documentation had to be submitted with the bid, reflecting compliance or describing good faith efforts at compliance per Section 14-78.03(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, effective May 1984. This change was brought about to prevent the apparent low bidder, as indicated at the point of bid-letting, from shopping the quotations by the DBE's found in its original quote against other quotes from DBE's not listed in the bid documents initially submitted, and by amendment to the DBE statement prejudicing the former DBE group. The change was also made to avoid the possibility that the apparent low bidder could evade his bid by rendering it non-conforming, in the sense of refusing to submit the required documentation of compliance with DBE requirements or to the offer of a good faith explanation of non-compliance after the bid-letting. The change of May 1984, removed the possibility of bid shopping and bid avoidance. Both versions of Section 14-78.03, Florida Administrative Code, pre and post May 1984, indicate that failure to satisfy the DBE requirements or offer a showing of a good faith attempt at compliance, would result in the contractor's bid being deemed non-responsive, and cause its rejection. Baxter has been able to comply with the DBE goals of DOT in its bidding prior to the present controversy.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the proposed award of a contract to PCL Civil Contractors, Inc. ("PCL"), for the rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek Bridge in Monroe County, Florida violates Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact On September 24, 1998, Respondent issued an invitation to bid ("ITB") on a proposed contract for the rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek Bridge in Monroe County, Florida. The ITB identified the project as Financial Project No. 250533-1-52-01 and contract number E-6844. Respondent budgeted $707,323 for the project and established two disadvantaged business enterprise ("DBE") goals. Eight percent of the total amount actually expended for the project was reserved for non-minority female DBEs. Four percent of the total project expenditure was reserved for Black American DBEs. On October 1, 1998, five bidders submitted bids. Petitioner submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $855,899.74. PCL submitted the second lowest bid of $940.471.50, and Coastal submitted the third lowest bid of $951,071.11. The fourth and fifth lowest bids were submitted by M&J Construction Co. ("M&J") and by The Walsh Group dba Archer Western ("Archer"). The respective bids of M&J and Archer were $1,100,471.88 and $1,149,000. Respondent determined that the bids from M&J and Archer were non-responsive. Neither M&J nor Archer protested Respondent's determination, and Respondent's determination is not at issue in this proceeding. Respondent proposes to award the contract to PCL as the second lowest bidder. Respondent proposes that the bid submitted by Petitioner is non-responsive because it does not meet established DBE goals; and because it fails to demonstrate Petitioner's good faith effort to meet applicable DBE goals. In addition, Respondent proposes that the bids submitted by PCL and Coastal are responsive because each meets applicable DBE goals for the project. It is uncontroverted that Petitioner failed to meet applicable DBE goals. The issues for determination are whether Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to meet applicable DBE goals and Respondent's proposed determination that PCL and Coastal met DBE goals is contrary to governing statutes, rules, and policies; and, if so, whether Respondent's proposed agency action is "clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious." Contrary to Applicable Statutes As a threshold matter, Respondent's proposed agency action is contrary to Section 120.57(3)(d)3. Section 120.57(3)(d)3 provides that if the subject of a protest is not resolved within seven days after the receipt of a formal written protest, "the agency shall refer the protest" to DOAH. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner first filed its formal protest of the proposed agency action on November 11, 1998. For reasons discussed hereinafter, Respondent did not refer the protest to DOAH within seven days. Rather, Respondent referred the protest to DOAH on May 20, 1999, approximately 190 days after the formal protest. On March 14, 1999, Respondent issued a second notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. Petitioner timely filed a second formal written protest on March 18, 1999. Respondent did not refer the matter to DOAH until May 20, 1999, approximately 33 days later. Unlike Section 120.57(3)(e), there is no provision in Section 120.57(3)(d)3 which authorizes Respondent to ignore the seven-day requirement upon stipulation by all of the parties. Even if such authority exists by implication in Section 120.57(3)(d)3, no evidence shows that the seven-day requirement in Section 120.57(3)(d)3 was waived by an express stipulation, written or oral, knowingly executed by all of the parties. Any stipulation would arise from a combination of implied statutory authority and tacit acquiescence or waiver by the all of the parties. Contrary to Applicable Rules Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV), Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d, and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)f and h. (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(I)-(XI) prescribes the criteria by which Respondent must evaluate Petitioner's good faith efforts to meet applicable DBE goals. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) requires Respondent to consider whether applicable DBE goals were met by the other bidders. Applicable DBE goals were not met by either PCL or Coastal. The information needed to consider whether PCL and Coastal met applicable DBE goals was included in their respective bids and available for Respondent's consideration in accordance with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV). Respondent did not consider the relevant information in the bids submitted by PCL and Coastal. Rather, Respondent merely accepted the conclusion of each bidder, on the face of its bid, that each bidder met applicable DBE goals. The PCL Bid The PCL bid contained two DBE utilization forms. One indicated an intent to subcontract $76,000, or approximately eight percent of the bid amount, to ABC Barricade Co. ("ABC") for traffic management. The other utilization form indicated an intent to subcontract $38,000, or approximately four percent of the bid amount, to TCOE Corporation ("TCOE") to furnish and install roadway steel. ABC is certified by Respondent as a non-minority female DBE, and TCOE is certified by Respondent as a Black American DBE, defined in Rule 14-78.002(18)(a)1. The bids of Petitioner and Coastal also included subcontracts with ABC. However, the amount of the subcontract in the PCL bid was approximately twice the amount of the respective subcontracts in the bids from Petitioner and Coastal. Of the $76,000 PCL was to pay to ABC, the PCL bid showed that $53,430, or approximately 70 percent, was designated for payment to off-duty law enforcement officers. The PCL bid did not specify whether ABC would perform a commercially useful function for the $53,430 earmarked for law enforcement or whether ABC would subordinate over 70 percent of its contract to a non-DBE, the law enforcement agency. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c authorizes Respondent to count toward the DBE goals achieved by PCL only those expenditures to DBEs that perform a commercially useful function. The rule states that a DBE such as ABC performs a commercially useful function when: . . . it is responsible for execution of a distinct element of the work of a contract and carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. If ABC did not perform a commercially useful function, ABC would subordinate more than 49 percent of the subcontract work. In such a case, Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.d provides that none of the DBE subcontract amount may be counted toward the DBE goals for PCL. Respondent counted the ABC contract toward PCL's DBE goals without considering whether the ABC contract complied with the requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d, pertaining to a commercially useful function and the subordination of more than 49 percent of the contract amount. Respondent has no authority under its rules to count the ABC contract toward PCL's DBE goals unless the contract complies with applicable requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d. Respondent violated Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) by counting the ABC contract toward PCL's DBE goals without considering whether the ABC contract qualified under Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)6 c and d. Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f(IV). The PCL subcontract with TCOE did not require TCOE to perform a commercially useful function. The vice-president of TCOE could not recall another project in which TCOE had ever furnished and installed roadway steel and did not recall any current jobs in which TCOE is performing such work. TCOE did not have a supplier lined up to supply the necessary steel. TCOE does not fabricate the particular type of steel required to be furnished and installed in this project. The vice-president for TCOE could not state a price for roadway steel which TCOE agreed to fabricate and supply to PCL. He could not state the factors TCOE used in preparing the estimate given to PCL. The square-foot price of the steel quoted by TCOE was between a half and a third less than the price quoted by the other two low bidders and approximately one third less than Respondent's average. In addition, the TCOE bid included 400 tons less than the other two bids. Respondent counted the TCOE contract toward PCL's DBE goals without considering whether the TCOE contract complied with the requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d, pertaining to a commercially useful function and the subordination of more than 49 percent of the contract amount. Respondent has no authority under its rules to count the TCOE contract toward PCL's DBE goals unless the contract complies with applicable requirements in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d. Respondent violated Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) by failing to consider whether PCL's subcontract with TCOE could be counted toward PCL's DBE goals under Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)6.c and d. Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c and d and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f(IV). The Coastal Bid The bid submitted by Coastal included three DBE utilization forms. Coastal submitted one form indicating an intent to subcontract $44,992 to ABC, or approximately 4.7 percent of the project. The subcontract with ABC is not at issue. Coastal also indicated an intent to subcontract Jayaldon Enterprises, Inc. ("Jayaldon") and Acutec, Inc. ("Acutec") for separate types of roadway steel. Jayaldon and Acutec are each certified as a DBE. The contract amounts were $51,973.36 for Jayaldon and $97,823.22 for Acutec. Pursuant to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f, Respondent counted 60 percent of each contract, or $31,184.01 for Jayaldon and $58,693.93 for Acutec, toward Coastal's DBE goals. Jayaldon would not perform a commercially useful function within the meaning of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.c. In addition, Jayaldon is a sales representative company for Florida Structural Steel and is not a regular dealer. A regular dealer is defined in Rule 14-78.002(15) to mean: . . . a firm that owns, operates, or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials or supplies required for the performance of the contract are brought, kept in stock, and regularly sold to the public in the usual course of business. To be a regular dealer, the firm must engage in, as its principal business and in its own name, the purchase and sale of the products in question. A regular dealer in such bulk items as steel, cement, gravel, stone, and petroleum products does not need to keep such products in stock, if the dealer owns or operates the appropriate distribution facility. Brokers and packagers shall not be regarded as . . . regular dealers within the meaning of these rules. Jayaldon does not stock steel in a warehouse and does not fabricate steel. If Coastal had been awarded the contract, Jayaldon would have submitted an order to Florida Structural Steel and Florida Structural Steel would have fabricated the steel and shipped it directly to Respondent at the project site. Jayaldon would not have been responsible for execution of a distinct element of work by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. Acutec is an electrical contractor and is not a regular dealer in roadway steel within the meaning of Rule 14- 78.002(15). Coastal contacted Acutec after the bids were submitted and asked Acutec to serve as a pass-through for supplying steel roadway floor. If awarded the contract, Acutec would have ordered the structural steel from an independent supplier, marked it up, and had the supplier ship the steel to Coastal. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.h authorizes Respondent to count toward Coastal's DBE goals only prescribed expenditures from the Jayaldon and Acutec contracts. Pursuant to Rule 14- 78.003(2)(b)6.h.(I), Respondent is authorized to count only the fees or commissions charged by each company for assistance in the procurement of materials or supplies. However, Respondent did not count the expenditures in the contracts with Jayaldon and Acutec pursuant to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.h. Pursuant to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f, Respondent counted 60 percent of the contested expenditures toward Coastal's DBE goals. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f authorizes Respondent to do so only if Jayaldon and Acutec are regular dealers. Neither Jayaldon nor Acutec is a regular dealer in roadway steel as defined in Rule 14-78.002(15). When Respondent counted 60 percent of the expenditures to Jayaldon and Acutec toward Coastal's DBE goals, Respondent violated Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f (IV) by failing to consider whether Coastal met its DBE goals. Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(IV) and Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)6.f and h(I). Contrary to Policy On February 9, 1994, Respondent issued a memorandum entitled, "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Good Faith Efforts Review Committee" (the "Memorandum"). The Memorandum officially stated agency policy for the organization of the Good Faith Efforts Review Committee (the "Committee") and the Committee's review and recommendations concerning contractors' documentation of their good faith efforts to comply with DBE goals established by Respondent in a bid or request for proposal. The policy applies to local districts as well as the central office. The Committee consists of three primary and two alternate members. The chairperson is appointed by the director of administration. The other two members of the Committee are the manager of the minority programs office and an employee from the office of construction who is appointed by the director of construction. Alternate members are appointed by the director of administration and the director of construction. Prior to any meeting of the Committee, the minority programs office must prepare copies of relevant bid documents and other working papers to assist the Committee in its analysis. The Committee members then meet and review the bidders' good faith efforts in accordance with the criteria set forth in Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f. The chairperson must prepare minutes to document the Committee meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, a member of the Committee must write a Committee report. The report must include the Committee's recommendations and its rationale in support of the recommendations. The report must also include copies of all materials used by the Committee in its analysis. Each member of the Committee must sign the report. The Committee must distribute the report to all members of the technical review committee as well as the members of the contracts award committee. Respondent's review of Petitioner's good faith efforts was contrary to officially stated agency policy in the Memorandum. After the bids were opened and evaluated on October 1, 1998, Respondent's Contracts Administrator for District 6 prepared a memorandum to the Technical Review Panel. The memorandum summarized the bids and stated that the "lowest bidder has not met DBE goals. Second lowest bidder has met goals." The memorandum recommended that the contract be awarded to PCL. The memorandum, including its recommendation, was distributed to members of Respondent's technical review committee. Rather than conducting a meeting of the technical review committee, each member of the committee submitted a memorandum indicating whether to reject or to accept the recommendation to award the contract to PCL. The Contracts Administrator for District 6 distributed Petitioner's bid, including the evidence of Petitioner's good faith effort to meet DBE goals, only to Respondent's district compliance officer. When the District Compliance Officer received Petitioner's bid from the Contracts Administrator, the District Compliance Officer reviewed the documents with the Assistant District Engineer for District 6. The District Compliance Officer and Assistant District Engineer discussed and evaluated Petitioner's good faith submittal, but did not report their conclusion to other members of the technical review committee. Rather, the District Compliance Officer submitted a memorandum to the Contracts Administrator stating, "Quinn Construction did not meet the goal therefore it's my recommendation to reject their bid." The District Compliance Officer submitted the memorandum in the name of his supervisor concluding that "Quinn Construction did not meet DBE goals." On October 29, 1998, Respondent posted its notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. On November 2, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its notice of protest. On November 11, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its formal written protest of the notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. As a result of Petitioner's protest, District 6 determined that it should formalize the process by which it reviewed good faith effort submittals. The supervisor for the District Compliance officer appointed the District Compliance Officer and the Assistant District Construction Engineer to the newly created District 6 Good Faith Efforts Committee. By telephone conference, the three District 6 employees met with three individuals from Respondent's central office. The three individuals in the central office were the Manager of the Minority Programs Office, a representative of Respondent's administration office, and a representative of Respondent's office of construction. The manager of the minority programs office prepared minutes of the meeting. The minutes are in evidence in this proceeding. The participants in the telephone conference concluded that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive. The Committee based its conclusion on several grounds. The Committee determined that Petitioner did not solicit from 47 of 68 companies listed in the DBE Directory as doing the types of work being solicited by the prime contractor in the geographic area where the work was to be performed. The Committee also determined that Petitioner sent solicitation letters by fax rather than by certified mail. Finally, the Committee determined that the second and third low bidders achieved applicable DBE goals. On March 14, 1999, Respondent posted its second notice of intent to award the contract to PCL. On March 18, 1999, Petitioner timely filed its second protest of Respondent's proposed agency action. The first proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to officially stated agency policy in the Memorandum. The first District 6 good faith review committee did not include the three members required by agency policy. The committee did not receive required information in advance of the meeting. The committee neither prepared minutes of the meeting nor authored a report which included the committee's recommendations and supporting rationale. The committee did not otherwise disseminate its findings to the contracts awards committee or to the technical review committee. The second evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals was contrary to officially stated agency policy in the Memorandum. The Committee was not constituted in accord with membership requirements prescribed in the Memorandum. A member of the Committee did not write a report, and all of the Committee members failed to sign the required report. Copies of materials used by the Committee in its analysis were not attached to a report of the Committee. A report was not distributed to all members of the contract awards technical review committee and the contracts award committee. Minutes of the telephone conference conducted by the Committee were sent only to the minority programs office. The minutes were not disseminated either to the contracts awards technical review committee nor to the contract awards committee. After the telephone conference meeting of the Committee, a subsequent meeting of the technical review committee did not occur. The technical review committee received no further information for their consideration in voting whether to award or to reject the bid. Petitioner's Good Faith Efforts Petitioner's bid contains a DBE utilization summary form indicating an intent to subcontract with ABC in the amount of $38,000, or approximately five percent of the total project. Petitioner's bid also contains documentation of Petitioner's good faith effort to obtain additional minority participation. Both the DBE utilization summary form and the documentation of good faith efforts comply with the requirements of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3. In its bid, Petitioner submitted proof of solicitation of 26 qualified DBE firms. Each firm is listed in Respondent's monthly DBE Directory as performing work included in the project, either in Monroe County or statewide. In relevant part, Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith effort to comply with applicable DBE goals states that Petitioner failed to contact 47 companies listed in the DBE Directory as doing work solicited by the contractor for the project. Of the 47 DBEs, 22 were maintenance or traffic subcontractors. Petitioner had a firm agreement with ABC. ABC was the same DBE used by PCL and Coastal. Another 17 of the 47 DBEs were painters who did not have the QP2 certification required for the project specifications. There was no reason for Petitioner to contact painters who were not QP2 certified. Another three of the 47 DBEs did not perform any item of work available on the project. Another four of the 47 DBEs had telephone numbers that were either disconnected or answered by different parties or entities. The remaining DBE was TCOE. TCOE was not interested in submitting a bid to Petitioner for this project. Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.f.(I) requires Respondent to consider whether a contractor contacts DBEs by certified mail. Although Respondent prefers that bidders contact DBEs by certified mail, Respondent does not require notice by certified mail. Petitioner provided reasonable notification to DBEs by fax. Petitioner included a fax log with its bid to show that the transmittals were successful. Petitioner selected economically feasible portions of the work to be performed by DBEs. Petitioner made all items in the contract available for subcontracting. Petitioner offered to assist DBEs in reviewing the contract plans and specifications. Petitioner submitted all quotations received from DBEs. Petitioner was not asked to assist any DBE in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance. Within the last six months, Petitioner has used DBEs on other contracts. Petitioner's utilization of DBEs has exceeded contract goals established by Respondent in each case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner submitted the lowest responsive bid to Financial Project No. 250533-1-52-01 and that Respondent's proposed evaluation of Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with applicable DBE goals is contrary to applicable rules and officially stated agency policies, and is clearly erroneous. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mike Piscitelli, Esquire 560 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394 Suzanne Grutzner, Esquire 1321 77th Street East Palmetto, Florida 34221 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Daniel Te Young, Esquire Post Office Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0589
The Issue Whether Petitioner, instead of Intervenor, is entitled to the award of RFP-DOT-98-99-4005.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued and advertised RFP-DOT-98-99-4005 (RFP) for bridge tending, maintenance and repair service contracts for movable bridges in St. Lucie and Martin counties. Theresa Martin has been the Department's District IV Contractual Services Coordinator for the past four years. Ms. Martin is responsible for reviewing all requests for contractual services contracts, and did so in the present case. In preparing RFP’s, including the RFP that is the subject of this proceeding, the Contractual Services Office follows the statutory and rule provisions of Section 287.057, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 60A, Florida Administrative Code, and utilizes the Department's Contractual Services Acquisition Procedures, Procedure Number 357-040-020-D. The RFP specifications were not protested. Three proposers submitted timely responses to the RFP: General Electric Industrial Services(GE), Old Tampa Bay Enterprises (OTBE), and C&S Building Maintenance (C&S). The Department determined that the proposals of all three vendors were responsive. Having determined that the proposals were responsive, the Department reviewed and scored the proposals in accordance with the criteria listed in the RFP. The RFP established five (5) different criteria upon which the Department was to evaluate each proposal. The criteria and the maximum allotted points for each criteria were as follows: Management Plan . . . . . . . . .35 points Technical Plan . . . . . . . . .35 points 3. Price . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 25 points Certified Minority Business .. . .5 points Executive Judgment . . . . . . . .5 points GE received the highest rating among the three proposers for its proposal and OTBE was rated second. Based on these ratings, the Department of Transportation posted its intent to award the project to GE. The RFP required submission of separate price and technical proposals. The price proposal included forms for both the proposer’s price and for certification of the proposer’s intention with respect to the use of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). The price proposal and technical proposal were to be submitted to the Department at the same time but in separate sealed envelopes. The price proposal and the technical proposal were then opened separately and scored separately. The technical proposals were properly reviewed and scored by a technical review committee. After the technical proposals were scored, the members of the technical review committee reviewed the price proposals and provided the Department’s contract administrators with their views as to whether the price proposal was acceptable. The technical review committee concluded that GE’s pricing was acceptable, although it exceeded the Department’s estimated budgetary ceiling. The RFP expressly provides: "This is an Indefinite Quantity Contract for which the Department has established an estimated budgetary ceiling amount of $480,000.00. The Contractor shall not exceed the estimated budgetary ceiling amount without an executed Supplemental Agreement. A Supplemental Agreement to increase the estimated budgetary ceiling amount may be entered into based upon Department need and availability." The Department did not interpret the "estimated budgetary ceiling" as an absolute cap. Rather, the Department considered the "estimated budgetary ceiling" a budgeting tool that gave the proposers an indication of the Department’s estimation of the dollar amounts necessary and available for the contract. The estimated budgetary ceiling amount is typically based upon the Department's recent expenditures in similar contracts. Given that the budgetary ceiling in the RFP is an estimate, the RFP specifically authorizes the Department to amend or supplement the contract with additional dollars during the course of the project. The budgetary modification process provided by the execution of Supplementary Agreements for indefinite quantity contracts occurs on a regular basis in District IV and is provided for in the Department's governing Contractual Services Procedures. Consistent with the Department's interpretation of the "estimated budgetary ceiling," a price proposal that was higher than the budgetary estimate would not be considered irregular and rejected as non-responsive. OTBE apparently believed that the RFP’s statement of an "estimated budgetary ceiling" created an absolute cap on the amount of permissible bids. Based on its mistaken belief, OTBE submitted a price of $479,987.00, three dollars below the Department’s estimated budgetary ceiling amount. Both GE and C&S bid amounts that exceeded the estimated budgetary ceiling with GE’s total price bid being $575,100.00. Although the price proposals of GE and C&S exceeded the estimated budgetary ceiling of $480,000.00, the Department did not consider either of these proposals non-responsive. The Department’s decision in this regard was consistent with its definition and interpretation of estimated budgetary ceiling. To determine the number of points each proposal would be awarded in the price category, the Department applied the mathematical formula that was specified in the RFP. According to the RFP: THE PRICE USED IN AWARDING POINTS WILL BE THE GRAND TOTAL SHOWN ON PRICE PROPOSAL FROM "C." ALL RESPONSIVE PRICE PROPOSALS WILL BE SCORED IN RELATION TO THE LOWEST PRICE PROPOSAL USING THE FOLLOWING FORMULA: (Low proposal/subject proposal x 25 points = awarded price points) The points awarded for the price proposal after applying the aforementioned mathematical formula were applied to the price proposal and then added to the particular proposer’s technical proposal point total. Pursuant to the formula specified in the RFP, the low price proposal received 25 points and the other proposals received a proportionate share of 25 points equal to the ratio of the low price to the proposer’s price. The Department reviewed and scored the prices bid by GE, OTBE, and C&S using the price formula established in the RFP. OTBE, with the low bid a price of $479,100.00, was awarded 25 points in the price category. The RFP formula was also applied to GE’s price bid of $575,100.00; as a result thereof, GE was awarded 20.87 points in the price category. OTBE received the benefit of its low bid by receiving the maximum points in the price category. There was no minority business enterprises or DBE goal set for this RFP. However, pursuant to Section 287.057(6)(c), Florida Statutes, the Department provided a point preference for proposers that certified that they would subcontract at least 3 percent to 10 percent of the contract value to certified DBEs. The RFP provided that: The Department will add up to 5 points to the scores of firms (non-CDBE) utilizing Certified DBE’s as subcontractors for services or commodities as follows: 10% and above of total project dollars - 5 points, 3% - 9.9% of total project dollars - 2 points Complete and attach the DBE Preference Points Certification Form (Form "D") in the Price Proposal if CDBE preference points are to be considered. The DBE Preference Certification Form was included as part of the RFP package and was required to be submitted as part of each proposer's price package. Furthermore, the face of the form also required each proposer to declare if it intended to subcontract part of the work to DBEs and specified the scoring for certification of an intent to use DBEs. The DBE Preference Certification Form also advised vendors that a proposer who certified an intent to subcontract at least 10 percent of the contract was awarded 5 points; that a proposer who certified an intent to subcontract more than 3 percent, but less than 10 percent, was awarded 2 points; and that a proposer who did not commit to an intention to subcontract to DBEs would receive no additional points in this category. The purpose of utilizing the DBE Preference Form Certification is for the Department to provide an incentive for contractors to utilize DBEs on Department projects and to bind the proposer to the commitment that is certified on DBE Preference Certification Form. However, when the Department utilizes the form, it is a discretionary election of the proposer to take advantage of utilizing a DBE and receive the additional points. OTBE’s DBE Preference Certification Form stated that OTBE did not intend to use DBEs. Thus, OTBE did not receive any points in the certified business criteria. GE stated on its DBE Preference Certification Form that it intended to subcontract at least 10 percent of the contract to DBEs. Based on GE's certification of an intention to use DBEs for 10 percent of the contract work, in accordance with the provision of the RFP, the Department awarded GE 5 points. On the DBE Preference Certification Form, there was a place for the proposer to list the DBEs it proposed to use and to indicate the type of work and/or commodities that the DBEs would provide. On its DBE Preference Certification Form, GE listed the two DBE entities that it intended to use on the project: Advanced Marketing Consultants and J.C. Industrial Manufacturing Corp. (JC Machines). With regard to the type of work that could be subcontracted to these DBEs, GE indicated on its DBE Preference Certification Form that Advanced Marketing Consultants could provide payroll services and that JC Machines could perform mechanical repairs. The Department’s District IV Contracting Office reviewed GE’s price proposal, including GE’s DBE Preference Certification Form. As part of that process, the District IV contract administrator checked with the Department’s Central Office in Tallahassee, Florida, and confirmed that the DBE’s listed in GE’s proposal were certified DBEs. There is sufficient work available under the contract specifications for GE to meet its DBE commitment using the DBEs that GE listed in its proposal. Moreover, the DBEs listed by GE are capable of performing much of the work required in the RFP’s Scope of Services. The RFP required that each proposal include the names of qualified personnel that are able to perform the job duties and responsibilities outlined in the RFP specifications and that the proposer intended to use if it were awarded the contract. In this case, all three proposers, GE, OTBE, and C&S, submitted the same three key personnel for the bridge superintendent, bridge electrician, and bridge mechanic positions. At the time the proposals were submitted, the key personnel included in those proposals were all working in the positions for which they were listed. Apparently, these individuals had agreed to continue in their positions regardless of which proposer was awarded the contract. The RFP did not require that the personnel listed in a proposal be current employees of the proposer. Rather, the Department expected that these individuals would be employed by the proposer after the vendor was awarded the contract. The RFP specifies the percentage of work that the successful proposer may sublet under the contract. Section 6.0 of the RFP's Scope of Services (Section 6) provides in relevant part: The Contractor shall not sublet, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of the contract or any portion thereof, or his right, title or interest therein without written approval of the Maintenance Engineer otherwise and in accordance with this agreement. Contractor shall not sublet more than fifty percent (50%) or [sic] a non set-a-side project. Based on the above-quoted provision, the successful proposer, as the prime contractor, can subcontract no more than 50 percent of the value of the contract. Notwithstanding the RFP’s limitation on the percentage of work that may be subcontracted, the RFP did not require proposers to state what percentage of the contract work they intend to subcontract. Moreover, the RFP did not require the vendors to submit proposed subcontracts nor did the RFP specify required terms for subcontracts. Therefore, at the time the RFP’s were evaluated, the Department did not and could not determine precisely what portion of the contract a proposer intended to subcontract or to whom work would be subcontracted. The Department interprets Section 6 to be a contract performance issue. The reason is that the percentage of the work that is subcontracted by the prime contractor after execution of the agreement is monitored by the Department during the performance of the contract. Such monitoring is accomplished by the Department’s requiring that all requests to subcontract portions of the contract be approved by the Department's project engineer. GE or any other successful proposer is obligated to comply with all the requirements and specifications of the RFP and contract. Failure of a successful proposer to comply with these requirements is a contract performance issue and not an issue that the Department is required or able to address at the proposal review and selection phase. In the instant case, the Department intended to award the contract to the responsive and responsible offerer whose proposal it determined to be the most advantageous to the State taking into consideration price and other criteria. GE was the apparent highest ranked, responsive, and responsible proposer or offerer with a total score of 87.20, including 20 points in the price category and 5 points for certifying its intent to use DBEs. OTBE was the second ranked proposer with 82.67, including 25 points for the price category; OTBE properly received no points for the DBE Preference Certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order awarding the contract to GE Industrial Systems and dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the award of RFP-DOT-98-99- 4005. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary ATTN: James C. Myers, Clerk of the Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Brian F. McGrail Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Brant Hargrove, Esquire 1545 Raymond Diehl Road, Suite 150 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan Sjostrom, Esquire Steel, Hector & Davis, L.L.P. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Gilbert’s bid proposal was responsive to the Department of Transportation’s bid proposal, and whether the Department of Transportation (Department) erred in accepting the bid of Gilbert. State alleged that Gilbert failed to comply with the DBE bid information submittal requirements of Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, in filing the DBE forms for the project.
Findings Of Fact State and Gilbert, among other prequalified bidders, submitted timely bids for State Project No. 86075-3423/03175- 3426, which involves the replacement of toll plazas on State Road 93 (also known as Alligator Alley) in Collier and Broward Counties. The project has been referred to in this proceeding as “the Alligator Alley project.” (Agreed Facts) The Department has adopted Rule Chapter 14-78, F.A.C., to govern utilization of DBE’s on state and federally funded construction projects. The specifications for the Alligator Alley project also include Special Provisions for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, which incorporate many of the requirements of Rule 14-78.003, Florida Administrative Code. Consistent with Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, and the Special Provisions, the Department assigned Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goals to the Alligator Alley project requiring bidders to subcontract 4% of the work to black DBE’s and 8% of the work to non-minority women DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) State and Gilbert submitted their sealed bid packages to the Department before the advertised deadline for bids, 10:30 a.m. on August 28, 1996. A Department review of the amounts bid showed that Gilbert was the apparent low bidder, submitting a bid totaling $9,153,215.07, while State was the apparent second-low bidder, submitted a bid totaling $9,566,051.25. (Agreed Facts) Consistent with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code, and the bid specifications, bidders were permitted to submit DBE Utilization Summary Forms and DBE Utilization Forms within 72 hours after submittal of their bid packages. State and Gilbert timely submitted DBE Utilization Summary Forms, showing the total amount committed to be subcontracted to DBE’s in order to meet each of the DBE goals set for the contract. The two companies also timely submitted DBE Utilization Forms that purported to commit each bidder to subcontract with DBE’s in amounts that totaled those shown in the DBE Utilization Summary Forms. (Agreed Facts) Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Summary Form stated that Gilbert would subcontract $369,000 (or 4% of its total bid) to black DBE’s and $734,600 (or 8% of its total bid) to non-minority women DBE’s. State’s DBE Utilization Summary Form stated that State would subcontract $400,000 (or 4% of its total bid) to black DBE’s and $800,000 (or 8% of its total bid) to non-minority women DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) The Special Provisions of the bid specifications that address the DBE Forms provide as follows: The contractor’s submission shall include the following information (submitted on Form Nos. 275-020-003 Utilization Summary and 275-020- 004 Utilization Form): The names, addresses of certified DBE firms that will participate in the contract. Only DBEs certified by the Department at the time of the bid may be counted toward DBE goals. A description of the work each named DBE firm will perform. The dollar amount of participation by each named DBE firm. If the DBE goal is not met, sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. (Agreed Facts) [Emphasis Supplied] Gilbert submitted DBE Utilization Forms for each of its DBEs stating the DBE’s name, address, telephone number, the signature of the DBE or authorized individual. Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Alco Trucking, a firm owned by a Black male, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $369,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) Various Hauling, aggregates, fill, on site trucking Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Swiftline Trucking, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $82,200, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) Various Hauling, aggregates, fill, on site trucking Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Jayalden Enterprises, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $264,000, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 735-74-A Toll Plaza (Partial) 735-74-B Toll Plaza (Partial) Gilbert submitted a DBE form for Precision Contracting, a firm owned by a non-minority female, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $305,000, without reduction or qualification, and stated regarding the work to be done as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 544-75-5 Impact Attenuator Vehicular (Partial) 102-1-A MOT (Partial) On each DBE form, Gilbert filled in the line for an “amount to be paid to DBE Subcontractor” and the total committed “toward the DBE goal,” but did not fill in the line for “Amount to be paid to DBE Supplier.” (Agreed Facts) State submitted DBE Utilization Forms for each of its DBEs stating the DBE’s name, address, telephone number, the signature of the DBE or authorized individual. State submitted a DBE form for Metro Engineering Constractors, Inc., a Black owned business, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $400,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 120-6 Embankment and 285-701 Limerock Base and Haul & Supply Materials 285-709 Limerock Base and Earthwork State submitted a DBE form for Freedom Pipeline Corporation, a non-minority female owned business, which stated the value of the subcontracting work to be done as $800,000 without reduction or qualification, and stated as follows: Item No. Description of Work (Note if item qualifies for supplier) 121-70 Flowable Fill 400-1-2 Class I Concrete Endwalls through Storm Drainage 514-71-3 Plastic Filter Baric (Riprap) and 1513120-118 Pipe Ductile Iron Pusyh on Joint 8” and 415-1-3 Reinforcing Steel Retaining Walls Retaining Walls and 635-1-11 Pull & Junction Boxes through Sewer & Water 1648100-7 Misc Water Fixt Blow Off Assy 285-701 Limerock Base and Haul & Supply Materials 285-709 Limerock Base and Earthwork State indicated on its DBE forms that both contractors were suppliers of materials and indicated that the total amount of the contract in both cases was to go to the DBE contractor. The Department’s Minority Programs Office is responsible for the implementation of the Department’s DBE program and reviews the DBE Utilization Forms submitted with bids. Kenneth Sweet, who is employed in the Minority Programs Office, had responsibility for reviewing Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms and determined that they complied with Rule 14-78.003(2)(b)3.a., Florida Administrative Code, and the Special Provisions of the bid specifications addressing DBE’s. The Department did not contact Gilbert or any of the DBE’s listed on Gilbert’s forms to confirm or obtain clarification of the information stated thereon. (Agreed Facts) The Department posted the bid tabulations for the Alligator Alley project, showing an award to Gilbert as the lowest responsive bidder. State filed its Notice of Protest with the Department’s Clerk of Agency Proceedings on September 23, 1996, 1996, and filed its Formal Protest on October 2, 1996. After this matter was referred to the Division, Gilbert filed its Petition to Intervene on October 22, 1996, which was granted on October 25, 1996. (Agreed Facts) It was stipulated that all of the DBE’s reflected in the DBE Utilization Forms submitted by Gilbert and State were certified DBE’s. (Agreed Facts) Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms were submitted to the Minority Programs Office within 72 hours after the project letting and the forms were signed by DBE representatives. The Department is dependent upon the accuracy of the information provided by the bidders to assess DBE participation. Gilbert and one of its DBE’s did not have the identical understanding of the exact scope of the work to be performed by the DBE which might impact how much of the value of the contract would be credited for DBE participation; however, there is no evidence of collusion or fraud in any of the quotes. The Department credits 60% of the value of a contract when the DBE contractor is a supplier of materials, and 100% of the value of the contract when the DBE Contractor furnishes and installs the materials designated as furnish and install items in the specifications. The toll booths and attenuators were not furnish and install items. Gilbert included 100% of the value of the contracts with Alco, Swiftline, Precision and Jayalden as DBE participation. The Department accepted Gilbert’s representations as presented in its DBE forms without questioning what services were being performed or provided by these DBE Contractors. Ken Sweet of the Department’s DBE programs office testified. The Department's justification for not examining the DBE proposals more closely was that the Department requires the prime contractor to adhere to the amount of the DBE work as presented in the forms. While this may be sufficient to maintain the integrity of the DBE program, it is insufficient review to insure that the contractor has complied with the rules for crediting DBE participation and to insure the competitiveness of the bid process. Although Gilbert asserted at hearing that its subcontractors, Swiftline and Alco, would be supplying and placing the materials, it did not so state in its forms. The forms for Alco and Swiftline said, "hauling, aggregates, fill, and on site trucking." There was no basis for the Department to conclude that the contractors were supplying and placing the materials. Further, there was no evidence that Alco and Swiftline were "regular dealers" in fill or aggregates, or identification of their sources of aggregate and fill. Gilbert indicated no item numbers with regard to Alco and Swiftline. If item numbers had been provided, the status of the work as furnish and install items could have been determined. Only two verb forms were used in the "Description of Work" portion of form: “hauling” and “trucking”. Petitioner showed that the value of the contract exceeded the reasonable value of the trucking and hauling to be done on the project. At hearing, Gilbert asserted that Swiftline and Alco were suppliers. This evidence may not be considered. The Department should have limited Gilbert's DBE credit to the value of the hauling and trucking. This was the only work described in the DBE utilization forms. Although the value of the trucking and hauling alone was not proven, it obviously was less than the full contract amount. Gilbert had stated the DBE participation amounts at the minimum required amount. Any reduction of amount creditable to a Black minority contractor would have placed Gilbert below the four percent goal stated in the specifications. The Department credited Gilbert with 100% of the value of the contract with Jayalden towards DBE participation. The DBE Utilization Form for Jayalden does not indicate Jayalden is a supplier or regular dealer. The form does not state Jayalden would install the toll booths. A contractor may obtain 100 percent credit for DBE participation for materials provided by a DBE manufacturer, a DBE regular dealer or a DBE who furnishes and installs items designated furnish and install items in the specifications. The Department knew there were only two approved manufacturers of toll booths. Jayalden was not one of the manufacturers. Neither of the manufacturers were DBE certified. Gilbert's DBE forms did not identify Jayalden as a "regular dealer," and the toll booths were not designated furnish and install items in the specifications The Department must approve additional items as furnish and install items if not designated in the specifications. The Department did not add the toll booths as furnish and install items. The evidence shows that the manufacturer offered to provide the toll booths and install the toll booths for $75,000 each. Jayalden agreed to acquire, ship and install the booths for $76,000 each. A question arises regarding the commercially useful function Jayalden was performing if the manufacturer would furnish and install the nine booths for $75,000 each. In response to the question regarding the commercially useful function Jayalden performed, evidence was presented that Jayalden assumed responsibility for this acquisition and installation of the booths and Jayalden relieved the contractor of "managing" that part of the project. The rules required the Department's approval of the commission or fee paid for management services of this type. The rules do not permit credit for DBE participation of the value of the toll booths. This would reduce the credit for minority non- Black participation by Jayalden from $684,000 to $9,000, less than the required non-Black minority DBE participation. The evidence regarding Precision established Precision was a regular dealer in traffic control devices, and contracted to supply, service and install these devices on the project. The DBE Utilization Form for Precision indicates the Item No. and indicates "Impact Attentuator Vehicular (Partial)" and "MOT (Partial)". Precision's form provided sufficient data to justify being given 100% credit. Gilbert's other DBE forms did not present any special condition warranting increasing DBE credit. The DBE Utilization Forms as submitted by Gilbert failed to mention or identify any special conditions or circumstances affecting the amount of credit Gilbert received for DBE participation. The facts submitted at hearing reveal that at least one special condition or circumstance was applicable to each subcontractor in order to justify crediting Gilbert with 100% of the value of the contract with the DBE toward DBE participation. With exception of Precision, the information was provided only after the bid opening and improperly supplemented the original proposal. The Department had previously approved DBE Utilization Forms providing the same type of information as contained on Gilbert’s DBE Utilization Forms. Had the Department reviewed the proposals as required, Gilbert would have been determined not to have met the DBE specifications. Gilbert did not justify its failure to meet the DBE participation because it facially had met the DBE criteria under the Department's existing policies. In contrast, the DBE form submitted by State for Metro indicates the items numbers involved, and that Metro will “Haul & supply materials and earthwork.” Similarly, the work to be performed by Freedom Pipeline was clearly identified and sufficient information provided to advise the Department of any special conditions affecting the credit to be awarded for DBE participation. One can readily ascertain that the subcontractor is a hauler, supplier and installer of the limestone, and that the contractor should receive 100% credit for minority participation of the contract's value. State was able to meet the DBE participation specification.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its Final Order finding that Gilbert was non-responsive; however, because Gilbert followed the existing policies of the Department which were erroneous, it is recommended that the Department reject all bids and republish the invitation to bid to afford interested contractors an opportunity to file new proposals. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge 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 3rd day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issues in this case, a bid protest, are as follows: Whether Respondent, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, an independent special district ("TBEP"), failed to follow the review process as outlined in the Request for Proposals ("RFP") and TBEP's own procurement policies. Whether TBEP failed to properly apply the scoring and review criteria set forth in the RFP. Whether the RFP instructions were followed, whether they lacked certain direction or standards, and whether these failures led to actions that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Whether the evaluation committee members acted arbitrarily in scoring, ranking, or making recommendations to the Management Board.
Findings Of Fact (Findings of Fact 1 through 17 are taken from the parties' Prehearing Stipulation.) Dynamic is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. TBEP is an independent special district formed by an Interlocal Agreement between 13 governmental entities pursuant to section 163.01, Florida Statutes. Janicki is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in St. Petersburg, Florida. TBEP issued the RFP (for the Project) on or about March 4, 2011. The stated purpose of the RFP was to develop, calibrate, and validate an integrated set of numerical and/or empirical models. Nine project teams submitted responses to the RFP. Dynamic and Janicki timely submitted proposals on or about April 15, 2011. TBEP distributed, via email, its final rankings of the nine-project teams on May 13, 2011. TBEP notified Dynamic that it was the second-ranked candidate. TBEP notified Janicki that it was the first-ranked candidate. Dynamic timely filed its notice of written protest on May 19, 2011. Dynamic timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on May 31, 2011. In lieu of a security bond, Dynamic submitted a cashier's check as security in the amount of $11,979.08 to TBEP on May 31, 2011. TBEP referred Dynamic's Petition to DOAH on June 2, 2011. Janicki served its Petition to Intervene on or about June 8, 2011. Dynamic submitted a cashier's check as replacement security to TBEP on June 10, 2011. Dynamic did not submit a protest bond. Background on TBEP TBEP's mission is to assist local and regional governments in developing a comprehensive plan to restore and protect the body of water known as greater Tampa Bay. TBEP has an Interlocal Agreement whose stated purpose is to emphasize regional cooperation and regulatory flexibility that allows it to select cost-effective and environmentally beneficial bay improvement options for the surrounding communities. The Interlocal Agreement seeks to implement the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay, known as Charting the Course. TBEP's Interlocal Agreement establishes a Management Board and a Policy Board with specified duties and responsibilities, which are further described in TBEP's By-Laws. The Management Board serves as an advisor to the Policy Board. The Policy Board exercises all the powers of the entity and manages the business and affairs of TBEP. Only the Policy Board may promulgate TBEP policy or procedures or issue waivers of such policies and procedures. TBEP has adopted an Operating Procedures Manual ("OPM"), which sets forth procurement procedures. It provides that all procurement shall be conducted in accordance with the Code Of Federal Regulations (40 C.F.R. § 31.36) and, as applicable, chapter 287 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 60A-1, to the extent the statutes and rules are not in conflict with applicable federal laws and standards. The OPM provides that the Policy Board must approve all contract awards for services in excess of $25,000, unless delegated by the Policy Board to the Management Board. Also, the OPM says an evaluation committee appointed by TBEP's executive director will review proposals received by TBEP in response to an RFP for services in excess of $25,000. The results of an evaluation committee's review of proposals are presented to the Management Board, which makes a recommendation to the Policy Board. The final procurement decision is made by the Policy Board. The Project is the result of a cooperative agreement between TBEP and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) to develop comprehensive models, to evaluate potential management actions, to improve water quality, and to expand seagrass coverage in Old Tampa Bay. The Project includes development, calibration, and validation of an integrated set of numerical (and/or empirical) models of: 1) watershed loading; hydrodynamic circulation; and 3) water quality/ecological response that will be used to evaluate management action scenarios in Old Tampa Bay. Total cost of the Project is estimated to be $1,200,000 to $1,300,000; the length of time needed to carry out the Project would be approximately 36 months. The Project will be jointly funded by TBEP and SWFWMD. TBEP is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, the City of Clearwater, the City of St. Petersburg, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Manatee County and SWFWMD. The Project is the largest single project undertaken by TBEP in terms of costs, but TBEP has previously procured services and entered into contracts for other projects which are as technically complex as the Project. TBEP and SWFWMD developed a team of professionals in the fall of 2010 to begin development of the Project. In March 2011, TBEP issued the RFP for the Project. Proposals in response to the RFP were accepted until 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on Friday, April 15, 2011. Information was to be provided in each proposal under the following headings: Project Summary, Title Page, Table of Contents, Letter of Transmittal, Understanding and Approach, Respondent Qualifications, Quality Control and Conflict of Interest, Time Schedule and Effort Proposal, Listing of Deviations, and Additional Data. Respondents were also directed to indicate whether they had an affirmative action plan in effect. In addition, respondents had to disclose whether they had been involved in a government contract that ended in termination, litigation due to substandard quality, untimely submittal of deliveries, or for other reasons. All team members for each respondent were to be disclosed, including prime contractors and subcontractors. Responding entities were allowed until March 18, 2011, to submit any questions they had about the RFP process. All questions submitted, along with TBEP's responses, were then compiled and made a part of the RFP package. The RFP package was available to anyone who requested it. In response to one of the questions asked by a respondent, TBEP provided a list identifying all of the evaluation committee members. Dynamic represented that it was the respondent and provided appropriate contact information. Dynamic named Christopher Wallen, its vice-president, as the person authorized to make representations for and bind Dynamic to its proposal. The proposal indicated that Dynamic agreed to hold TBEP and SWFWMD harmless from any claims resulting from injury or damages incurred by volunteers participating in the program, although no executed hold harmless agreement was included in its proposal. Dynamic indicated some support or collaboration with other entities as part of its proposal. Both Old Dominion University ("ODU") and the University of South Florida ("USF") were named as part of Dynamic's "team" for purposes of their proposal. Professional biographical information for Dr. Mark Luther from USF and Dr. Richard Zimmerman from ODU was included in the proposal, along with information for Dynamic's employees and experts from other entities. There is no documentation from either of the universities, however, indicating they are expecting to participate in the Project. Dynamic takes the position that the two university-based experts were hired as independent consultants, working for their private consulting businesses, rather than for the universities. (This position is similar to TBEP's position on two of its committee members. See discussion herein.) However, the universities' logos appear on the front cover of Dynamic's proposal. Dynamic did not have, at the time of its proposal or even as of the date of final hearing, an affirmative action plan in place. However, as a minority-owned business (Wallen's wife is the president of the company), Dynamic does not believe it is required by law to have such a plan. Therefore, no plan was included in its application. By not having, or creating such a plan, Dynamic forfeited a point in its evaluation by committee members. Dynamic did not include information in its proposal concerning a government contract it had previously been awarded that had been terminated. However, the reason for that termination was that the government had stopped work on the project, when another party entered a protest of some sort. The contract was "terminated" pending resolution of the dispute, but was then reinstated. Dynamic did not feel as if those circumstances would warrant disclosure of the contract under the terms of the RFP. The RFP included instructions for the evaluation committee's use in reviewing proposals. Each committee member was to score each proposal and rank the respondents. The evaluation committee was expected to reach a consensus on a ranked list of the respondents at the end of the process. A hypothetical ranking table was included in the RFP instructions for consideration by the committee. TBEP's standard practice for RFP reviews was to use the rankings to award a contract. The scores assigned by each committee member were not generally as consistent, so rankings were used to reach a better decision. There were no instructions in the RFP as to how the committee was to handle a tie. Each evaluation committee member was allowed to use their own judgment as to how to reflect a tie. Some committee members used fractions while some would rank two respondents equally and leave one rank vacant. For example, one reviewer might rank the respondents: 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9; another reviewer might use 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5, 6, 7, 8 to reflect the same ranking. Dynamic correctly pointed out that the instructions provided to the committee members included a sample format for making rankings. The sample did not include a ranking based upon a tie, but the instructions did not prohibit ties either. The evaluation committee was made up of nine members, each having a special area of knowledge or expertise as to the proposed project. The team members were: Mark Flock, Pinellas County staff; Lizanne Garcia, SWFWMD staff; Kristen Kaufman, SWFWMD staff; David Glicksberg, Hillsborough County staff; Holly Greening, TBEP staff Edward Sherwood, TBEP staff; Charles Kovach, Department of Environmental Protection; Dr. William Kemp, subject matter expert; and Dr. James Martin, subject matter expert. The Scoring Process The RFP Instructions include a set of eight criteria used to evaluate the proposals by assigning scores to the proposals based on the provided criteria. Evaluation committee members were to apply the first five technical criteria to score proposals.3/ Those criteria and potential scores for each were: Project Team Qualifications--20 points; Project Approaches--35 points; Level of Effort and Cost by Task--15 points; Performance Considerations--20 points; and Management Approach--5 points. The remaining three non-technical criteria were assigned by TBEP staff and were applied to each proposal. Those criteria were: Minority (business ownership); Previous Work Awarded; and Total Proposed Project Costs. The reviewers could then add "extra" points for the candidate's purported ability to adequately complete the tasks as outlined in the RFP. A total of 95 points could be awarded for each candidate. On April 15, 2011, the committee members were provided copies of the nine proposals submitted by interested respondents. Each committee member was also given a copy of the RFP, a blank score sheet, and a "Code of Standards of Conduct" statement to be completed for the purpose of showing no conflict of interest. The committee members were then directed to assign scores for the various criteria as the initial element of their review. The RFP provided directions as to how the process would work. At page 7 of the RFP, it states that "[E]valuation committee members may adjust scores based on discussion during the evaluation committee meeting prior to the finalization of scores" and that "each evaluation committee member will then add up their scores for Criteria 1 through 5 and staff-provided scores 6 through 8 for each respondent, and rank respondents based on their individual scores." The RFP then provided that once the scoring was complete, "[r]anks from each evaluation committee member shall be totaled, and an overall ranked short-list developed therefrom." Each of the committee members then completed scoring sheets for each respondent. The committee then met on April 29, 2011, to review, discuss, and rank the proposals. A short list of proposals was made at that time for the purpose of allowing certain respondents to make oral presentations to the committee. The list was developed by having each committee member give a score (or rank) of one or zero for each respondent. The four respondents who were ranked the highest were allowed to make oral presentations. The scores assigned by each committee member in their individual review on score sheets were not the sole basis for creating the short list. However, each committee member made a 1 or 0 rank for the respondents based at least, in part, on how they had scored the respondents. On May 6, 2011, the four highest ranked respondents, including Dynamic and Janicki, were allowed to make oral presentations to the committee. After the presentations, the committee met and deliberated for approximately two hours concerning their choices. At that time, the initial rankings were created. Each member's initial ranking of the nine respondents was placed on a white board at the front of the meeting room. As the rankings were discussed, some members decided to alter their rankings based on consideration of other members' input. Each of the committee members brought a particular expertise to the table, so each had pertinent insight to share with other committee members as to the abilities or capabilities of each respondent. The scores that each member had individually assigned to the respondents for the various categories were not specifically discussed as part of the ranking dialogue. Those scores were a preliminary method for each reviewer to compare the respondents' proposals on a comparatively even "apples to apples" review. The scores may or may not have formed the primary basis for each reviewer's initial ranking placed on the white board at the May 6, 2011, meeting. Nonetheless, the rankings could be changed upon discussion with other members of the committee. Dynamic argues that the scores on each evaluation committee member's score sheets should have been used without consideration of any other factors to make the final rankings. Although it is possible to interpret the scoring instructions in that fashion, the approach used by the evaluation committee was sufficiently consistent with the instructions and based on a logical, reasonable approach. There is nothing inherently deficient about how the committee reached its decision. The committee reached a consensus at the May 6, 2011, meeting that Janicki should be awarded the contract. Although the vote was close, 16 to 17, the committee all agreed with the final decision. With the exception of Kaufman, none of the committee members deviated from their individual final ranking made at the meeting. Kaufman, subsequently, determined that her ranking as shown on the white board mistakenly had Dynamic ranked as 1 and Janicki as 2, just the opposite of what she intended. Making that change would have resulted in Janicki winning by three points instead of one point. The committee then reported its decision to the Management Board, which met on May 12, 2011, and approved the evaluation committee's recommendation. The Management Board then recommended to the Policy Board that Janicki be awarded the contract. The Policy Board modified the committee's recommendation slightly, deciding that if contract negotiations were not successful with Janicki, then Dynamic should be awarded the contract. On May 13, 2011, the Policy Board accepted the recommendation and awarded the contract to Janicki. After the May 6, 2011, meeting, the committee members were asked to submit their final score sheets to TBEP to be used by TBEP to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the proposals for future consideration. Some members submitted several erroneous score sheets prior to sending their final score sheet. Kaufman initially submitted a blank score sheet for one respondent and had mathematical errors showing the two top-ranked respondents as tied, even though Janicki actually had a higher score. Garcia submitted an additional score sheet along with a justification as to how she broke a tie by using the higher technical score. Kemp submitted revised score sheets in order to provide justification for how he derived his final rankings. Inasmuch as there were discussions between committee members after the initial scoring was done but before the final rankings, it is logical and reasonable that the final rankings may not be consistent with the scoring done by each committee member. Notification to Respondents Once the decision was made to award the contract to Janicki, all respondents were notified via email. The OPM states that TBEP will "provide notice of a decision concerning a bid solicitation or a contract award to all respondents by United States mail or by hand delivery or telephone facsimile." Email is not listed as a means of notification. Even though TBEP provided the notification via email, there is no showing that such notice prejudiced any respondent in any way. Email is similar to and as fast as facsimile transmission. There is no evidence that any respondent failed to receive the notice. Just as Dynamic failed to disclose information about the government contract that had been technically terminated, TBEP's use of email, rather than U.S. Mail or fax, is a minor error in the process that is not material to the final decision. Bid Protest Process After receipt of the notice that Janicki had been awarded the contract, Dynamic timely filed a bid protest. Part and parcel to any bid protest is the submission of a bid protest security, usually in the form of a security bond. Dynamic submitted a cashier's check on May 31, 2011, in the amount of $11,979.08, representing one percent of Dynamic's estimated contract amount. The check was erroneously made out to Holly Greening, the executive director of TBEP, rather than to TBEP, as stated in its cover letter. Dynamic cured this scrivener's error when it became aware of the mistake. TBEP objected to the amount of the security provided, saying that $50,000 was required, but did not substantiate the basis for that amount. TBEP also objected to the sufficiency of the cashier's check because it had a termination date, i.e., if not cashed within 90 days, the check would become void. Although that objection is well taken, Dynamic cured the defect when it sent in the replacement check made out to TBEP. Makeup of the Evaluation Committee Dynamic takes exception to the appointment of two consultants, Dr. Martin and Dr. Kemp, to the evaluation committee. According to the OPM, "[c]onsultants, whether or not they submit proposals to TBEP, are not permitted to serve on selection committees." It is clear that both Dr. Martin and Dr. Kemp often provide services to clients as private consultants. However, both are also university professors and were purportedly serving on the evaluation committee as representatives of their respective universities. Nonetheless, all respondents were advised about the makeup of the evaluation committee prior to submission of their proposals. It is disingenuous for a respondent to claim, after the fact, that it did not wish to be evaluated by certain members of the committee. Dynamic takes exception that Janicki's status as a local company was considered, because local connection was not a designated RFP criterion. It is logical and reasonable, however, for TBEP to consider that factor (and any other relevant information about the respondents) during discussions in a close decision such as this.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, upholding the award of the contract to Intervenor, Janicki Environmental, Inc. Tampa Bay Estuary Program shall include a statement of its costs and charges in the final order. If the parties cannot agree on the amount of such costs and charges, this matter may be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings as to that issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2011.
The Issue Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Background5/ DMS released Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 on March 18, 2013, and released a revised version of the ITN on May 14, 2013, for the selection of a company to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida. Thirteen vendors responded to the ITN. The replies were evaluated by five people: Bryan Bradner, Deputy Director of REDM of DMS; Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS; Rosalyn (“Roz”) Ingram, Chief of Procurement, Land and Leasing of the Department of Corrections; Clark Rogers, Purchasing and Facilities Manager of the Department of Revenue; and Janice Ellison, Section Lead in the Land Asset Management Section of the Department of Environmental Protection. Five vendors advanced to the negotiation stage: Cushman (score of 87), JLL (score of 87), CBRE (score of 87), Vertical (score of 89), and DTZ (score of 86). DTZ is not a party to this proceeding. The negotiation team consisted of Beth Sparkman, Bryan Bradner, and Roz Ingram. Janice Ellison participated as a subject matter expert. DMS held a first round of negotiations and then held a public meeting on July 16, 2013. DMS held a second round of negotiations and then held a second public meeting on August 1, 2013. A recording of this meeting is not available, but minutes were taken. Also on August 1, 2013, DMS posted Addendum 8, the Request for Best and Final Offers. This Addendum contained the notice that “Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3) . . . shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes.” The vendors each submitted a BAFO. DMS held a final public meeting on August 14, 2013, at which the negotiation team discussed the recommendation of award. All three members of the negotiation team recommended Vertical as one of the two vendors to receive the award. For the second company, two of the three negotiation team members recommended CBRE and one negotiation team member recommended JLL. DMS prepared a memorandum, dated August 14, 2013, describing the negotiation team’s recommendation of award. The memorandum comprises the following sections: Introduction; The Services; Procurement Process (subsections for Evaluations and Negotiations); Best value (subsections for Selection Criteria, Technical Analysis, Price Analysis, and Negotiation Team’s Recommendation); and Conclusion. Attached to the memorandum as Attachment A was a memorandum dated April 30, 2013, appointing the evaluation and negotiation committees, and attached as Attachment B was a spreadsheet comparing the vendors’ BAFOs. DMS posted the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE and Vertical on August 16, 2013. Cushman and JLL timely filed notices of intent to protest the Intent to Award. On August 29, 2013, JLL timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. On August 30, 2013, Cushman timely filed a formal protest to the Intent to Award. An opportunity to resolve the protests was held on September 9, 2013, and an impasse was eventually reached. On October 10, 2013, DMS forwarded the formal protest petitions to DOAH. An Order consolidating JLL’s protest and Cushman’s protest was entered on October 15, 2013. Scope of Real Estate Services in the ITN Prior to the statutory authority of DMS to procure real estate brokerage services, agencies used their own staff to negotiate private property leases. Section 255.25(h), Florida Statutes, arose out of the legislature’s desire for trained real estate professionals to assist the State of Florida with its private leasing needs. The statutorily mandated use of tenant brokers by agencies has saved the state an estimated $46 million dollars. The primary purpose of the ITN was to re-procure the expiring tenant broker contracts to assist state agencies in private sector leasing transactions. Once under contract, the selected vendors compete with each other for the opportunity to act on behalf of individual agencies as their tenant broker, but there is no guarantee particular vendors will get any business. The core of the services sought in the ITN was lease transactions. The ITN also sought to provide a contract vehicle to allow vendors to provide real estate consulting services, including strategies for long and short-term leases, space planning, and space management as part of the negotiation for private leases. As part of providing real estate consulting services, vendors would also perform independent market analyses (IMAs) and broker opinions of value (BOVs) or broker price opinions (BPOs). In almost all instances, this would be provided at no charge as part of the other work performed for a commissionable transaction under the resulting contract. However, the resulting contract was designed to allow agencies to ask for an IMA or BOV to be performed independently from a commissionable transaction. In addition to the primary leasing transactions, the contract would also allow state agencies to use the vendors for other services such as the acquisition and disposition of land and/or buildings. These services would be performed according to a Scope of Work prepared by the individual agency, with compensation at either the hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or at the percentage commission rate negotiated between the vendor and the individual agency. However, these services were ancillary to the main purpose of the contract, which was private leasing. In Florida, most state agencies are not authorized to hold title to land. However, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) serves as staff for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board”), which holds title to land owned by the State of Florida. In that capacity, DEP buys and sells land and other properties on behalf of the Board. DEP recently began using the current DMS tenant broker contract for acquisitions and dispositions. The process was cumbersome under the current contract, so DEP asked to participate in the ITN in order to make the contract more suitable for their purposes. The ITN was revised to include DEP’s proposed changes, and DMS had Ms. Ellison serve first as an evaluator and later as a subject matter expert. At hearing, Ms. Ellison testified that she was able to participate fully, that her input was taken seriously, and that the proposed contract adequately addressed DEP’s concerns. While DEP anticipated that under the proposed contract it would use more BOVs than it had previously, there was no guarantee that DEP would use the proposed contract. DEP is not obligated to use the contract and maintains the ability to procure its own tenant brokers. Additionally, administration and leadership changes may cause a switch of using in-house agency employees instead of tenant brokers to perform real estate acquisition and disposition services. Specifics of the ITN The ITN directed vendors to submit a reply with the following sections: a cover letter; completed attachments; pass/fail requirements; Reply Evaluation Criteria; and a price sheet. The Reply Evaluation Criteria included Part A (Qualifications) and Part B (Business Plan). Qualifications were worth 40 points, the Business Plan was worth 50 points, and the proposed pricing was worth 10 points. For the Business Plan, the ITN requested a detailed narrative description of how the vendors planned to meet DMS’s needs as set forth in section 3.01, Scope of Work. The ITN requested that vendors describe and identify the current and planned resources and employees to be assigned to the project and how the resources would be deployed. Section 3.01, Scope of Work, states that the primary objective of the ITN is to “identify brokers to assist and represent the Department and other state agencies in private sector leasing transactions.” The ITN states that the contractor will provide state agencies and other eligible users with real estate transaction and management services, which include “document creation and management, lease negotiation and renegotiation, facility planning, construction oversight, and lease closeout, agency real estate business strategies, pricing models related to relocation services, project management services, acquisition services, and strategic consulting.” Id. The ITN also specifies: Other real estate consulting services such as property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales or those identified in the reply or negotiation process and made part of the Contract (e.g., financial services, facilities management services, lease v. buy analyses). The ITN lists the following duties the contractor will perform: Act as the state’s tenant broker, to competitively solicit, negotiate and develop private sector lease agreements; Monitor landlord build-out on behalf of state agencies; Provide space management services, using required space utilization standards; Provide tenant representation services for state agencies and other eligible users during the term of a lease; Identify and evaluate as directed strategic opportunities for reducing occupancy costs through consolidation, relocation, reconfiguration, capital investment, selling and/or the building or acquisition of space; Assist with property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding property, property auctions and direct sales; and Provide requested related real estate consulting services. The ITN set the commission percentage for new leases at 4 percent for years 1-10 and 2 percent for each year over 10 years; 2 percent for lease renewals, extensions, or modifications; and 2 percent for warehouse or storage space leases. Id. For “other services,” the ITN states: With respect to all other services (e.g., space management services, general real estate consulting services, property acquisitions, dispositions, general property consulting, property analysis and promotions, property marketing, property negotiation, competitive bidding or property, property auctions and direct sales), compensation will be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on hourly rates (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the broker and the using agency. The ITN also required that vendors specify the number of credit hours to be given annually to DMS. Each vendor gives a certain number of credit hours at the start of each year under the contract. The state earns additional credit hours as the vendors perform transactions. DMS manages the pool of accumulated credit hours and gives them to individual agencies to use on a case-by-case basis as payment for individual projects. These credit hours are commonly allocated to pay for IMAs and BOVs that are not part of commissionable transactions. With the exception of one legislatively mandated project, DMS has never exhausted its pool of credit hours. The ITN further specified that IMAs and BOVs must be offered at no cost when performed as part of a commissionable transaction. Historically, most IMAs and BOVs are performed as part of a commissionable transaction. They have only been performed separately from a commissionable transaction a handful of times under the current contract, and many of these were still provided at no cost through the allocation of free credit hours available to the agencies. Therefore, most IMAs and BOVs to be performed under the proposed contract will likely be at no cost. The ITN states that points to be awarded under the price criterion will be awarded based on the number of annual credit hours offered and the commission rate paid per transaction per hour of commission received. The ITN further provides that DMS will evaluate and rank replies in order to establish a competitive range of replies reasonably susceptible to award, and then the team will proceed to negotiations. Regarding negotiations, the ITN states: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent’s demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the section criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. The ITN also states: At the conclusion of negotiations, the Department will issue a written request for best and final offer(s) (BAFOs) to one or more of the Respondents with which the negotiation team has conducted negotiations. At a minimum, based upon the negotiation process, the BAFOs must contain: A revised Statement of Work; All negotiated terms and conditions to be included in Contract; and A final cost offer. The Respondent’s BAFO will be delivered to the negotiation team for review. Thereafter, the negotiation team will meet in a public meeting to determine which offer constitutes the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria. The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the State. The ITN and draft contract permit subcontractors to perform under the contract and provide an avenue for a contractor to add subcontractors by submitting a written request to DMS’s contract manager with particular information. Best and Final Offers After the conclusion of negotiations, the negotiation team requested each vendor to submit a BAFO, to be filled out in accordance with the RBAFO format. The RBAFO noted that each vendor would get a set percentage commission for leasing transactions, but asked vendors to submit their prices for IMAs, BOVs, and BPOs performed outside a commissionable transaction and to submit the number of annual credit hours vendors would give DMS at the start of the new contract. In an effort to increase potential savings to the state, DMS lowered the percentage rates of the commissions for lease transactions in the RBAFO below the rates initially set in the ITN. By selecting only two vendors instead of three, the additional potential volume for each vendor on the contract could support the lower commission rates being requested of tenant brokers. The state would ultimately save money due to the impact of the reduced commissions on the overall economic structure of each lease. Beth Sparkman, Bureau Chief of Leasing of DMS, expounded on the rationale for reducing the number of vendors under the new contract to two: The Court: To me, it’s counterintuitive that having fewer vendors would result in more favorable pricing for the state of Florida; and yet you said that was the anticipated result of reducing the number of vendors from three to two – The Witness: Correct. The Court: -- for the new contract. I’m unclear. Tell me the basis for the team’s anticipation that having fewer vendors would result in better pricing. The Witness: When the original ITN was released, it had the same percentages in there that are under the current contract. And I’ll talk, for context, new leases, which right now is at 4 percent. So the discussion was – and 4 percent is typical of the industry. That’s typical for what the industry pays across the board. So the desire was to reduce the commission, to reduce those commission amounts to drive that percentage down. So we went out with the first BAFO that had a range that said for leases that cost between zero – and I can’t remember – zero and a half million, what would your percentage be? Thinking that when we had a tiered arrangement, those percentages would come down. They really didn’t. So when we sat down as a team and discussed: Well, why didn’t they – and you know, because typical is 4 percent. So we came back and said: Well, if we reduce the percentage on new leases to 3.25 but restrict the reward to two vendors, each vendor has the potential to make as much money as they would have made at 4 percent, but the savings would be rolled back into the state. Each of the five vendors invited to negotiate submitted a BAFO, agreeing as part of their submissions to comply with the terms and conditions of the draft of the proposed contract and agreeing to the lowered set percentage commission rates in the RBAFO. The RBAFO listed selection criteria by which the vendors would be chosen, to further refine the broad criteria listed in the ITN. The RBAFO listed the following nine items as selection criteria: performance measures (if necessary), sliding scale/cap, IMA set fee, broker’s opinion of value, balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum), contract concerns, credit hours (both annual and per deal hour), hourly rates, and vendor experience and capability. CBRE’s BAFO submission followed the format indicated in the RBAFO, but CBRE included an additional section giving its proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions of land. These rates were also submitted by other vendors at other parts of the procurement process, but CBRE was the only vendor to include such rates as part of its BAFO submission. DMS considered this addition a minor irregularity that it waived. In its BAFO submission, Cushman offered a three-tiered approach to its pricing for IMAs and BOVs. For the first tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for free as part of a commissionable transaction. This is redundant, as the ITN required all vendors to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when part of a commissionable transaction. For the second tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs at no cost when the user agency has previously hired Cushman on tenant representative work. Ms. Sparkman testified that this provision was unclear, as Cushman did not define the scope of this provision or what amount of work qualified the agency for free services. For the third tier, Cushman offered to perform IMAs and BOVs for $240 when not part of a commissionable transaction for an agency with which it had never done business. Best Value Determination The five BAFOs were sent to the negotiation team for review on August 8, 2013, and on August 14, 2013, the team met in a public meeting to discuss the BAFOs, consider the selection criteria, discuss the team’s award recommendation, and draft a written award recommendation memorandum. During the August 14, 2013, meeting the team determined that CBRE and Vertical represented the best value to the state, by a majority vote for CBRE and by a unanimous vote for Vertical. Ms. Sparkman stated at the meeting that, from her perspective, CBRE and Vertical represented a better value than the other vendors because they were more forward thinking in their long term business strategies for managing Florida’s portfolio. Also at this meeting, Ms. Sparkman noted that CBRE’s prices for IMAs and BOVs were somewhat high but that she would attempt to convince CBRE to lower its prices during the contract execution phase. This was part of an attempt to equalize costs to ensure user agencies selected vendors based on individual needs rather than cost. However, CBRE represented the best value to the state regardless of whether its pricing changed. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that if CBRE had refused to lower its pricing, DMS would still have signed a contract with them based on the pricing submitted in its BAFO. Ms. Sparkman also stated at the public meeting that if she were unable to come to contract with both CBRE and Vertical, she would arrange for another public meeting to select a third vendor with whom to proceed to the contract execution phase. This statement did not refer to DMS selecting a third vendor to replace CBRE should CBRE refuse to lower its price, but rather reflected the possibility that during the contract execution phase, DMS and either one of the vendors could potentially be unable to sign a contract because the vendor was unwilling to execute the written terms and conditions. The “contract negotiations” referenced during the public meeting are the remaining processes to be worked out during the contract execution phase and are distinct and separate from the negotiation phase. At hearing, Ms. Sparkman testified that in the past, vendors have refused to sign a contract because their legal counsel was unwilling to sign off on what the business representatives agreed to. Thus, if either CBRE or Vertical refused to sign the contract altogether, DMS would potentially have selected a third-place vendor in order to have a second vendor on the contract, according to Ms. Sparkman. International experience weighed in favor of CBRE and Vertical, according to team member comments made at the public meeting. Although the phrase “international experience” was not specifically listed in the selection criteria of the ITN or RBAFO, many vendors highlighted their international experience as part of the general category of vendor experience. Vendor experience and capability is specified in both the ITN and RBAFO as part of the selection criteria. Ms. Sparkman testified that international experience is indicative of high quality general vendor experience because international real estate market trends change more rapidly than domestic market trends. None of the negotiation team members recommended Cushman for a contract award, and in fact, Cushman's name was not even discussed at the award meeting. The Award Memorandum Also during the August 14, 2013, public meeting the negotiation team prepared a memorandum setting forth the negotiation team’s best value recommendation of CBRE and Vertical, and many of its reasons for the recommendation. There was no requirement that the memorandum list every single reason that went into the decision. For example, the memorandum did not state that the team found CBRE and Vertical’s focus on long term strategies more impressive than Cushman’s focus on past performance under the current contract. The award memorandum included a “Selection Criteria” section which simply repeated the nine selection criteria that had been previously identified in the RBAFO. The memorandum then went on to include a section labeled “B. Technical Analysis” that stated: Analysis of pricing is provided in section C below. As to the remaining selection criteria items, the Team identified the following key elements for the service to be provided: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. The selection criteria provided above were used by the Team to make its best value recommendation. Ms. Sparkman testified that while the choice of wording may have been imprecise, the items listed in the Technical Analysis section were simply elaborations of the selection criteria in the ITN and RBAFO, and not new criteria. The first four are subsumed within vendor experience and capability, and the fifth was specifically listed in the RBAFO. Indeed, Cushman’s Senior Managing Director testified at hearing that Cushman had addressed the first four items in their presentation to DMS during the negotiation phase to demonstrate why Cushman should be chosen for the contract. The memorandum failed to note that CBRE had included non-solicited information in its BAFO regarding proposed rates for the acquisition and disposition of land. However, the negotiation team considered CBRE’s inclusion of these proposed rates a minor irregularity that could be waived in accordance with the ITN and addressed in the contract execution phase, since those rates were for ancillary services, and there was no guaranteed work to be done for DEP under that fee structure. The memorandum included a chart, identified as Attachment B, that compared the proposed number of credit hours and some of the pricing for IMAs and BOVs submitted by the vendors in their BAFOs. The chart listed Cushman’s price for IMAs and BOVs as $240 and failed to include all the information regarding the three-tiered approach to IMAs and BOVs Cushman listed in its BAFO. However, Ms. Sparkman testified that the chart was meant to be a side-by-side basic summary that compared similar information, not an exhaustive listing. The Cushman Protest Negotiations After Award of the Contract Cushman alleges that DMS’s selection of CBRE violates the ITN specifications because DMS selected CBRE with the intent of conducting further negotiations regarding price, which provided CBRE with an unfair advantage. Cushman further argues that the procedure of awarding to one vendor and then possibly adding another vendor if contract negotiations fail violates Florida’s statutes and the ITN. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 23, 28 & 31. Section 2.14 of the ITN specifically reserved DMS's right to reopen negotiations after receipt of BAFOs if it believed such was in the best interests of the state. Specifically, section 2.14 A. provides: The highest ranked Respondent(s) will be invited to negotiate a Contract. Respondents are cautioned to propose their best possible offers in their initial Reply as failing to do so may result in not being selected to proceed to negotiations. If necessary, the Department will request revisions to the approach submitted by the top-rated Respondent(s) until it is satisfied that the contract model will serve the state’s needs and is determined to provide the best value to the state. The statements made by Ms. Sparkman at the August 14, 2013, public meeting and in the award memorandum, that DMS would attempt to reduce CBRE's prices for ancillary services during the contract execution process were not contrary to the ITN or unfair to the other vendors. Both Ms. Sparkman and Mr. Bradner, the two negotiation team members who voted to award to CBRE, testified that they recommended CBRE as providing the best value even considering its arguably higher prices for ancillary services. Ms. Sparkman further confirmed that even if CBRE refused to lower its prices during the contract execution phase, DMS would still sign the contract, as CBRE's proposal would still represent the best value to the state. The anticipated efforts to obtain lower prices from CBRE were simply an attempt to obtain an even better best value for the state. Ms. Sparkman also testified that section 2.14 F. allowed continued negotiations, even though it was silent as to timeframe. Paragraph F states: In submitting a Reply a Respondent agrees to be bound to the terms of Section 5 – General Contract Conditions (PUR 1000) and Section 4 – Special Contract Conditions. Respondents should assume those terms will apply to the final contract, but the Department reserves the right to negotiate different terms and related price adjustments if the Department determines that it provides the best value to the state. Ms. Sparkman also cited section 2.14 I. as authority for reopening negotiations following receipt of the BAFO’s. That section provides: The Department does not anticipate reopening negotiations after receiving the BAFOs, but reserves the right to do so if it believes doing so will be in the best interests of the state. Ms. Sparkman’s statement that if DMS failed, for any reason, to successfully contract with either of the two vendors selected, it would consider pulling in another vendor, is not inconsistent with the clear language of the ITN. Selection Criteria Cushman alleges that DMS used criteria to determine the awards that were not listed in the ITN or the RBAFO. Amended Pet. ¶ 25. Section 2.14 E of the ITN established broad selection criteria, stating: The focus of the negotiations will be on achieving the solution that provides the best value to the state based upon the selection criteria and the requirements of this solicitation. The selection criteria include, but are not limited to, the Respondent's demonstrated ability to effectively provide the services, technical proposal and price. The Department reserves the right to utilize subject matter experts, subject matter advisors and multi-agency or legislative advisors to assist the negotiation team with finalizing the selection criteria. The negotiation process will also include negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract. (emphasis added). Following the negotiations, and with the assistance of its subject matter expert, the negotiation team provided in the RBAFO additional clarity as to the selection criteria, and identified the "Basis of Award/Selection Criteria" as follows: Performance Measures (if necessary) Sliding scale/cap IMA set fee Broker's opinion of value Balance of line (can be quoted per hour or lump sum) Contract concerns Credit hours (both annual and per deal hour) Hourly rates Vendor experience and capability The foregoing selection criteria, as well as the selection criteria stated initially in the ITN, make clear that pricing was only one of the criteria upon which the award was to be made. Indeed, Cushman's representative, Larry Richey, acknowledged during his testimony that criteria such as "Performance Measures," "Contract Concerns," and "Vendor Experience and Capability" did not refer to pricing, but rather to the expected quality of the vendor's performance if awarded the contract. As the principal draftsman of the ITN and DMS's lead negotiator, Ms. Sparkman explained that the RBAFO's statement of the selection criteria was intended to provide greater detail to the broad selection criteria identified in the ITN, and was used by the negotiation team in making its best value determination. Ms. Sparkman further testified that the best value determination resulted from the negotiation team's lengthy and extensive evaluation of the vendors' initial written replies to the ITN, review of the vendors' qualifications and comprehensive business plans, participation in approximately two and a half hours of oral presentations by each vendor (including a question and answer session with regard to the proposed implementation and management of the contracts), and a review of the vendors' BAFOs. Applying the selection criteria contained in the ITN and the RBAFO, the negotiation team selected Vertical for several reasons, including its performance indicators, employees with ADA certification, computer programs and employee training not offered by other vendors, its presence in Florida, and the strength of its business plan and presentation. Similarly, the negotiation team selected CBRE for an award based on the strength of its ITN Reply, its broad look at long-term strategies, its key performance indicators, the experience and knowledge of its staff, the comprehensiveness of its proposal and business plan, size of its firm, and creative ideas such as use of a scorecard in transactions. Ms. Sparkman observed that both Vertical and CBRE specifically identified the CBRE staff who would manage the state's business and daily transactions, while it was not clear from Cushman's ITN reply and related submissions who would actually be working on the account. Cushman likewise did not discuss out-of-state leases and how such leases were going to be handled, which was a significant concern because DMS considered out-of-state leases to be particularly complex. Ms. Sparkman also noted that with respect to the vendors' business plans, both Vertical and CBRE focused primarily on strategic realignment and plans for the future, whereas Cushman discussed their current transactions at length, but did not demonstrate forward thinking to the negotiation team. Cushman's reply to the ITN also included various discrepancies noted at the final hearing. While Cushman's ITN reply identifies a Tallahassee office, Cushman does not in fact have a Tallahassee office, but instead listed its subcontractor’s office.6/ Additionally, two of the business references presented in Cushman's ITN Reply appear not in fact to be for Cushman, but instead for its subcontractor, Daniel Wagnon, as Cushman's name was clearly typed in above Mr. Wagnon's name after the references were written. Finally, Cushman failed to provide in its ITN Reply the required subcontractor disclosure information for at least one of its "Project Management Partners," Ajax Construction. Based on all of the above, DMS's decision to award contracts to Vertical and CBRE as providing the best value to the state was not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition. Simply stated, and as the negotiation team determined, the submissions by Vertical and CBRE were more comprehensive and reasonably found to offer better value to the state than Cushman's submission. Indeed the negotiation team did not even mention Cushman as a potential contract awardee, but instead identified only Vertical, CBRE and JLL in their deliberations as to best value. Cushman's argument that DMS award memorandum improperly relies on the following as "key elements" related to services does not alter this analysis: Long term strategies Key performance indicators Management of the portfolio Top ranked vendors had comprehensive business plans Pricing on the BOV and IMAs. While Ms. Sparkman acknowledged that the choice of language in the memorandum could have been better, it is clear that the foregoing are indeed "elements" of the selection criteria stated in the ITN and RBAFO, as the first four elements plainly relate to the vendors' ability to effectively provide the services, their technical proposal, performance measures, and vendor experience and capability, while the last element relates to the pricing portion of the criteria. Cushman also argues that the award memorandum failed to inform the final decision-maker that Cushman offered IMAs and BOVs at no charge when Cushman was engaged in a commissionable transaction or was performing other work for an agency under the contract. As a result, Cushman asserts, the Deputy Secretary was provided with inaccurate information relating to price. Cushman's argument that the award process was flawed because the pricing chart attached to the award memorandum did not accurately reflect Cushman's proposed pricing is without merit. As Ms. Sparkman testified, the chart was prepared by the negotiation team to provide for the decision-maker an apples-to- apples broad summary comparison of the vendor's proposed pricing for the proposed ancillary services. The chart was not intended to identify all variations or conditions for potential different pricing as proposed by Cushman.7/ Best Value Determination Cushman contends that the negotiation team’s decision to award a contract to CBRE did not result in the best value to the state. Amended Pet. ¶¶ 26, 28 & 29. Cushman further argues that DMS did not meaningfully consider differences in proposed pricing. The failure to consider price for potential ancillary services, Cushman argues, was contrary to competition as it gave an unfair advantage to CBRE whose prices were higher than Cushman’s prices in all but one category. Although pricing for the potential ancillary services was relevant, the ITN's initial scoring criteria made clear that DMS was primarily focused on evaluating the experience and capability of the vendors to provide the proposed services. For this reason, the ITN's initial scoring criteria awarded 90 percent of the points based upon the qualifications and business plan of the vendors, and only 10 percent of the points based on the pricing for potential ancillary services. The negotiation team members testified that this same focus on qualifications and the vendors' business plan continued during the negotiation phase and award decision, although without reliance on the mathematical scoring process utilized during the initial evaluation phase. Nothing in the ITN specifications altered this focus, and the negotiations were directed to gaining a greater understanding of the vendors' proposed services, the qualifications and bios of individuals who would actually do the work, vendors' approach to the work and parameters the vendors would use to evaluate their performance. Pricing remained of relatively minor significance primarily because the RBAFO established a uniform lease commission rate for all vendors, effectively removing pricing as a means to differentiate between the vendors. As a result, vendors were required to quote pricing only for certain potential ancillary services, including IMAs and BOVs, and the number of free credit hours to be provided to the state. Pricing for these potential ancillary services was not considered particularly important, since historically these services were seldom used, and the ITN required all vendors to provide IMAs and BOVs free of charge when related to a commissionable transaction (thereby greatly reducing the impact of any "free" IMA or BOV services). For these reasons, the negotiation team considered the potential ancillary services and pricing for these services not to be significant in the award decision and only incidental to the core purpose and mission of the intended contract, to wit, leasing and leasing commissions. As a result, the negotiation team referred to these potential ancillary services as "balance of line" items which were nominal and added little value to the contract. Notwithstanding Cushman's argument that it should have been awarded the contract because it offered the lowest pricing for these ancillary services, its prices were not in fact the lowest offered by the vendors. Indeed JLL offered to provide all IMA and BOV services (with no preconditions) at no cost. Cushman's pricing for the ancillary services also was not materially different than CBRE's pricing. CBRE's consulting services rates are comparable, if not lower, than Cushman's rates, and the difference between Cushman's and CBRE's proposed charges for IMAs and BOVs is only a few hundred dollars. When considered in terms of the anticipated number of times the ancillary services will be requested (rarely, based on the prior contract), the total "extra" amount to be spent for CBRE's services would be at most a few thousand dollars. The negotiation team reasonably considered this to be insignificant in comparison to the multimillion dollar leasing work which was the core purpose of the intended contract.8/ Because pricing for the potential ancillary services was of lesser significance to DMS's award decision, Cushman's position that DMS should have awarded Cushman a contract based upon its pricing for ancillary services is not consistent with the ITN and does not render DMS's intended awards to Vertical and CBRE arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous or contrary to competition. To the contrary, DMS articulated a rational, reasonable and logical explanation for the award. CBRE’s Proposal Non-Responsive to ITN and RBAFO? Cushman alleges that CBRE’s BAFO was not responsive to the ITN and the RBAFO because CBRE included a set rate for acquisitions and dispositions in its proposal. Amended Pet. 30. Since CBRE's BAFO materially deviated from the ITN's specifications, CBRE’s proposal should have been deemed non- responsive and therefore rejected, Cushman argues. The ITN originally requested pricing related only to credit hours as the ITN set the rates for leases. The ITN stated that “other services” would be determined on a case-by- case basis as negotiated by the agencies. However, as part of the ITN process, DMS discussed with the vendors the potential for them to assist the state in the sale and acquisition of property, and what commission rates might be charged for this work. For this reason, CBRE included proposed commission rates for acquisition and disposition services in its BAFO. DMS considered the inclusion of potential rates for acquisitions and dispositions to be a minor irregularity which did not render CBRE's BAFO non-responsive. This determination is consistent with the terms of the ITN, which at section 2.14(g) states "[t]he Department reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in replies." The form PUR 1001 incorporated by reference into the ITN likewise reserves to DMS the right to waive minor irregularities and states: 16. Minor Irregularities/Right to Reject. The Buyer reserves the right to accept or reject any and all bids, or separable portions thereof, and to waive any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission if the Buyer determines that doing so will serve the state's best interests. The Buyer may reject any response not submitted in the manner specified by the solicitation documents. Consistent with the above-cited provisions, the negotiation team noted at its August 14, 2013, meeting that CBRE's inclusion of the proposed rates was not material, and that during the contract execution process, DMS would either exclude the proposed rates from the contract, or possibly include such as a cap for these services. Both of these alternatives were available to DMS given CBRE's commitment to follow the terms of the draft contract, which specifically stated that fees for acquisitions and dispositions would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Finally, CBRE's inclusion of proposed commission rates for acquisitions and dispositions did not give CBRE an advantage over the other vendors, or impair the competition, because Cushman and JLL also submitted, as part of their ITN responses, proposed commission rates for the acquisition and disposition of property. Do the ITN Specifications Violate Section 255.25? Cushman's final argument is that the ITN specifications, and the proposed contract, violate section 255.25(3)(h)5., Florida Statutes, which states that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract and may not be supplemented or modified by the state agency using the contract." Cushman's argument has two components. First, Cushman argues that the specifications included at Tab 5, page 13 of the ITN violate the statute by providing: "With respect to all other [ancillary] services, . . . , compensation shall be as outlined in an agency prepared Scope of Work and will be quoted based on an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in this ITN), set fees for the service/project or by a percentage commission rate as offered and negotiated by the using agency.” Cushman also argues that the language in the award memorandum stating that the BOV rates are "caps" and "may be negotiated down by agencies prior to individual transactions," violates the statute. This latter reference to "caps" correlates to the "ceiling rates" stated in the above quoted ITN specification. Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, requires vendors to file a protest to an ITN’s terms, conditions, or specifications within 72 hours of the release of the ITN or amendment; failure to protest constitutes a waiver of such arguments. DMS included this language with the release of the ITN and each amendment, so Cushman was on notice of its protest rights. Cushman's challenge to the ITN specifications as violating section 255.25 is untimely and has been waived. Having been fully informed of this specification since May 14, 2013, when the revised ITN was published, Cushman could not wait until the ITN process was completed some four months later, and then argue that the ITN specifications do not comply with section 255.25 and must be changed. Such argument plainly constitutes a specifications challenge, and such a challenge is now time-barred. Even were Cushman’s challenge not time-barred, it would still fail. Section 255.25 requires only that "[a]ll terms relating to the compensation of the real estate consultant or tenant broker shall be specified in the term contract," and not that all terms identifying the compensation be specified. The challenged ITN specification, actually added via Addendum 2 at the request of DEP and its subject matter expert, does specify the approved methods by which the state could compensate the vendor, which DMS determined would best be determined on a case-by-case basis. By stating the approved methods which can be used by the state agencies, the ITN specifications and term contract did specify the terms "relating to" the compensation of the vendor, i.e., an hourly rate (set as ceiling rates in the ITN), set fees for the service/project, or a percentage commission rate. DMS established these terms because the exact compensation would best be determined by the state agency on a case-by-case basis in a Statement of Work utilizing one of the specified compensation methods.9/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the petition of Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc., and affirming the Notice of Intent to Award to CBRE, Inc., and Vertical Integration, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 2014.
