The Issue Should Petitioner Elizabethan Development, Inc. prevail in its challenge of Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Invitation to Bid (ITB) pursuant to Section 120.53(5) F.S. and Rule 10-13.011 F.A.C.?
Findings Of Fact On May 15, 1990, HRS mailed its ITB which is the subject of this proceeding. The ITB sought an existing facility for the agency to lease in Cross City, Florida, for use as a full client service center. Upon the face of the ITB documents, a preproposal conference was scheduled for May 23, 1990. Petitioner Elizabethan Development, Inc. received the ITB on May 16, 1990, as evidenced by a certified mail return receipt for that date. Petitioner filed its written intent to protest dated July 13, 1990 with the HRS agency clerk on July 16, 1990. Petitioner filed nothing with HRS prior to that date. Under the terms of the ITB, sealed bids were due to be received by HRS no later than 2:00 p.m. July 18, 1990. Petitioner filed no bid in response to the ITB prior to bid closing, nor at any other time. HRS proceeded to open and award the lease on July 18, 1990, despite Petitioner's July 16, 1990 intent to protest. Petitioner filed its formal protest dated July 24, 1990 with the agency clerk on July 26, 1990. Petitioner currently leases to HRS the building HRS now occupies in Cross City, Florida, and which HRS occupied at the time the ITB was issued. The July 16, 1990 intent to protest contained no specific information as to the nature of Petitioner's protest. The main thrust of the allegations contained in the July 26, 1990 formal written protest is that the specifications in the May 1990 ITB were so narrowly drawn that only one potential bidder (not Petitioner) could be responsive and that Petitioner could become responsive if ITB specification changes were negotiated. Additionally, the written protest alleged a number of problems which are, in essence, disputed issues with regard to the existing lease contract between Petitioner and HRS, which issues should more properly be brought before an Article V court. Petitioner admitted that its delay in filing its intent to protest and formal protest was occasioned by its conscientious preparation of its protest through undertaking an investigation of the existing available buildings in Cross City, Florida. Petitioner further admitted that its delay in filing its intent to protest and formal protest was voluntary and not induced by any representations by HRS or its employees.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order determining the Petitioner's intent to protest and formal written protest to be untimely and dismissing same. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990. Copies furnished to: Alan Taylor Elizabethan Development, Inc. Post Office Box 7077 Winter Haven, Florida 33883 Frances S. Childers, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether in making a preliminary decision to award a contract for the subject services under Invitation to Bid No. 12-039T – Refuse Services (the ITB) Respondent School Board of Broward County, Florida (the School Board) acted contrary to a governing statute rule policy or project specification; and if so whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition. Specifically, Petitioner Ace Waste Services, LLC (Petitioner) challenges the determination that the bids submitted by the apparent low bidder, the apparent low second low bidder, and the apparent low third low bidder were responsive and responsible bids meeting the specifications contained in the ITB.
Findings Of Fact School Board Policy 3320 entitled "Purchasing Policies" is the agency's rule governing the purchasing of goods and services. On October 7, 2011, the School Board issued the ITB which was entitled "Refuse Services." On October 18, 2011, the School Board issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITB. The refuse services were to be provided to 58 district school sites, which were collectively referred to as Group 1. The Bidder Acknowledgement found at Section 1.0 of the ITB states in pertinent part as follows: I agree to complete and unconditional acceptance of this bid all appendices and contents of any Addenda released hereto; I agree to be bound to all specifications terms and conditions contained in this ITB . . .. I agree that this bid cannot be withdrawn within 90 days from due date. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 3(b): MISTAKES: Bidders are expected to examine the specifications delivery schedules bid prices and extensions and all instructions pertaining to supplies and services. Failure to do so will be at Bidder's risk. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 35: PROTESTING OF BID CONDITIONS/SPECIFICATIONS: Any person desiring to protest the conditions/specifications of this Bid/RFP or any Addenda subsequently released thereto shall file a notice of intent to protest in writing within 72 consecutive hours after electronic release of the competitive solicitation or Addendum and shall file a formal written protest with ten calendar days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Saturdays Sundays legal holidays or days during which the school district administration is closed shall be excluded in the computation of the 72 consecutive hours. If the tenth calendar day falls on a Saturday Sunday legal holiday or day during which the school district administration is closed the formal written protest must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. ET of the next calendar day that is not a Saturday Sunday legal holiday or days during which the school district administration is closed. Section 120.57(3)(b) Florida Statutes as currently enacted or as amended from time to time states that "The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based." Failure to file a notice of protest or to file a formal written protest within the time prescribed by [section 120.57(3)(b)] or a failure to post the bond or other security required by law within the time allowed for filing a bond shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter 120]. The failure to post the bond required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI within the time prescribed by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI as currently enacted or as amended from time to time shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under School Board Policy 3320 and [chapter 120]. Notices of protest formal written protests and the bonds required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI shall be filed at the office of the Director of Supply Management and Logistics 7720 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 323 Sunrise, Florida 33351 (fax 754-321-0936). Fax filing will not be acceptable for the filing of bonds required by School Board Policy 3320 Part VI. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at General Condition 36: POSTING OF BID RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS: Any person who files an action protesting an intended decision shall post with the School Board at the time of filing the formal written protest a bond payable to the School Board of Broward County Florida in an amount equal to one percent (1%) of the Board's estimate of the total volume of the contract. The School Board shall provide the estimated contract amount to the vendor within 72 hours excluding Saturdays Sundays legal holidays and other days during which the School Board administration is closed of receipt of notice of intent to protest. The estimated contract amount shall be established on the award recommendation as the "contract award amount." The estimated contract amount is not subject to protest pursuant to [section 120.57(3)]. The bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against the protestant in an Administrative Hearing in which the action is brought and in any subsequent appellate court proceeding. In lieu of a bond the School Board may accept a cashier's check official bank check or money order in the amount of the bond. If after completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings the School Board prevails the School Board shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or judgment including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings but excluding attorney's fees. Upon payment of such costs and charges by the protestant the bond shall be returned. If the protestant prevails then the protestant shall recover from the Board all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or judgment excluding attorney's fees. Section 3 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 1: INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE: The School Board of Broward County Florida (hereinafter referred to as "SBBC") desires bids on REFUSE SERVICES for solid waste removal as specified herein. Prices quoted shall include pick up at various schools departments and centers within Broward County Florida. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 3: AWARD: In order to meet the needs of SBBC Bid shall be awarded in its entirety to one primary and one alternate responsive and responsible Bidders meeting specifications terms and conditions. The lowest Awardee shall be considered the primary vendor and should receive the largest volume of work. Therefore it is necessary to bid on every item in the group and all items (1-58) in the group must meet specifications in order to have the bid considered for award. Unit prices must be stated in the space provided on the Bid Summary Sheet. SBBC reserves the right to procure services from the alternate Awardee if: the lowest Bidder cannot comply with service requirements or specifications; in cases of emergency; it is in the best interest of SBBC. After award of this bid any Awardee who violates any specification term or condition of this bid can be found in default of its contract have its contract canceled be subject to the payment of liquidated damages and be removed from the bid list and not be eligible to do business with this School Board for two years as described in General Conditions 22 and 55. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 7: ADDING OR DELETING SITES: SBBC may during the term of the contract add or delete service wholly or in part at any SBBC location. When seeking to add a location SBBC shall request a quote from both Awardees. The lowest Bidder shall receive an award for the additional location. If additional service is requested for an existing site already receiving service the current service provider will be contacted to provide a new quote based on the pricing formula submitted in response to this ITB or a subsequent quote. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 11: RECEPTACLES: The Awardee shall furnish receptacles in good repair. . . .The Awardee shall furnish any and all equipment materials supplies and all other labor and personnel necessary for the performance of its obligations under this contract. Design of all equipment is subject to the approval of the Manager Energy Conservation Utility Management or his designee and must be replaced upon notification without additional cost to SBBC. DESCRIPTION: All receptacles used for solid waste referenced in Group 1 on the Bid Summary Sheets and the Tamarac location listed in Section 5 Additional Information unless otherwise indicated shall be provided by the Awardee at no additional cost. Bin receptacles shall be provided for SBBC use in the cubic yard capacities as indicated on the Bid Summary Sheets. Receptacles shall be bin-type units steel or plastic lift-up lids NO SIDE DOORS unless specifically requested for 8 cu. yd. fitted for automatic loading on casters where necessary for chute operations. (Receptacles not on casters must have a 6" – 12" clearance from ground to bottom of bin for easy cleaning underneath.) TWO AND THREE YARD CONTAINERS: It will be necessary for The Awardee to supply the two (2) and three (3) yard containers to hold compacted refuse at a ratio of approximately 4:1. These containers are designed for front-end loading. THESE UNITS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THE BID SUMMARY SHEET BY A SINGLE ASTERISK (*) NEXT TO THE CONTAINER SIZE. Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Special Condition 20: SMALL IN-HOUSE COMPACTION UNITS(approximately two yards): The following schools have in-house compaction units which will need to be provided by the Awardee. Waste is compacted at an approximate ratio of 3:1. Collins Elementary Oakridge Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary Section 4 of the ITB states as follows at Revised Special Condition 14: PRICING – ALL INCLUSIVE COST GROUP 1 ITEMS 1– 58: Bidder shall submit fixed monthly costs where indicated on the Bid Summary Sheets for each location based on 4.33 weeks per month. (This number is derived by dividing 52 weeks by 12 months). Monthly costs stated shall be an all-inclusive cost for providing receptacles refuse removal and disposal including but not limited to all necessary labor services material equipment taxes tariffs franchise fees maintenance and applicable fees. SBBC agrees to pay the Broward County Disposal Adjustment (tipping fees) in effect at the time. Increases to this fee will be paid as assessed by Broward County. Any decreases in these rates shall be passed on to SBBC as well. No bid specification protest was filed by any person concerning the original ITB or Addendum No. 1. Nine companies submitted timely responses to the ITB. Each bidder submitted a monthly bid and an annual bid. The School Board thereafter ranked the respective bids. Intervenor was the apparent low bidder with a monthly bid of $39,576 and an annual bid of $474,918.38. All Service was the apparent second low bidder with a monthly bid of $40,540.90 and an annual bid of $486,490.80. WSI was the apparent third low bidder with a monthly bid of $47,671.71 and an annual bid of $572,060.52. Petitioner was the apparent fourth low bidder with a monthly bid of $50,177.73 and an annual bid of $602,132.76. On November 2, 2011, the School Board's Purchasing Department posted the agency's intended recommendation for award of the ITB. The intended decision was (A) to award to Intervenor as the primary vendor for Group 1 (1 through 58); and (B) to award to All Service as the first alternate for Group 1 (1 through 58). On November 4, 2011, Petitioner timely filed its Notice of Protest with the School Board's Purchasing Department. On November 14, 2011, Petitioner timely filed its Formal Bid Protest with the School Board's Purchasing Department and delivered the required bid protest bond. The School Board formed a Bid Protest Committee that met with Petitioner on December 19, 2011, to consider Petitioner's formal written protest in accordance with section 120.57(3)(d)(1) and School Board Policy 3320. The parties were unable to resolve the protest by mutual agreement and the School Board sent Petitioner a notice of non-resolution of dispute. Section 1 of the ITB precludes a bidder from withdrawing its bid within 90 days of its submission to the School Board. At the time of the formal hearing 106 days had passed since the submission of bids. No bidder, including Intervenor, has indicated that it committed an error in calculating its prices submitted under the ITB or asked the School Board to excuse it from the prices it offered under the ITB. To the contrary, Intervenor's counsel represented at the formal hearing that Intervenor was standing by its bid. Generally, compacted waste is heavier and more expensive to dispose of than non-compacted waste. The ITB identifies the number and size (in cubic yards) of the receptacles to be placed at each location and the number of pick-ups per weeks to occur for each receptacle. The ITB also informs the bidders whether a receptacle was compacted or non-compacted. If compacted the ITB set forth the ratio of compaction. Bidders were also asked to bid a monthly cost and any applicable fees charged by the facility receiving the waste to arrive at total monthly cost for each receptacle to be furnished. The bidders were required to provide a total monthly bid for the services and a total annual bid for the services. The bidders were to use the information set forth in the ITB to calculate their bids. Petitioner asserts that the bids submitted by Intervenor, All Service, and WSI were not responsible bids because those bids failed to factor in the higher costs of disposing of waste that had been compacted. Petitioner contends that the reference to compaction ratios constitute specifications by the School Board to require all bidders to calculate their pricing utilizing the compaction ratios. Petitioner describes the referenced compaction ratios as "multipliers" that needed to be used by the bidders in calculating their prices for handling and disposing of compacted waste. Petitioner is seeking to impose its interpretation of the ITB as requiring each of the bidders to calculate its bid using the same pricing methodology that Petitioner employed. There is no ambiguity in the ITB, and there is no factual basis to conclude that all bidders were required to prepare their bids in the same fashion as Petitioner. There is nothing set forth in the ITB that required the School Board to interpret its reference to the compaction ratios as being a specification of a "multiplier" for pricing as opposed to a description of the capacity of the receptacles to be used at each of the school locations. At no point is the word "multiplier" used in the ITB to specify that the bidders were required to engage in mathematics involving multiplying their prices against some unit price the bidders were specifying in their bids. The ITB specifies the frequency with which the varying container sizes needed to be picked up at each of the 58 schools with the weight or volume of the container not being a factor in setting the specification of how often the container is to be picked up by the awardee. No adjustments were to be made to the prices paid by the School Board based on the weight of the container when removed. The School Board did not specify in the ITB that a bidder was required to charge the same monthly cost at each school for a similarly-sized refuse container nor did the School Board require different pricing for compacted waste as compared to non-compacted waste. Petitioner's assertion that the bidders were required to use those ratios as a multiplier when bidding on the cost of disposing of compacted waste is rejected as being contrary to the plain language of the ITB. The compaction ratios were provided to the bidders as information only. There is no requirement that a bidder use a particular methodology in determining its bid amounts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Broward County Florida enter a Final Order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein, dismisses the protest filed by Petitioner Ace Waste Services LLC, and upholds the award of the procurement to Choice as primary awardee and to All Service as alternate awardee. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March 2012, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. S 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 20th day of March 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Health’s proposed award of Invitation to Bid No. DOH 04-191 to Lachat Instruments- Hach Co. is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Invitation to Bid for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Department issued ITB No. DOH 04-191 to solicit bids for the purchase of a Discrete Analyzer System (DAS) and a three-year service/maintenance agreement for the DAS. The DAS is a piece of laboratory equipment that is used primarily to analyze the chemical composition and level of nutrients in wastewater. Bids were submitted in response to the ITB by Systea, Lachat, and OI. The bids were opened and reviewed by the Department’s staff. The Department’s purchasing office reviewed the pricing information in the bids, and its laboratory staff reviewed the technical components of the bids. Lachat was determined, based upon that review, to be the low bidder and, therefore, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Lachat. Systea filed with the Department a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the award of the contract to Lachat. The sole basis of Systea’s protest is that the “grand total” line in Lachat’s bid was left blank and that the omission is not a minor irregularity that can be waived by the Department.2 The protest seeks to have Lachat’s bid “disqualified” based upon that omission. Special Condition 5.1 of the ITB required bidders to “submit all mandatory, technical, and pricing data in the formats specified in the Invitation to Bid.” Special Condition 6.16 stated that “[b]ids that do not meet the requirements specified in this Invitation to Bid will be considered non-responsive.” Similarly, paragraph 14 of the General Instructions to Bidders states that the “[f]ailure to comply with terms and conditions, including those specifying information that must be submitted with a response, shall be grounds for rejecting a response.” The pricing data referenced in Special Condition 5.1 was to be provided by the bidders on the Price Page, which is Attachment II of the ITB. The Price Page has space for the bidders to enter their “unit price” and the “total amount” for the DAS as well as space for the bidders to enter their annual price for the three- year service/maintenance agreement required by the ITB. The Price Page also has space for the bidders to enter their “grand total,” and it is undisputed that the “grand total” was to reflect the sum of the individual prices referenced in the preceding paragraph. Inclusion of the “grand total” on the Price Page is a mandatory requirement of the ITB because Special Condition 5.5 states that the Price Page “must be filled out as indicated” (emphasis supplied),3 and Special Condition 6.15 states that the contract is to be awarded to the bidder offering “the lowest grand total for the items being solicited.” Thus, the omission of the “grand total” on the Price Page of a bid renders the bid non-responsive unless the omission is waived by the Department. Special Condition 6.10 prohibits the Department from waiving “material deviations” in the bids that relate to the mandatory requirements of the ITB. That condition does not similarly prohibit the Department from waiving non-material deviations. Other provisions of the ITB expressly authorize the Department to waive non-material deviations. For example, Special Condition 6.16 reserves the Department’s right to waive “any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received,” and paragraph 15 of the General Instructions to Bidders reserves the Department’s right to waive “any minor irregularity, technicality, or omission.” (All emphases supplied). The Price Page in Lachat’s bid listed prices for the DAS and for each year of the required service/maintenance agreement, but the “grand total” line on the Price Page was left blank. Thus, Lachat’s bid was technically non-responsive. In addition to the Price Page, Lachat’s bid included a document titled “Proforma [sic] Price Quotation.” The Department staff did not consider the “Proforma” document in determining the responsiveness of Lachat’s bid or in tabulating the bid’s “grand total.” The document was ignored by Department staff because it was not something that was specifically required by the ITB. The prices listed on the “Proforma” document correspond to the prices itemized on the Price Page in Lachat’s bid. The document also makes reference to the one-year parts and labor warranty that is included in the price of the DAS (and required by Special Condition 4.6) as well as the components included in the annual price that Lachat bid on the Price Page for the service/maintenance agreement, which is referred to in the “Proforma” as a “field service partnership”. The components of the “field service partnership” listed in the “Proforma” -- i.e., “onsite, priority service, two preventative maintenance visits, and parts and labor” -- are materially the same as the required components of the service/maintenance agreement referenced in Special Condition 4.7. As part of its review of the bids, the Department staff tabulated a “grand total” for Lachat’s bid by adding the unit prices itemized on the Price Page of Lachat’s bid. The result of that tabulation was $46,548, which was lower than the “grand total” in the bids submitted by Systea and OI. The Department staff would have performed this calculation even if Lachat had filled-in an amount on the “grand total” line in order to verify the underlying calculations. Indeed, the Department staff also verified the calculations in Systea’s and OI’s bids, which each included an amount on the “grand total” line. Department staff confirmed the $46,548 figure with a representative of Lachat, as it is authorized to do under paragraph 14 of the General Instructions to Bidders. That paragraph provides that “[b]efore award, the [Department] reserves the right to seek clarifications . . . deemed necessary for proper evaluation of the submissions.” The amount entered on the “grand total” line on the Price Page of Systea’s bid is $49,995. That figure equals the sum of the unit prices itemized on the Price Page of Systea’s bid. The amount entered on the “grand total” line on the Price Page of IO’s bid is $52,427.50. That figure is inexplicably higher than the sum of the unit prices itemized on the Price Page of IO’s bid. The sum of the itemized prices is $49,747.50. The Department staff did not contact OI to seek clarification regarding this discrepancy because OI would not have been the lowest bidder even if the unit prices in its bid were correct. In posting the contract award, the Department listed OI as the third-lowest bidder based upon the “grand total” in its bid, rather than the second-lowest bidder based upon the Department’s tabulation of the itemized costs in the bid. The omission of the “grand total” on the Price Page of Lachat’s bid is a minor irregularity because the bid contained (on the Price Page) all of the figures necessary to calculate the “grand total,” and the tabulation of the “grand total” was a simple mathematical calculation that the Department would have made in any event to verify the accuracy of the "grand total" based upon the unit prices itemized on the Price Page. If Lachat’s bid was rejected based upon the omission of the “grand total” on the Price Page, there would be a negative fiscal impact on the Department of more than $3,000 because the bids of Systea and OI (as tabulated by the Department) were that much higher than Lachat’s bid. The legislative appropriation for the Department’s purchase of the DAS expires on June 30, 2005, and the Department will lose the appropriated funds unless it expends or encumbers the funds by 5:00 p.m. on that date. A purchase order must be issued to encumber the funds, and the purchase order must identify the entity that the funds will be paid to.
The Issue Whether the Florida A&M University's intended action to reject all bids and re-advertise the project to construct "Utilities Improvement-Central Chilled Water Plant, Phase V", known as BR-389, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Neel Mechanical Contracting, Inc., is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in Florida and licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Its business is air conditioning, and it specializes in larger projects such as the one at issue herein. Robert C. Sullivan is the President of Neel Mechanical. Thomas Gregory Lang is a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical and the chief estimator for Neel Mechanical; Mr. Lang is the person primarily responsible for preparing Neel Mechanical's bid proposal for Project BR-389. The Florida Board of Regents is a corporate body consisting of the Commissioner of Education and thirteen citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by three members of the Cabinet; it is subject to the general supervision and control of the Department of Education. Sections 240.203(2), 240.205, and 240.207(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a member of the State University System, is charged generally with overseeing the state universities, and has the authority to approve and execute contracts for "construction for use by a university when the contractual obligation exceeds $1 million." Sections 240.209 and 240.205(6), Florida Statutes (1999). 4/ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ("FAMU") is a public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, and is one of ten universities in Florida's State University System. Section 240.2011, Florida Statutes (1999). The university president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for its operation and administration. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Frederick S. Humphries was president of FAMU, and Samuel J. Houston was the Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. Mr. Houston has primary responsibility for supervising the bid process and the staff that prepared the bid documents and evaluated the bids for Project BR-389. Mr. Houston acts in this capacity on behalf of President Humphries and the Board of Regents. Mr. Houston also is ultimately responsible for the administration of Project BR-389. Bayou Mechanical, Inc. ("Bayou Mechanical") is a mechanical contractor which submitted a bid on Project BR-389. Call for Bids In Volume 25, Number 13, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, dated April 2, 1999, FAMU, on behalf of the Board of Regents, issued a Call for Bids on Project BR-389, which involves construction of a chilled water plant on the FAMU campus. The Call for Bids provided that all bidders must have a valid Florida license to do the work at the time of bid opening and a minimum of five years experience with similar projects. Project BR-389 involves a construction contract and is the fifth phase of the construction of an underground chilled water system on the FAMU campus. The project consists of constructing a portion of the system and connecting it to the existing system. The Call for Bids notified prospective bidders that sealed bids would be received at FAMU on May 4, 1999, until 2:00 p.m., after which time the bids would be opened and the bid tabulations posted. The Call for Bids further provided: "Bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual." The Call for Bids advised that these documents were available at the offices of the Architect/Engineer for the project, Bosek, Gibson & Associates, Inc. ("Bosek, Gibson"), in Tallahassee, Florida. In Addendum #2 to the Project Manual, dated April 30, 1999, the date for submission of bids was changed from May 4, 1999, to May 11, 1999. The Project Manual contains Instructions to Bidders, consisting of pages 6 of 106 through 22 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 23 of 106 through 106 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; Special Conditions of the Contract, consisting of pages I-1 through I-10 and dated October 16, 1989; Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996; Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5 and identified as the February 1999 Revision; Exhibit L, Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 2 through 16; and the Technical Specifications, which are separately identified and numbered. As noted in the Call for Bids, drawings are also included in the bid documents. Neel Mechanical, Bayou Mechanical, and Council Contracting submitted bids for Project BR-389 on May 11, 1999, the date on which the bids were opened and the price proposals were read. According to the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form that was posted from May 14 through 19, 1999, Neel Mechanical was the apparent low bidder on the base bid and on the two alternates 5/; Neel Mechanical's base bid and its bid on alternates were within FAMU's budget for the project. Bayou Mechanical submitted the second lowest bid on the base bid and the alternates; Bayou Mechanical was within the budget on the base bid but over budget on the alternates. No recommended award or intent to award was indicated on the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form. Shortly after the bids were opened, several issues were raised with respect to the bid process. First, the FAMU staff discovered that Neel Mechanical had failed to affix its corporate seal to the signature page of the bid Proposal Form and to the Bid Bond that was part of the bid submission. Second, York International Company ("York") sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, a letter advising FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid. This letter raised the third issue: Of the two manufacturers identified in the project specifications, York and The Trane Company ("Trane"), only Trane manufactured a chiller that could meet the project specifications. Fourth, Mark A. Daughtery, a project manager for Bayou Mechanical, sent a letter dated May 14, 1999, to Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson advising him that Bayou Mechanical intended to file a formal protest on Project BR-389 and identifying two issues of concern to Bayou Mechanical: Neel Mechanical's failure to affix its corporate seal to its bid submission and "the Chiller being sole sourced to Trane Company." Each of these issues is discussed in detail below. Corporate Seal The Instructions to Bidders contained in the Project Manual provide: B-16 Preparation and Submission of Bids Each Proposal shall be submitted on the form contained in the Project Manual and bid prices shall be indicated thereon in proper spaces, for the entire Work and for all Alternates. (See B-8) In the event of a discrepancy in the bid amount on the Proposal between the numeric and written quotes, the written amount will govern. Each Proposal must give the full business address of the Bidder and state whether it is an individual, corporation or partnership. Proposals by a corporation must be signed with the legal name and seal of the corporation followed by the name of the state of its incorporation and the manual signature and designation of an officer, agent or other person authorized to bind the corporation. (Emphasis added.) When it was submitted on May 11, 1999, Neel Mechanical's bid did not include the impression of its corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form signature page or on the Bid Bond submitted as part of the proposal. After the bid opening, an employee of Neel Mechanical received a telephone call from Henry Swift, FAMU's Project Manager for Project BR-389, in which he advised Neel Mechanical that its bid had not been sealed. This conversation was followed by a request from Mr. Swift, sent via facsimile transmittal to Neel Mechanical on May 13, 1999, requesting a "Letter of Clarification which confirms your status as a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, registered with the Secretary of State, etc. Finally, please be sure to sign and seal your letter with your corporate seal." A letter to Mr. Swift, dated May 14, 1999, was signed and sealed by Robert C. Sullivan, President of Neel Mechanical. The letter was received in FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction on May 19, 1999. Shortly after Mr. Sullivan sent the May 14, 1999, letter, Neel Mechanical received another telephone call from Mr. Swift in which he advised Neel Mechanical that the seal needed to be physically affixed to the bid Proposal Form. Peter Lang, a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical, had business in Tallahassee, so Mr. Sullivan asked that he take the seal to Mr. Swift's office and affix it to the bid Proposal Form. When Peter Lang arrived at Mr. Swift's office, someone brought out the file and gave him the bid Proposal Form, and he affixed Neel Mechanical's corporate seal to the signature page of the form. Neel Mechanical's corporate seal was not affixed to the Bid Bond, although the seal of the surety company was on the Bid Bond when the bid was submitted. The Bid Bond was part of Neel Mechanical’s bid submission. FAMU verified on May 13, 1999, that Neel Mechanical was authorized to do business in Florida and held the requisite Florida license to perform the work required by the project. Centrifugal chiller specifications and York's letter of "intent to protest" Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications included in the Project Manual contains the specifications for the Centrifugal Chillers - Water Cooled to be installed as part of Project BR-389. Those specifications provide in pertinent part: PART 2 - PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Available Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide centrifugal chillers from one of the following: Trane Co., The York Int'l. UNIT DESCRIPTION: * * * Refrigerant: Chiller shall be provided with low pressure refrigerant HCFC-123. The size of the chiller specified for Project BR-389 was 2200 tons. 6/ Lane Jackins is the owner of Applied Mechanical Equipment and is a manufacturer's representative for York. He reviewed the technical specifications for the chiller contained in Part II of Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications for Project BR-389 and determined that York could not furnish a chiller that met the specifications. York does not manufacture a chiller of 2200 tons that uses R123 refrigerant, although it uses R123 refrigerant in smaller machines up to 750 tons. The equipment manufactured by York in the 2,000-ton range uses R134A refrigerant, which operates at different pressures than R123. The York equipment using R134A refrigerant is of an entirely different design than that using R123 refrigerant. In addition, York does not manufacture a chiller with the voltage required by the project specifications. Three or four days before the bids were to be submitted, either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lang spoke with Mr. Jackins about York's providing Neel Mechanical with a price for the chiller. Mr. Jackins responded that York would not submit a price for the equipment because York did not manufacture a chiller that would meet the technical specifications included in the bid documents. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: B-12 Basis for Bidding - Trade Names For clarity of description and as a standard of comparison, certain equipment and materials have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base the Proposal on the particular systems, equipment or materials specified and approved substitutes as provided in Paragraph 3.19, Substitutes, of the General Conditions. After bids are received, no equipment or materials will be approved as a substitute for the specified product. Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions provides: Substitutions Substitutions for a specified system, product or material may be requested of the Architect/Engineer, and the Architect/Engineer's written approval must be issued as an addendum before substitutions will be allowed. All requests for substitutions must be submitted prior to the opening of bids, and approvals shall be granted no less than seven (7) days prior to the bid date. Substitutions requested after that date will receive no consideration. Substitutions are changes in materials, equipment, methods, or sequences of construction, design, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, air conditioning controls, or other requirements of the Drawings or Specifications. (Emphasis in original.) In the portion dealing with "SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS," Section 15010 of the Technical Requirements, "MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS," provides as follows: By submitting a bid for equipment or material other than the "Design Basis Equipment" (i.e., that which is shown on the Contract Drawings), the Contractor: Represents that he has personally investigated the proposed substitute product and determined that it is equal or superior in all respects to that specified and complies with all the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions; Certifies that the cost data presented is complete and includes all related costs under this Contract but excludes costs under separate contracts, and excludes the Engineer's redesign costs, and waives all claims for additional costs related to the substitution which subsequently become apparent; Will coordinate the installation of the accepted substitute, making such changes as may be required for the work to be complete in all respects; and, Certifies that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the Contract Documents. Neither York nor any prospective bidder on Project BR-389 requested within the time limits specified in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions that a York product be substituted for the chiller specified for Project BR-389. Mr. Lang contacted Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson a day or two before bids were to be submitted and told Mr. Allen that York was not able to provide a chiller that met the project specifications. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen responded that he "was totally surprised that they [York] didn't have a machine that was going to meet this spec." 7/ Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on pricing information it received from Trane, which manufactures a chiller that meets the project specifications. An additional reason Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on the Trane equipment was his belief that, all things being equal, FAMU preferred to have Trane equipment installed in Project BR-389 because other chillers installed at FAMU were manufactured by Trane. Mr. Lang believed that the specifications for the chiller had been deliberately drawn to require use of Trane equipment. In a letter dated May 11, 1999, the day the bids for Project BR-389 were submitted and opened, Mr. Jackins notified FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid on Project BR-389. Mr. Jackins stated in the letter: The chiller as specified is a flat specification. There is only one manufacturer that will meet the criteria as spelled out in the contract documents. This is not in the best interest of the University System of Florida or the State of Florida. An official protest outlining all the proprietary items will be forthcoming. The letter was sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, prior to the time the bids were opened. Mr. Jackins believed that the "flat specification" was not in the best interest of the university because it precluded competitive pricing for the chiller. Mr. Sullivan learned on May 11 or May 12, 1999, that York intended to file a bid protest. Believing that Neel Mechanical would be awarded the contract as the apparent low bidder, Mr. Sullivan met with Mr. Jackins and several employees of Neel Mechanical, including Greg Lang, at which time Mr. Sullivan proposed an alternative to York's filing a bid protest. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Jackins that, in his opinion, the situation could best be handled through a meeting between Neel Mechanical, Mr. Jackins, Mr. Houston, and the project engineers. According to Mr. Sullivan's plan, Mr. Jackins could present York's pricing, and FAMU, with the engineers’ assistance, could decide if they wanted to switch from the equipment specified in the bid documents to York equipment. If FAMU agreed to accept the York equipment, then, if it were awarded the contract, Neel Mechanical would purchase the York equipment rather than the Trane equipment Neel Mechanical had included in its proposal. After some discussion, Mr. Jackins agreed with Mr. Sullivan's proposed solution. Post-bid activity from the perspective of Neel Mechanical Immediately after the bids were opened, Craig Allen, an employee of Bosek, Gibson telephoned Mr. Lang and asked if Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen stated that "this is a standard practice of mine on bid day to call the apparent low bidder and just make sure that they haven't found some colossal error in their math or whatever that made them low." 8/ Mr. Lang told Mr. Allen that Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. After this conversation, Mr. Lang waited for the letter from FAMU awarding the contract to Neel Mechanical. He was not concerned that the award was not made immediately because, in his experience, some time always passed between bid opening and the time the winning bidder received the contract. However, in anticipation of the award of the contract, Neel Mechanical proceeded to talk with subcontractors, to start scheduling the project, and to line up equipment that it would need to purchase for work on the project. Neel Mechanical employees also made several visits to the site of the project. At some point after the bids were opened, Mr. Sullivan heard that the procurement officials at FAMU were discussing with FAMU's legal department the issues of Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal to its bid and the ramifications of York’s threatened bid protest. Mr. Sullivan responded by telephoning the office of FAMU's general counsel. He spoke with Faye Boyce about these issues and told her that he considered his failure to affix the corporate seal to Neel Mechanical's bid to be insignificant. He also advised her that he had worked out an arrangement with the representative of York whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would talk with the engineers about the York chiller so a decision could be made whether they wanted to use the York equipment or stay with the Trane equipment which met the project specifications. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Boyce, Mr. Sullivan received the impression that she had looked into the issues he had raised in their previous telephone conversation. Mr. Sullivan could not recall Ms. Boyce's exact words, but had the impression from their conversation that the contract award to Neel Mechanical had been approved and that confirmation would be sent out shortly. At some point after Mr. Sullivan's conversation with Ms. Boyce, Greg Lang telephoned Henry Swift to find out the status of the contract award. Mr. Swift told Mr. Lang that, in Mr. Lang's words, "the problem had been reviewed and found to be insignificant, and . . . that the letter of intent to award had already been made." 9/ According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift told him that FAMU would notify the bidders of the intent to award the contract to Neel Mechanical. On the basis of this conversation, Mr. Lang believed that Neel Mechanical would receive a letter "just any day." When Neel Mechanical did not receive a letter, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Swift again. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift stated that he did not know why the matter was being held up. After this second conversation with Mr. Swift, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Houston several times but did not receive a return call. Mr. Lang then wrote a letter to Mr. Houston, dated July 9, 1999, in which he inquired about the status of the contract award: It has now been almost two months since you received bids for this project, and as the low bidder we have still not received notification of your intent to award. We have had several telephone conversations with the attorney representing the regents in this matter, and we were lead [sic] to believe that we would have received information before this time. Please review this matter and call us. If there are outstanding issues which concern you, we would like to know about them and work with you to get them resolved. Post-bid activity from the perspective of FAMU Mr. Houston and members of his staff considered the omission of the corporate seal to be a minor deficiency in Neel Mechanical's bid proposal. Nonetheless, even though Neel Mechanical had been allowed to seal the bid Proposal Form, Mr. Houston asked FAMU's Office of General Counsel to conduct research and determine if the deficiency was one that could be waived. Mr. Houston was not involved in drawing up the technical specifications for Project BR-389; rather, he relied on the project engineers to be familiar with the products to be used in the project. Mr. Houston advised the project engineers that he wanted a competitive bid, and, because the chiller was a major component of the project, he instructed the engineers to prepare specifications that could be met by equipment produced by at least two manufacturers. In a letter dated May 18, 1999, Craig Allen, the engineer at Bosek, Gibson who prepared the specifications for Project BR-389, notified Mr. Houston that he was not aware until the "notice of protest" was received from York that York could not provide a chiller of the required capacity which used R123 refrigerant. Mr. Allen advised Mr. Houston that Mr. Jackins, the York representative, had indicated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Allen to discuss York's chiller selections for the project. A recommendation that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical was signed on June 8, 1999, by Phyllis Nottage, the Assistant Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction; on June 10, 1999, by Mr. Houston; on June 14, 1999, by Louis Murray, an Associate Vice President of FAMU; and on June 14, 1999, by Robert Carroll, a Vice President of FAMU with supervisory authority over the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. The recommendation was contained in a document entitled "Award of Construction Contract," which provided as follows: On May 11, 1999, bids were received for the above-referenced project within the approved budget for the Base Bid and Alternates One (1) through (2), in the total amount of $3,996,400. The requirements for the Minority Business Enterprise Plan as set forth in the project specifications have been satisfied by the Contractor. The consulting Architect/Engineer and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office recommend the award of this contract to Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. President Humphries signed the Award of Construction Contract on June 17, 1999. The preparation and signing of the Award of Contract form and the preparation of the Letter of Intended Decision were part of the bid review process, but Mr. Houston considered them preliminary, without effect until the final decision on the contract award was made and the bidders were formally advised of FAMU's intended decision with respect to the award of the contract. On June 21, 1999, Mr. Houston received a telephone call from Kenneth Ogletree, Director of the Board of Regents’ Office of Facilities Planning, 10/ in which Mr. Houston was advised that the Board of Regents had received an inquiry from a legislator in reference to Project BR-389 and requesting that Mr. Houston prepare a response to the legislator's inquiry. Mr. Ogletree sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Carey Huff, President of Bayou Mechanical, to Durell Peaden, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and a State Representative from District In the letter, Mr. Huff complained that Neel Mechanical, although apparent low bidder for Project BR-389, had failed to seal the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond and that, therefore, Neel Mechanical's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Carey requested that Representative Peaden contact FAMU so that Bayou Mechanical would be awarded the contract for the project as lowest responsive bidder. Mr. Carey stated in his May 28, 1999, letter to Representative Peaden that the college had refused to allow Bayou Mechanical to examine Neel Mechanical's bid but that Mr. Houston had informed them that Neel Mechanical had failed to seal its bid properly. 11/ Mr. Ogletree also sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter from Representative Peaden to Dr. Adam W. Herbert, Chancellor of the State University System. In his letter, Representative Peaden asked that Dr. Herbert look into the matter and "see that all equity was followed in the bid process." In response to the Board of Regents' request that he respond to Representative Peaden's inquiry, Mr. Houston prepared a letter dated June 22, 1999. In this letter, which was directed to Mr. Ogletree, Mr. Houston stated that FAMU wished to award the contract for Project BR-389 to Neel Mechanical as the low bidder on the project. Mr. Houston stated that FAMU considered Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond to be a minor discrepancy. Mr. Houston further stated that FAMU's Office of General Counsel agreed with the conclusion regarding the corporate seal issue and recommended that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical. Finally, Mr. Houston advised Mr. Ogletree that President Humphries had signed the "Award of Construction Contract" form and that Mr. Houston's office was preparing "Letters of Intended Decision" to be sent to the bidders. The final decision on the contract award had not been made on June 10, 1999, when Mr. Houston signed the recommendation that the contract for Project BR-389 be awarded to Neel Mechanical, nor had it been made on June 22, 1999, when Mr. Houston wrote his letter to Mr. Ogletree. Rather, on June 22, 1999, the issues raised with respect to the bid process for Project BR-389 were still being reviewed by Mr. Houston and his staff and by FAMU's Office of General Counsel. The decision to reject all bids on Project BR-389 was made on June 24, 1999. On that date, Mr. Houston met with Vice President Murray, FAMU's attorney, and the Assistant Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction, and the issues relating to the bidding process for Project BR-389 were reviewed. Mr. Houston identified these issues as Neel Mechanical's failure to seal its bid Proposal Form and its Bid Bond; potential protests from York and from Bayou Mechanical; and the problem relating to the technical specifications for the chiller. Of these issues, Mr. Houston considered the most serious the fact that, of the two manufacturers listed in the bid specifications, only Trane could provide the chiller for Project BR-389. The chiller was a major part of the project, and Mr. Houston wanted at least two sources for the chiller in order to encourage competition so that FAMU would get the lowest possible price for the project. Mr. Houston was also concerned that the specifications for the chiller created a de facto "sole source" bid and that the bid solicitation would, therefore, be illegal because FAMU didn't satisfy the statutory requirements necessary for it to specify that the chiller be purchased from a sole source. 12/ FAMU's attorney advised the participants at the June 24, 1999, meeting that the legal department had found no precedent within the State University System for waiving the requirement in the bid documents that the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond be sealed with the bidder's corporate seal. The participants at the meeting considered all of the outstanding issues and decided that it would be in the best interests of FAMU to reject all bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. After the decision to reject all bids was made, Mr. Houston marked an "X" through the Award of Construction Contract form signed by President Humphries, and he prepared letters notifying the bidders of the intent to reject all bids for Project BR-389. Neel Mechanical's bid protest In a letter to Neel Mechanical dated July 6, 1999, Mr. Houston stated: Bids on the above referenced project were opened May 11, 1999. However, we regret to inform you that all Bids have been rejected as in the best interest of the University. This project is presently being re-advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University apologizes for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We trust that you will cooperate with our course of action and look forward to receiving a proposal from you at the next opening. Thanks for your continued interest in the State University System's Construction Program. The envelope containing Mr. Houston's July 6, 1999, letter was post-marked July 9, 1999, and the letter was received by Neel Mechanical on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: Rejection of Bids The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the Owner such rejection is in the best interest of the Owner. Paragraph B-1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides that the Board of Regents is the owner of the project. On July 13, 1999, after Neel Mechanical received the letter from Mr. Houston notifying it that all bids on Project BR- 389 had been rejected, Mr. Sullivan and Greg Lang went to Mr. Houston's office to urge him to rescind the decision and award the contract to Neel Mechanical. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Houston that they felt that the issue regarding the corporate seal was insignificant. At this time, Mr. Sullivan also told Mr. Houston that he and York had reached an agreement whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would present the York product to the University and let the University decide if it wanted to go with the Trane chiller or switch to a York product. Mr. Sullivan thought that Mr. Houston was sympathetic to Neel Mechanical but that the decision had been made by the administration and the legal department. Mr. Sullivan also got the impression that the decision to reject all bids was based on the corporate seal issue. On July 13, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Notice of Intent to Protest Bid to Samuel J. Houston, Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction at Florida A&M University and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. There is no dispute that the Notice of Intent to Protest Bid was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 13, 1999. On July 23, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings to Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. Also on July 23, 1999, a copy of the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was sent by United States Mail to the Board of Regents, Office of General Counsel, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1454, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950. There is no dispute that the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 23, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual dated October 16, 1989, provide: Bid Protest To be considered, a bid protest must be received by the Director, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1601 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, as provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Failure to file a notice of protest in this manner shall constitute a waiver of the Bidder's right to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. * * * B-26 Special Conditions Bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. (Emphasis added.) Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996, provides in pertinent part: (This supplement revises portions of the Project Manual for State University System projects dated October 16, 1989, and supersedes any other previously issued supplements related to the referenced topics.) Revise the Instructions to Bidders Section of the Project Manual as Follows: * * * Revise Paragraph B-22, Bid Protest, to read as follows: B-22 Bid Protest Any person who is affected adversely by the Board of Regents decision or intended decision shall file with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and State legal holidays, after receipt of the bidding documents if the protest is directed toward the bidding conditions or after the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision on contract award or bid rejection if the protest is directed toward contract award or bid rejection. Thereafter, a formal written protest by petition in compliance with Section 120.53(5), and Section 120.57, F.S., must be filed with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, within ten (10) days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Failure to file a timely notice of protest of [sic] failure to file a timely formal written protest petition shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. Any protest filed prior to receipt of the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision will be considered abandoned unless renewed within the time limit provided for protests. (Emphasis added.) Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5, provides in pertinent part: SUPPLEMENT TO PROJECT MANUAL ISSUED BY FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING PARAGRAPH B-26, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (February 1999 Revision) B-26 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - This supplement modifies paragraph B-26 by adding and clarifying bidding requirements and instructions. * * * PROTEST PROCEDURES: This paragraph supersedes the paragraph (No. B-22) under the general terms and conditions whereby the notice of intended protests or written formal protests including bonding requirements from bidders must be submitted to: Mr. Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, FL 32307. A bid tabulation with the recommended award(s) will be posted at the address indicated in Paragraph B-26, sub- paragraph 6 (Posting of Bid Tabulation). Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the award or intended award which is filed before the bid tabulation posting is null and void. To be considered, a notice of protest or formal written protest must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the specifications issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to any amendment issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added.) The instructions regarding the filing of bid protests in Supplement K supersede the instructions in Supplement J, which is dated February 13, 1996, and in the Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual, which are dated October 16, 1989. Summary The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is sufficient to establish that it timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings by hand-delivering the documents to Mr. Houston, at his office on the FAMU campus. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that FAMU acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in deciding that it was in the best interest of FAMU to reject all of the bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. First, FAMU's concerns that, by inadvertently including a technical specification that could be met by only one manufacturer, it had limited competition with respect to the chiller to be used in Project BR-389 and had inadvertently put out an illegal "sole source" specification were legitimate concerns. Mr. Houston instructed the engineer who prepared the technical specifications that he wanted the specifications drawn so that at least two manufacturers could provide the product, and the engineer prepared specifications relating to the "available manufacturers" which clearly contemplated that a chiller meeting the technical specifications could be provided by both York and Trane. FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered as one factor underlying the decision to reject all bids the lack of precedent in the State University System for waiving the requirement that the bid Proposal Form and Bid Bond carry the corporate seal of a corporate bidder. The evidence submitted by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the corporate seal issue was ultimately the only or even the major factor on which FAMU's decision to reject all bids was based. Mr. Houston identified the possibility that bid protests would be filed by York and by Bayou Mechanical as factors which FAMU considered in deciding to reject all bids. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as a whole permits the inference that the focus of the concern about the potential bid protests was not on avoiding the protests but on the validity of the issues raised by York and Bayou Mechanical. Accordingly, FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered these potential bid protests as one factor contributing to the decision to reject all bids. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish that the "Award of Contract" form executed by President Humphries on June 17, 1999, or Mr. Houston’s June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Ogletree bound FAMU to award the contract to Neel Mechanical or that the subsequent decision to reject all bids defeated the purpose of the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and denying Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 12th day of November, 1999.
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a public contract, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact The Request for Proposals In the fall of 2002, the Board issued Request for Proposals No. 026-CC10 (the “RFP”) to solicit offers on a contract for internet-based collaborative construction and claims reduction support services. As stated in Section II at page 1, the purpose of the RFP was [t]o commission one or more firms to provide the Board with internet-based collaborative construction and claims reduction support services. It is intended that this technology be gradually phased into the construction program as new projects from the District’s Capital Construction Five- year Work Plan come online. Miami-Dade County Public Schools is the fourth largest public school system in the nation and has a large-scale on-going capital construction program. The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the RFP was November 26, 2002. Section V of the RFP, which was titled “Required Information to be Submitted by Proposers,” prefaced a list of ten specific items with the instruction that “[a]ll proposals shall contain the following information and shall be presented in the following format[.]” There is no dispute that material compliance with Section V was mandatory and that proposals could be——and in fact were——disqualified from consideration for failure to include all of the required information. Section VI of the RFP set forth the scope of work. It provided, in pertinent part: The proposer(s) shall provide Internet collaborative construction and claims reduction support services for use in connection with the [Board]’s capital construction program which should include but not be limited to, the following: The proposer should provide an off- the-shelf application product and application service provider services on a purely web-based system. Users will access and interface with the application via the internet using Internet ExplorerTM browser software running on computer workstations under typical WindowsTM operating system. Users should not have to purchase or have installed on their workstations any other applications in order to use the application service provider's application. The application service provider should host all applications and data and own and/or own the lease to their facility as well as all hardware and software. The application should include but not limited to the following: * * * 9. Custom web site documents folders and subfolders creation and organization and the ability to submit multiple documents or files (select, drag and drop) to the project web site electronically from authorized computer workstations. Project folders should be capable of storing, including but not limited to, all plans, drawings, specifications, contracts, general conditions, surveys, geo-technical photographs, reports and other documents typically encountered in a multiple-large- project construction program. * * * 11. Ability to submit documents to specific web site documents folders or attach them to specific forms using facsimile machines to allow non-computer users to interface with the system. Ability to electronically print documents directly to web site documents folders from other WindowsTM applications. Ability to download documents from the project site and to resubmit them as new versions with all original maintained and accessible. * * * C. Furnish and install a zoom/tilt/pan web-camera and connect to a high speed Internet connection at each construction site. Proposers should provide web camera server equipment and ISP services necessary to support web camera functions such as automatic multiple daily view picture taking, picture archival and retrieval and time lapse playback of pictures. Section VII of the RFP, which prescribed various “submittal requirements,” stated in relevant part: Proposers shall indicate in their submittal, the capabilities of their system regarding the above scope of work, as well as the following: Initial set-up process, list Licenses requirements, state the software and hardware requirements for M-DCPS in order to use the web-based system (i.e. browser plug- ins, operating systems, etc). * * * E. Describe the training program to train M-DCPS in use of the web-based system, on site, number of classes, number of students and hours of training proposed. * * * Describe travel distance from technical support to M-DCPS. Provide technical support in person at M-DCPS when required. The Evaluation On December 9, 2002, a group of individuals who had been appointed to serve on a committee (the “Evaluation Committee”) whose task was to make a recommendation to the Board as to whom should be awarded the contract met to review the six proposals that were timely submitted in response to the RFP. The Evaluation Committee unanimously agreed that the proposals submitted by E-Builder, Constructware, and another vendor were responsive to the requirements of Sections V, VI, and VII; the other proposers were eliminated from further consideration. The Evaluation Committee decided to invite the three remaining contenders to make presentations to the Evaluation Committee at a later date. The Evaluation Committee met again on December 16, 2002. At that time, the three proposers still in the competition were allowed one hour apiece to demonstrate, explain, and answer questions about their respective solutions. After the presentations, the Evaluation Committee voted for the proposal which best met the needs of the District. When the votes were tallied, Constructware was the winner, with E-Builder in second place. Accordingly, the Evaluation Committee agreed to recommend that the contract be awarded to Constructware. Relevant Details About Constructware’s Proposal Because the instant protest is based largely on E- Builder’s contention that Constructware’s proposal was materially nonresponsive to several provisions in Sections VI and VII of the RFP, the following is a brief look at the relevant aspects of Constructware’s response to the RFP. In its proposal, Constructware addressed the items contained in Section VI by interlining specific responses within the relevant language of the RFP, which language was reproduced in its entirety. For present purposes, given the reasons for the recommended disposition that follows, it is not necessary to quote Constructware’s responses to Section VI, which are included in the evidentiary record in any event. Suffice it to say that Constructware’s proposal was complete in the sense that for each item listed in Section VI, Constructware provided a response, offered a solution, or explained what it could do if awarded the contract. Turning to Section VII, Constructware’s proposal stated in pertinent part as follows: [With reference to Section VII.A.,] Constructware is a true [Application Service Provider] requiring only a web-browser and a connection to the Internet. The System can function on a 56K connection, but faster bandwidth is recommended for maximum performance. * * * [With reference to Section VII.E.,] Constructware has established a team of individuals specifically geared to train and implement the application to M-DCPS’ unique needs. The Solution Group is made up of professional Implementation Managers and Certified Constructware Trainers. In most cases, the Implementation Manager will meet with your executive team to understand the scope of the program / project(s) and the desired goal of using the application. With this information and direct feedback from your team, the Implementation Manager will develop a scope document to help guide the team through this rollout. This information will be shared with the Certified Constructware Trainers to develop a custom training plan to meet your goals. Throughout the rollout, the Implementation Managers will stay in contact with your executive team to provide status and update the rollout plan as the project progresses. The following is a list of the standard training and implementation options available: Private Training – ½ day to 5 day per student depending on the amount of the product utilized and the type of user trained. Class sizes for private training are limited to 12 students. Train the Trainer – 5 day course designed to train in-house individuals to act as your personal certified trainer. Public Training – 3-day course in our Atlanta Headquarters covering the majority of the modules available. Implementation Services Orientation – Offered as part of the initial database setup, this orientation would assist your Constructware Supervisor on how to get started with the system. This orientation is done remotely utilizing Webex technology. * * * [With reference to Section VII.G.,] [b]ecause Constructware is an Internet-based application, technical support staffs have not been required to travel to a client’s site to resolve issues. Constructware utilizes the Webex technology to review user browser settings in the event a user has any problems accessing the product. Clients wanting a true web-based system should exercise caution dealing with vendors offering on site technical support. This is a prime indicator of workstation setups and additional software loads not required on true web-based solutions. Constructware’s Solutions Group offers consultant visits to ensure proper connectivity and browser settings in the event clients lack the technical staff that would normally handle these procedures. Constructware is headquartered near Atlanta, Georgia. All support staff and consultants are based in this office, but are accustom [sic] to traveling to client sites throughout the nation when required. E-Builder’s Protest By letter dated December 18, 2002, E-Builder was told that it would not be awarded the contract. The letter, however, did not notify E-Builder, as it should have pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes, that failure to file a formal protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3) would constitute a waiver of proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). To better understand what happened next, it is useful to know that the RFP, at page iii, set up an informal protest procedure as a nonexlusive alternative to formal administrative proceedings under the APA. According to this informal procedure, [p]roposers may file letters of protest no later than 48 hours prior to the Board Meeting for which the award is scheduled to be made. These letters of protest will be reviewed by Staff. Staff will offer the protesting proposer the opportunity for a meeting to discuss the protest. If the proposer is not satisfied with the response to the protest, he/she may request to address the School Board. On January 13, 2003, E-Builder submitted an “Official Letter of Protest” that was timely under the above quoted provisions because the Board was scheduled to make the award at its meeting on January 15, 2003. As a result of E-Builder’s informal protest, the item relating to the contract in question was removed from the Board’s agenda for January 15. By letter dated February 10, 2003, E-Builder was informed that the Board’s staff had decided that the informal protest was without merit and that E-Builder had “failed to demonstrate violation of any established procedures or misconduct on the part of the evaluation committee.” E-Builder was further notified that it could “request to address the school board [at its next meeting on February 12, 2003, when the award was expected to be made], or invoke the provisions of § 120.569 Florida Statutes.” On February 12, 2003, within 72 hours after receiving the letter just discussed, E-Builder delivered to the Board a letter styled “Supplement to Official Letter of Protest.” In this supplemental protest letter, E-Builder reiterated its desire to protest the intended award and expressed its intent to address the Board later that day. While there is room for debate, the undersigned finds and concludes that E-Builder’s correspondence of February 12, 2003, constituted a “notice of protest” which was effective to commence the formal bid protest process pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. At its meeting on February 12, 2003, the Board heard from E-Builder concerning the pending protest, and following that the recommendation to award Constructware the contract was tabled. (As of the date of the final hearing, the Board had taken no further action toward awarding the contract.) On February 20, 2003, E-Builder filed with the Board a “Petition of Committee Recommendation Regarding Request for Proposal No.: 026-CC10 and for Formal Administrative Hearing.” The undersigned finds and concludes that this petition constituted a timely filed “formal written protest” as that term is used in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; as such, the February 20, 2003, petition is the operative pleading in this case. As bases for relief, E-Builder asserted in its petition, among other things, that Constructware’s proposal was materially nonresponsive for failure to comply with several of the RFP’s allegedly mandatory requirements. E-Builder also alleged that the Evaluation Committee had failed to take into account total annual cost when weighing the merits of the respective proposals.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order declaring E-Builder’s protest to be without substantial merit and authorizing the award of the subject contract to Constructware. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 10th day of October, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent's award for RFP 09-36 is contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the terms of the Request for Proposal.
Findings Of Fact UNF published its Request for Proposal in reference to RFP 09-36, entitled "Pest Control Services at UNF Campus" (hereafter, "Project") with a March 10, 2009, Mandatory Pre-Bid Date and a March 30, 2009, Opening Date. (Joint Stipulation 1.) There was one addendum to the RFP 09-36 Project. (Joint Stipulation 2.) Petitioner Turner Pest Control and Terminix submitted proposals in response to the RFP 09-36 Project. (Joint Stipulation 3.) There were seven other responsive proposers besides Terminix and Petitioner. Addendum No. 1, RFP 09-36 Section 6, included a heading in bold font, entitled "Rating Criteria." The third criterion, which for scoring purposes was assigned a maximum of 20 points, reads as follows: Provide the names and contact information to at least three (3) references to support past performance of a similar size University and/or commercial type business. Paragraph 8, of the RFP provided: For the purpose of this project, Doug Nelson, or his/her duly appointed successor or assigned representative, shall be authorized Contract Administrator . . . It shall be the Contract Administrator's responsibility to supervise the receipt and handling of proposals, to respond to all inquiries relating to the proposal or submittal procedures, to coordinate and provide required support information necessary for committee review and evaluation of proposals received and to be responsible for all contractual matters. . . . UNF Contract Administrator, Doug Nelson, drafted Section 6, of the RFP and facilitated the meeting of the full evaluation committee, which analyzed the responsive proposals. In his opinion, Section 6, only required the submission of three suitable references; it permitted the committee to accept the three names and contact information at face value; and it did not presume that letters of reference from those named must be attached to the proposal, although it was acceptable to attach them. Also in Mr. Nelson’s opinion, the foregoing language of the RFP did not contemplate that the evaluation committee must contact or otherwise verify the references provided. The evaluation committee was carefully selected and qualified. The committee was provided a matrix that contained evaluation criteria and identified the number of points that could be assigned to each proposer for each criterion. On the evaluation matrix, one column heading reads "Three (3) References and Past Performance," in the conjunctive. (Emphasis supplied.) On April 7, 2009, the evaluation committee met to review all responsive proposals received pursuant to RFP 09-36. (Joint Stipulation 4, modified for detail.) What the committee did with regard to scoring references could be characterized as first separately rating proposers on their references and secondly, separately rating proposers on their past performance. Utilizing the evaluation matrix provided, the committee assigned a total of 12 points to Terminix and a total of 20 points to Petitioner for their respective references. The evaluation committee allocated 10 points to Petitioner and 10 points to Terminix simply because each had submitted three references and contact information. Terminix did not submit a testimonial letter from a reference and did not have a history with committee members, so Terminix was awarded only two more points, beyond the first 10 points, for a total score of 12, on “references.” Two other proposers received a total of 20 points for their references because they had submitted three names with contact information which evaluators considered "strong" references; because the proposer had a history familiar to members of the committee; or because the proposer submitted actual testimonial letters from one or more of the proposer’s listed references. The committee added 10 more points to Petitioner's score for references (totaling the entire 20 points available for that category) because of committee members' personal knowledge of Petitioner's past quality performance at UNF, even though Petitioner had not submitted UNF as a reference with contact information as part of its proposal. The ultimate result was that the evaluation committee rated Terminix only two points out of a possible 10 points due to Terminix’s lack of direct experience with UNF, and some other proposers were rated lower than Petitioner for similar reasons. On some prior UNF RFPs and ITBs, evaluation committees have gone behind the face value of references and on some they have not. On this occasion, the committee was not told either to rate references as they did or to calculate differently in rating the references provided by respective proposers. Petitioner was the highest-ranked proposer overall. Terminix was the second highest-ranked proposer overall. The parties have stipulated that, "The University of North Florida awarded RFP 09-36 Project to Turner Pest Control on April 9, 2009." (Joint Stipulation 5; emphasis supplied.) UNF's April 9, 2009, letter to all proposers read, in pertinent part: Please be advised that on Thursday April 9, 2009, the University of North Florida awarded Request for Proposal 09-36 "Pest Control Services at UNF" to Turner Pest Control. The University of North Florida is providing notice to all respondents [proposers] by copy of this letter and is required to include in this notice the following statement: Failure to file a protest in accordance with UNF Regulation 13.0020R, or failure to post the bond or other security as required in UNF Regulation 13.0030R, shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. (Bracketed material provided for clarity; emphasis supplied.) Paragraph 12 of the RFP provided: Any qualified offeror who is adversely affected by the University's decision may file a written notice of intent to protest within 72 hours after the University posting of the award of intent to award notice. The protesting firm must reduce its complaint to written petition and file it with the President of the University within ten (10) calendar days from registration of the original complaint. If the competitive solicitation documents require the posting of a bond with the protest, the bond shall be included with the protest. A Bond, payable to the University of North Florida, in an amount equal to: 10% of the estimated value of the protestor's proposal; 10% of the estimate of the University's estimate of the total volume of the contract, or $10,000, whichever is less. The bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs which may be adjudged against the vendor. Failure to file a notice of protest or the written petition, including posting of the required protest bond shall constitute a waiver of the right to protest proceedings. Upon receipt of the formal written petition filed in accordance with this regulation, the President or the President’s designee shall delay the execution of the contract until the protest is resolved by mutual agreement between the parties or by final presidential action . . . (Emphasis supplied.) On April 10, 2009, Terminix filed a Notice of Intent to Protest award of RFP 09-36 to Petitioner. (Joint Stipulation 6.) It was filed with Doug Nelson within 72 hours of UNF's April 9, 2009, letter. It was not inappropriate or non- compliant because only the written protest is required to be filed with the University President. The thrust of Terminix's April 10, 2009, notice of intent to protest was that Terminix had submitted a proposal for a lower total cost of doing the work than had Petitioner. After receiving Terminix's Notice of Intent to protest, Kathy G. Ritter, UNF's Director of Purchasing and Mr. Nelson's superior, reviewed the file. After her review, she notified UNF's General Counsel's Office (OCG) that she wanted to rescind the award to Petitioner due to an error. At that time, her concerns were based on the RFP language seeking three references for an analysis of past performance and the matrix used by the evaluation committee and also the committee’s deliberations which had separated the scoring of three references from the scoring of past performance Ms. Ritter felt the RFP criteria required the evaluators to check up on all references provided in each proposal and they had not done so. She also was not satisfied that the evaluation committee had fully considered pricing issues. Paragraph 10 of the RFP provided: No interpretation of the meaning of any part of this RFP, nor corrections of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error herein, will be made to any Proposer orally. All requests for written interpretation or corrections MUST be in writing. Paragraph 15 of the RFP provided: In the event that any of the provisions of the contract are violated by the successful vendor(s), the University may serve written notice upon vendor(s) of its intention to terminate the contract. Paragraph 16 of the RFP provides: . . . the University may terminate this RFP process at any time up to notice of award, without prior notice, and without liability of any kind or amount. (Emphasis supplied.) Nonetheless, Ms. Ritter felt her only option was to rescind the award or throw out all responses and re-bid the proposal. Because she believed the flaw in scoring was limited to the references, which flaw could be corrected, and possibly the pricing, she elected to "re-do" a portion of the evaluation and notified the evaluation committee accordingly. She considered rescission and topical reconsideration to be within the authority of her position. However, Ms. Ritter referred to no specific "authority" (rule, regulation, RFP, or statute) by which she could "rescind" a notice of award or part thereof, and she did not rescind the award until after a written formal protest was filed. See infra. Terminix made an oral request to Ms. Ritter for an extension of time to file a written protest. On or about April 15, 2009 (six calendar days after Terminix’s notice of intent to protest), Ms. Ritter orally granted Terminix until April 24, 2009, to file its formal protest. April 24, 2009, was 14 days from UNF's receipt of Terminix's notice of intent to protest. Terminix never submitted a written request for extension and ever received a written extension, but it relied upon Ms. Ritter’s oral extension. In a letter dated April 20, 2009, and received by UNF on April 23, 2009, Terminix filed a written formal protest, challenging the award of RFP 09-36, to Petitioner, Turner Pest Control. (Joint Stipulation 7, amplified for detail.) The thrust of Terminix's formal petition was that UNF had failed to contact the references provided by each bidder and that UNF had failed to properly evaluate Terminix's proposed costs. With its written formal protest filed appropriately with UNF's President, Terminix submitted a protest bond that was less than that required by the RFP and by University Regulation No. 13.0030R(II)(3), which provides: Solicitation Protest Bond. Any entity filing an action protesting a decision or intended decision pertaining to a competitive solicitation shall, at the time of filing of the formal protest, post with the University a bond payable to the University in an amount equal to the lesser of the following: 10% of the estimated value of the protestor's bid or proposal; 10% of the estimated expenditure during the contract term or $10,000. The bond shall be conditioned upon the payment of all costs, which may be adjudged against the entity filing the protest action Failure of the protesting entity to file the required bond, . . . at the time of filing the formal protest shall result in a dismissal of the protest. Terminix's proposal had been for $32,076.00, annually, for three years, totaling $96,028.00. Terminix posted a protest bond for only $3,200.80, instead of for ten percent of its bid, or even for $3,207.60 for ten percent of its bid on an annual basis. There is no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Ritter's April 15, 2009, oral extension of the time to file Terminix's formal written protest in any way included a waiver of the requirements for posting a bond; that it specified a bond amount different than 10 percent of Terminix’s proposal; or that it included any reduction of the amount of the required bond or security. On April 24, 2009, a day after receiving Terminix's written protest, UNF rescinded its award of Project RFP 09-36 to Petitioner. (Joint Stipulation 8, amplified for detail.) A letter of that date, authored by Ms. Ritter, stated: . . . the notice of award dated April 9, 2009, is rescinded and the evaluation committee is instructed to reopen its evaluations in this RFP for the purpose of contacting all references supplied by all bidders and assigning points based upon an average of their responses supporting the bidders’ past performance. Following determination of the points to be assigned for Rating Criteria 3, the evaluation committee will re-tally the total points assigned to each bidder for all rating criteria and identify the successful bidder, by issuing a new notice of award. (Emphasis supplied.) The "re-evaluation" involved eight questions drafted by Ms. Ritter, a previously uninvolved employee of UNF’s Purchasing Department, UNF's OCG, and possibly Mr. Nelson. The previously uninvolved Purchasing Department employee put the same eight questions (five yes/no questions and three questions which were each to be rated on a scale of 1-10) to at least three references listed by each responsive bidder.2/ She unilaterally rated the three scaled questions at between 1 and 10 points. Thereafter, she deleted the evaluation committee's previous scores based on references, and the average of the three new scores per reference were substituted on the original RFP evaluation matrix. These scores were then factored into a final total score per proposer. Apparently, some adjustments were made, based on Terminix's original provision of 14 (not just three) references, and some weighting of questions also was involved, but how these latter adjustments were mathematically accomplished is not entirely clear. Therefore, even the final mathematical tabulation, ranking Terminix No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2, cannot be relied upon. The final numerically altered RFP score matrix was presented to some of the evaluation committee members. Some committee members were not present when it was presented, and the members present were only permitted to approve the new scores. On May 15, 2009, UNF awarded RFP 09-36 to Terminix. (Joint Stipulation 9.) On May 18, 2009, Petitioner filed its Notice of Intent to Protest Award of RFP 09-36 to Terminix (Joint Stipulation 10). It is found to be timely. On May 27, 2009, Petitioner filed its Bid Protest of Award RFP 09-36 to Terminix. (Joint Stipulation 11.) This item is found to be the timely written protest herein. It was correctly filed with UNF's President and was accompanied by an appropriate bid protest bond. Among the issues raised were the insufficiency of Terminix's original protest bond and the new scoring of references for past performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the President of the University of North Florida, pursuant to his authority under the Board of Governors Regulation 18.002, enter a final order rescinding the award to Terminix and awarding the contract to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 8th day of December, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984 Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter "the Department") has served as the distributing agency for United States Department of Agriculture surplus foods to be distributed to needy people in the State of Florida. These foods are butter, processed cheese, non-fat dry milk, cornmeal, rice, flour, and honey. The Department contracts with companies in the food storage and distribution business-to store the surplus food and distribute it to emergency feeding organizations. The emergency feeding organizations then distribute the food to needy persons. Each year the Department enters into contracts for various regions within the State. Petitioner Wales Industries, Inc. (hereinafter "Wales"), Intervenor Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses, Ltd. (hereinafter "Mid-Florida"); and Gulf Cargo Services, Inc. (hereinafter "Gulf Cargo"); have all been awarded contracts with the Department over the years for storage and distribution of the surplus foods in the various regions of the State. On or about June 12, 1987, the Department issued an Invitation for Bid (hereinafter "IFB 87-1") which advised prospective bidders that sealed bids would be opened on July 10, 1987 for a contract for the storage and distribution of the surplus foods for the period of October 1, 1987 to September 30, 1988. A bidder under IFB 87-1 would be required to store the above-described commodities in dry, chilled, and frozen storage. The provider must also be able to ship the commodities under dry, chilled, and frozen conditions to emergency feeding organizations throughout the state. The bid evaluation criteria set forth in Paragraph E of IFB 87-1 provide, in part, as follows: c. The bid will be awarded to the Bidder submitting the lowest delivered price per CWT for dry, cold, and frozen donated foods inclusive for each Region, combination of regions, or statewide as bid. The bid price for pick-up at the Provider's warehouse is informational, but is not a consideration in award of the bid. Paragraph numbered eight of the General Conditions of IFB 87-1 notifies actual or prospective bidders who dispute the reasonableness, necessity, or competitiveness of the terms and conditions therein or of the bid selection or contract award recommendation that they must file a protest within the time prescribed in section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, or be deemed to have waived their right to do so. IFB 87-1 included an estimate of the number of cases and weights of commodities to be handled by a provider per region. This information was characterized as "History of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" but this characterization was amended to "Estimates of 1986-1987 Cases and Pounds" by letter of amendment dated June 18, 1987. IFB 87-1 provides elsewhere that these distribution rates are subject to change. By further letter of amendment dated June 23, 1987, the Department notified prospective bidders that bids based upon combinations of regions were acceptable, and revised bid sheets with blanks for the dollar bid for each of the three types of commodities were provided to prospective bidders with the letter of amendment. On June 26; 1987; the Department conducted a bidder's conference for IFB 87-1. Representatives from Wales and Mid-Florida attended the bidder's conference and asked questions of the Department's representatives concerning IFB 87-1. Wales, Mid-Florida, and Gulf Cargo (among others) submitted sealed bids by the deadline at 2:00 p.m., July 10, 1987. Gulf Cargo submitted a bid for Region I only. Wales submitted individual bids for each of Regions I through VI. Mid- Florida submitted individual bids for Regions II through VI and two bids combining various regions except for Region I. Gulf Cargo was awarded a contract for Region I, and Mid-Florida was awarded a contract based on its combined bid for Regions II through VI. The bid awards were announced on July 17, 1987. Wales' notice of intent to file formal written protest is dated July 23, 1987. Wales filed its formal written protest on July 31, 1987. The volume and type of surplus foods distributed through the program is solely dependent upon the commodities made available to the Department by the federal government. There is no guarantee that the State of Florida will receive any particular amount or mix of the commodities distributed through the program. Therefore, the data supplied by the Department to prospective bidders regarding the volume and type of surplus foods to be stored and distributed is based upon actual historical data and is the most accurate data available. Neither IFB 87-1 nor the contracts for previous years under this program guarantee the successful bidder any amount of revenue or any volume of goods to be handled. The method of bid evaluation that was set forth in IFB 87-1, which was emphasized at the bidder's conference, and which was memorialized in the Department's June 29, 1987 listing of questions and answers from the bidder's conference and sent to all prospective bidders was the same the Department would average the bid prices for each type of commodity, i.e., frozen, dry and chilled. The averaging method utilized results in the lowest cost accruing to Use State and actually resulted in a lower bid price for the 1987-88 contracts than the 1986-87 contracts. The actual cost to a provider of storing and transporting frozen, chilled, and dried commodities varies according to the facilities and equipment owned by each prospective bidder. The averaging method utilized by the Department for IFB 87-1 permits bidders to develop competitive bids based upon the bidder's individual costs, storage facilities and equipment; and the bidder's anticipation of the volumes and types of commodities likely to be received from the federal government. The information provided in IFB 87-1 as to drop sites for delivery by the providers was sufficient for prospective bidders to develop competitive bids. The requirement contained in IFB 87-1 that the provider would be responsible for providing off-loading facilities in Dade, Broward, and Duval counties did not prevent the formulation of competitive bids.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest filed by Wales Industries Inc.; awarding the 1987-88 contract for Region I to Gulf Cargo Services, Inc.; and awarding the 1987-88 contract for Regions II-VI to Mid-Florida Freezer Warehouses Ltd. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 14th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3317BID The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, the Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-6 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Mid-Florida's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. However, Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-15 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause; Wales' proposed finding of fact numbered 16 has been rejected as not being supported by the evidence in this cause; and Wales' proposed findings of fact numbered 5-8, 10, and 11 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Powers Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Martin R. Dix Esquire Barnett Bank Building Suite 800 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Powell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32399-0700 Harold T. Bistline Esquire Building 1, Suite 10 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Protection's decision to reject all bids submitted for the project entitled BDRS 52-01/02 was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, All America Homes of Gainesville, Inc. (All America), is a corporation doing business in the State of Florida. All America submitted a timely written bid in response to the Department's ITB and filed timely protests to the Department's actions. The Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida which manages and operates state parks under its jurisdiction, and solicits construction projects in state parks, pursuant to Chapter 258, Part I, Florida Statutes, through its Division of Recreation and Parks, Bureau of Design and Recreation Services. The ITB In November, 2001, the Department issued an ITB on a construction project entitled Hillsborough River State Park Concession Building, project number BDRS 52-01/02. The ITB included the Bid Specifications for the project. Bids were required to be submitted no later than 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2001, at the Bureau's Tallahassee, Florida, office. The written Specifications define several terms, including, but not limited, to the following: ADDENDUM: A written explanation, interpretation, change, correction, addition, deletion, or modification, affecting the contract documents, including drawings and specifications issued by the OWNER [Department] and distributed to the prospective Bidders prior to the bid opening. ALTERNATE BID: Separate optional bid item for more or less project requirement used for tailoring project to available funding. Also may consist of alternate construction techniques. BASE BID: Formal bid exclusive of any alternate bids. BID FORM: The official form on which the OWNER requires formal bids to be prepared and submitted. ORAL STATEMENTS: Verbal instruction. NOTE: No oral statement of any person, whomever shall in any manner or degree modify or otherwise affect the provisions of the contract documents.[1] SEALED BID: The formal written offer of the Bidder for the proposed work when submitted on the prescribed bid form, properly signed and guaranteed. The Bid Specifications also contained the following relevant sections: Alternatives If the OWNER wishes to learn the relative or additional construction cost of an alternative method of construction, an alternative use of type of material or an increase or decrease in scope of the project, these items will be defined as alternates and will be specifically indicated and referenced to the drawings and specifications. Alternates will be listed in the bid form in such a manner that the Bidder shall be able to clearly indicate what sums he will add to (or deduct from) his Base Bid. The OWNER will judge for himself that such alternates are of comparable character and quality to the specified items. The Order of the alternate may be selected by the Department in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. ADDENDA If the Consultant[2] finds it would be expedient to supplement, modify or interpret any portion of the bidding documents during the bidding period, such procedure will be accomplished by the issuance of written Addenda to the bidding documents which will be delivered or mailed by the OWNER'S Contracts section to all bidders who have requested bidding documents. Interpretation No interpretation of the meaning of the drawings, specifications or other bidding documents and no correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein will be made to any Bidder orally. Every request for such interpretation or correction should be in writing, addressed to the Consultant. All such interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents. Only the interpretation or correction so given by the Consultant in writing and approved by the OWNER shall be binding, and prospective Bidders are advised that no other source is authorized to give information concerning, or to explain or interpret, the bidding documents. B-16 Bid Modification Bid modification will be accepted from Bidders, if addressed as indicated in Advertisement for Bids and if received prior to the opening of bids. No bid modification will be accepted after the close of bidding has been announced. Modifications will only be accepted if addressed in written or printed form submitted with the bid in sealed envelopes. Telegrams, facsimiles, separate sealed envelopes, written on printed modifications on the outside of the sealed envelopes will not be accepted. All bid modifications must be signed by an authorized representative of the Bidder. Modification will be read by the OWNER at the opening of formal bids. B-21 Rejection of Bids The OWNER reserves the right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the State of Florida, and to reject the bid of a bidder who the OWNER determines is not in a position to perform the work. B-23 Award of Bid . . .The qualified Bidder submitting the lowest bid will be that Bidder who has submitted the lowest base bid plus any selected alternates. . . . The OWNER reserves the right to waive any minor irregularities in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the OWNER. The Award of Bid will be issued by the OWNER only with responsible Bidders, found to meet all requirements for Award of Bid, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Each bidder shall, if so requested by the OWNER, present additional evidence of his experience, qualifications and ability to carry out the terms of the Agreement. (Emphasis in original, except for Section B-10.) The Bid Form is included with the Specifications and provides in part: Base Bid: Furnish labor, equipment, Lump Sum $ supervision and material to construct a new concession building of 2940 square feet located at the Hillsborough River State Park along with the alteration of the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. Alternate #1: Furnish labor, equipment, Add Amt.$__ supervision and material to renovate the existing concession building according to plans and specifications. There is a separate section for "Allowances," i.e., Section 01210, for the Hillsborough State Park. This section provides in part: SECTION 01210 – ALLOWANCES * * * 1.2 SUMMARY This Section includes administrative and procedural requirements governing allowances. Certain materials and equipment are specified in the Contract Documents and are defined by this [sic] specifications as material and labor to be provided against a pre-determined allowance. Allowances have been established in lieu of additional requirements and to defer selection of actual materials and equipment to a later date when additional information is available for evaluation. If necessary, additional requirements will be issued by Change Order. * * * 3.3 SCHEDULE OF ALLOWANCES A. Allowance #1: Include in the base bid an allowance for the purchase and installation of. . . kitchen equipment. . . . The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $12,000.00. There is also a separate section for "Alternates," i.e., section 01230, for Hillsborough River State Park, which provides in part: SECTION 01230 – ALTERNATES * * * 1.3 DEFINITIONS Alternate: An amount proposed by bidders and stated on the Bid Form for certain work defined in the Bidding Requirements that may be added to or deducted from the Base Bid amount if OWNER decides to accept a corresponding change either in the amount of construction to be completed or in the products, materials, equipment, systems, or installation methods described in the Contract Documents. The cost or credit for each alternate is the net addition to or deduction from the Contract Sum to incorporate alternate into the Work. No other adjustments are made to the Contract Sum. . . . . 3.1 SCHEDULE OF ALTERNATES A. Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building in its entirety as shown in the drawings and specified herein. (emphasis added.) At this stage of the bidding documents, the contractor/bidder is requested to provide a Base Bid/Lump Sum on the Bid Form to "[f]urnish labor, equipment,. . .to construct a new concession building," and to provide an additional and separate amount for Alternate No. 1 to "[f]urnish labor, equipment, . . . to renovate the existing concession building." On December 13, 2001, the Bureau issued "Addendum No. One (1)" (written by the architect) to the ITB on the "Hillsborough River State Park – Concession Building." The Addendum contained the following relevant sections: Specification Section 01210: Allowances Add the following new paragraph 3.3.B: ”Allowance #2: Include in the base bid an allowance for the renovations of the existing concession building; renovations shall be defined by the Owner. The total dollar amount of the allowance to be included shall be $25,000." Specification Section 01230: Alternates Modify paragraph 3.1.A. as follows: "Alternate No. 1: Renovate the existing concession building as defined by the Owner, and as provided for under Section 01210, Allowances." (emphasis added.) Each contractor was required to sign the Addendum and attach it to the bid. By definition, and pertinent here, an addendum is an additional written instruction to a contractor during the bidding process. Based on the weight of the evidence, the purpose of this Addendum was to require the contractor to include a $25,000.00 Allowance (for Allowance # 2) in the Base Bid, for the work which might be performed if the Department requested the work to be performed for Alternate No. 1, i.e., for the renovation of the existing concession building.3 (The Department's architect decided it would cost approximately $25,000.00 to renovate the existing concession building, hence Allowance # 2.) In other words, the Addendum does not have a specific dollar amount to be included for Alternate No. 1. Rather, the $25,000.00 is an Allowance for the work described as Alternate No. 1, but the amount is to be included in the Base Bid and not as a separate line item, dollar amount. But, importantly, the Addendum did not delete the potential work to be performed as described in Alternate No. 1, although Mr. Bowman and others believed that the Addendum deleted Alternate No. 1. It deleted the necessity to place a specific dollar amount on the Bid Form for Alternate No. 1. (Mr. Bowman is a registered Professional Engineer and a licensed contractor. He has worked for the Department for 15 years and has served as Bureau Chief for two years. He supervises the contract section and the design section, which was responsible for preparing the technical plans and specifications and bidding out the job.) Mr. Bowman offered the following explanation why he believed the Addendum was confusing: Okay. I think the confusion that was created, you know, I think the addendum in itself, you know, said add $25,000 to the base bid, but then on the bid form, it still had the space down there for alternate number one, which alternate number one, which alternate number one had become $25,000 that was to be allowed for the concession building, and I think that's where the confusion came in because I think they were still confused, that they weren't really sure that they should not put that 25 down there but they knew they had been told in the addendum to do it and I think that's the reason for the notes and we got to the correspondence on the bid form, was they wanted to make sure that that's what we were wanting to do. And I think that's where the confusion came in. Like I said, it's always, if you could go back and do it again, it would be much wiser just to issue a whole new bid form and then we wouldn't be here today. But, we didn't do that. Okay. So, that's why we are here. The language in this Addendum, when read with the original Bid Specifications, apparently caused confusion with some of the bidders on the project. Several bidders called Marvin Allen (an architect and project manager for the Department's Bureau of Design and Recreation Services) prior to the submission of the bids, to clarify how the $25,000.00 Allowance should be shown on the Bid Form. (Mr. Allen did not author any of the specifications, including the Addendum.) He was listed as a contact person. He did not contact any bidders. But, Mr. Allen recalled telling each bidder who asked that the Allowance of $25,000.00 should be included in the Base Bid. But, he does not recall the names or numbers of the bidders who called, "possibly" three, four or five. Mr. Allen believed the Addendum was clear. According to Mr. Allen, the bidders who called him found the Addendum confusing. The oral responses to the bidders can be construed as interpretations of the Addendum. However, pursuant to Section B- 10 of the Specifications, any such interpretations were required to "be in the form of written Addenda to the bidding documents." Also, any such questions should have been in writing. If Section B-10 were complied with, all bidders would have been potentially on the same footing, or, at the very least, would have had access to a written clarifying document. Opening of the Bids On December 18, 2001, the bids were opened by Mike Renard, Contracts Manager with the Bureau of Design and Recreation Services, and Susan Maynard, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Dwight Fitzpatrick, a representative of All America, also attended the bid opening. The Bid Form submitted by Nelco showed a Base Bid of $355,478.00 (Lump Sum $355,478.00), and also showed an amount of $25,000.00 on the Alternate # 1 line (Add Amt. $25,000.00). See Finding of Fact 6. (It was clear to Mr. Renard that the $25,000.00 should have been included on Nelco's Base Bid. But Mr. Renard believed that Nelco submitted a responsive bid because the Department only accepted the Base Bid. Mr. Bowman agreed.) Nelco was the only one of five bidders to have a dollar amount in the Alternate #1 line under "Add Amt. $ ." All America submitted the second lowest Base Bid of $362,000.00. There was also a hand-written note on the All- America Bid Form that stated: "Addenda # 1 instruction to place $25,000 allowance in both Base Bid and as alternate # 1." Another hand written note was located below the "Add Amt. $-0-" line: "amount added in Base Bid with $25,000 allowance per Marvin Allen." The Department considered All America's bid responsive. It is a fair inference that three out of five of the other Bid Forms contained language indicating that the bidders were relying on Addendum No. One by placing the $25,000.00 Allowance in the Base Bid.4 It is uncertain whether they did so in light of the instructions of Mr. Allen concerning how to complete the Bids Forms. However, given the nature of the calls to Mr. Allen, there is a reasonable inference that there was some confusion among some of the bidders. The Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid, but the Department's staff had a question as to whether Nelco had included the $25,000.00 in its Base Bid. After conferring with his superiors, Mr. Renard was instructed to call Nelco to make certain that its Base Bid included the Allowance amount ($25,000.00). Mr. Renard spoke with Steve Cleveland, Nelco's Project Manager, "to verify the fact that [Nelco] had the allowance in their base bid." Mr. Cleveland orally confirmed that Nelco's Base Bid included the $25,000.00 Allowance. Mr. Renard asked Mr. Cleveland to send him a letter verifying this statement. Mr. Renard viewed this inquiry as a request for clarification or verification, not an opportunity for Nelco to modify its bid. Mr. Bowman agreed. (Mr. Renard did not believe Addendum No. 1 was confusing.) In a letter dated December 20, 2001, Mr. Cleveland confirmed that Nelco’s Base Bid of $355,478.00 included the Allowance amount and that Nelco could still perform the contract if the $25,000 Allowance was removed from its Base Bid pursuant to the ITB, i.e., that Nelco would perform the contract for $355,478.00 less $25,000.00, or $330,478.00, if the Department did not accept Alternate # 1 and the Allowance. (An alternate does not have to be accepted by the Department.) According to Mr. Renard, Mr. Cleveland never mentioned modifying, changing, or altering Nelco's bid. The Department only accepted the Base Bid for each bid. Mr. Renard did not consider it unusual to call a bidder or contractor to verify information to determine whether they can or cannot perform the work at the stipulated price. He considered it common to make this inquiry. Also, it was common in Mr. Bowman's experience to call a bidder to get clarification. Mr. Renard was not aware of any statute or rule which authorizes the Department to request clarification from a bidder after the bids are opened. Mr. Renard was more familiar with the bid forms than Mr. Allen. After receiving Mr. Cleveland's letter, the Department determined that Nelco submitted the lowest Base Bid and that the $25,000.00 amount that Nelco wrote on the Bid Form Alternate # 1 line, was a minor irregularity in the bid which the Department, as the Owner, could waive pursuant to the ITB. On December 20, 2001, the Department posted the Tabulation of Bids showing the anticipated award of the contract to Nelco. At the hearing, an unsigned letter on Department letterhead was introduced, which was addressed to Nelco and stated that Nelco submitted the apparent low bid. However, Mr. Renard testified that these letters are prepared routinely, but not mailed out without his signature. Mr. Renard did not recall signing the letter or ever sending out such a letter to Nelco. On December 21, 2001, the Department received a Notice of Intent to Protest letter from Allen E. Stine, the President of All America. In his letter, Mr. Stine stated that Nelco’s bid should have been rejected for failure to follow the specified format as per Addendum No. 1, or adjusted to have the $25,000.00 amount added to their Base Bid. Bid Protests All America filed a written formal bid protest on January 4, 2001. On January 9, 2001, Cindy Otero of All America, notified Mr. Renard by letter, and stated that Mr. Stine was available for a hearing regarding the bid protest. On January 28, 2002, Mr. Renard returned All America's check for the bond, stating that it was unnecessary. Mr. Stine recounted a number of unanswered telephone calls after the first protest was filed. During one conversation, Mr. Renard recalled Mr. Stine saying to him, "You can't do this, you can't do this." After receiving the first formal protest, the Department staff consulted with legal staff and reviewed the documents and bid procedures. Based on the number of questions received concerning the Addendum and the hand-written notes on several of the bid forms, Mr. Bowman, Bureau Chief, determined that the bid documents were confusing and ambiguous. (Mr. Bowman stated that this was their first bid protest in his 15 years with the Department.) Therefore, Mr. Bowman decided that it would in the best interest of the State of Florida to reject all of the bids pursuant to the Bid Specifications. Mr. Bowman felt that the ITB should be re-written in order to make it clearer and allowing all of the bidders to re-bid the project without any confusion or ambiguity. Mr. Stine stated that his "senior estimator" told him that the bid language "could be confusing." He and his "senior estimator" had a discussion about whether the Allowance should have been placed in the Base Bid or not. At the time of submission of All America's bid, Mr. Stine was clear that the Allowance should be placed in the Base Bid, especially after calling Mr. Allen. But, his senior estimator was not so clear. In order to appease him, Mr. Stine placed the hand-written note on All America’s proposal. Mr. Stine essentially, "cleaned" up his proposal. At the hearing, Mr. Bowman testified Rule 60D-5.0071, Florida Administrative Code, see Conclusion of Law 59, does not list "confusing or ambiguous bid specifications" as one of the circumstances allowing for the rejection of all bids. However, Mr. Bowman later stated during the hearing that he believed the circumstances listed in Rule 60D-5.0071 were not the only circumstances authorizing the Department to reject all bids. Mr. Bowman testified that he believed that general confusion among the bidders caused by the ambiguous ITB constituted sufficient grounds for rejecting all bids. Mr. Bowman was advised by legal counsel that rejecting all of the bids would probably result in another bid protest by Nelco, All America, or both. Thus, the Department decided to delay addressing All American’s first protest until after posting the rejection of all bids and receiving the subsequent protests, so that all of the protests could be resolved at once in an efficient and economical manner. Notwithstanding the Department's justifications for rejecting all bids and not proceeding on All America's initial protest, the record is unclear why the Department waited several months to reject all bids. On May 13, 2002, the Department posted the rejection of all bids. On May 16, 2002, the Department received a formal written protest of the rejection of all bids filed by All America. On May 17, 2002, Jerome I. Johnson, attorney for the Department, contacted Mr. Robert A. Lash, All America's counsel at the time, concerning the resolution of All America’s formal protest. (Before the final hearing, Mr. Lash, with All America's consent, withdrew as counsel for All America.) The parties agreed to suspend formal bid protest procedures until a meeting could be held between the parties in an attempt to resolve the protests. Mr. Johnson sent a letter dated May 21, 2002, to Mr. Lash confirming this conversation. On June 26, 2002, a meeting was held among the Department staff, legal staff, and Mr. Lash and Mr. Stine, representing All America. The parties were unable to resolve the protests. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties agreed that formal protest procedures would not be implemented until Mr. Stine could confer further with his counsel. In a letter dated July 5, 2002, Mr. Lash stated that his client wished to proceed with formal protest procedures and requested an administrative hearing on the protests. Are the Specifications and Bid Documents Ambiguous and Was There Confusion? The parties stipulated that "[t]he Addendum language was confusing," notwithstanding the testimony of several witnesses that they were not confused. The Department's determination that the bid Specifications, including the Addendum, and the Bid Form, which remained unchanged after the Addendum was issued, were confusing and ambiguous, is supported by the weight of the evidence. This is particularly true regarding the Bid Form. The Addendum required the bidder to include an Allowance of $25,000.00 in the Base Bid for work described as Alternate # 1. But the Bid Form was unchanged to reflect the Addendum changes. The Bid Form retained a line for the bidder to submit an additional amount for Alternate # 1. Further, it appears that several bidders were confused, including, Mr. Stine, who spoke with Mr. Allen and requested and received clarification. Further, it is unclear whether all of the bidders, including Nelco, were aware of the oral interpretations or clarifications of the Addendum rendered to some of the bidders. Rejection of All Bids Based upon the foregoing, given the standard of review in this proceeding discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the weight of the evidence indicates that the Department's action, in rejecting all bids, was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent. The Department's staff was well-intended and made some mistakes along the way, e.g., by not changing the Bid Form, which they readily admit. But there was a rationale for rejecting all bids under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue a final order dismissing All America’s Petition to Prevent Rejection of Bids and Award Contract to Petitioner and denying All America's request for attorney’s fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Corrections acted in a manner contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications in giving notice of its intent to award the contract for Invitation to Bid No. 96-DC- 6847R to Intervenor Behring Diagnostics, Inc.
Findings Of Fact On February 19, 1996 the Department issued an ITB for the provision of automated drug testing equipment, an automated data management system, and drug assays for the analysis of urine specimens collected at the Department’s major institutions and community facilities. After receiving and reviewing bids from Roche, Behring, and Abbott Laboratories (Abbott), the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Reject All Bids on April 10, 1996. On April 30, 1996 the Department issued ITB 96-DC-6847R for the same services. The same three vendors, Roche, Behring and Abbott, submitted bids which were opened on June 5, 1996. On its face, Roche’s bid of $.60 per test was the lowest cost of the three bids. Behring submitted a bid of $.90 per test. The Department’s evaluation committee correctly determined that bids submitted by Roche and Abbott were not responsive to the bid specifications. Roche’s bid was not responsive because: (1) it failed to include the cost of a printer at each site as part of the equipment package; and (2) it failed to indicate the vendor’s unconditional willingness to provide litigation support at no cost to the Department in defense of a legal challenge to the vendor’s technology. The bid specifications clearly required that printers be included as part of the computer hardware. Roche did not list printers anywhere in the narrative portion of its bid response. Roche’s response stated that it covered all items pertaining to the system hardware portion of the bid. The response indicated that Roche would provide the Department with Antek-LabDAQ report management software and listed specific items of hardware that would be included. But Roche did not list a printer. Roche’s bid response stated that the LabDAQ system would print reports. Roche included copies of a sample report sheets. Roche submitted other information describing the LabDAQ system that contained pictures of a printer. It also submitted a magazine article reviewing the LabDAQ system which listed an “Okidata printer” as part of the required hardware. However, the article noted that the software could be purchased separately. Submittal of this information was insufficient to indicate that Roche’s bid included the cost of a printer. Roche’s failure to include a printer in its bid was a material deviation from the bid requirements. The ITB clearly required the vendor to provide unequivocal litigation support at no cost to the Department if someone challenged the provider’s technology in a court action. This was a material requirement in the ITB. Roche responded that “upon request from the State and if deemed necessary Roche will provide documentation, affidavits and sworn testimony to substantiate the performance of the technology incorporated in the OnLine system.” (Emphasis added.) This ambiguous response was not an absolute commitment for Roche to provide the litigation support required by the specifications. In one section of Roche’s response it stated that it was “not aware of any past or present lawsuits that have been filed in connection to the COBAS MIRA Plus or the OnLine reagents.” In another section, Roche responded that a federal district court upheld drug testing results provided from a COBAS/Online system. These inconsistent statements may have resulted in a minor deviation from the bid specification. However, they are sufficient to further undermine confidence in Roche’s bid as submitted. During the hearing, Roche presented testimony that it intended for its bid of $.60 per test to include both printers and unconditional litigation support. This testimony constitutes an inappropriate attempt to amend Roche’s bid response. It does not change the fact that Roche’s bid, on its face, was not responsive as submitted. On the other hand, Behring’s bid was responsive to the specifications. It contained only one minor irregularity that provided no advantage to Behring. Roche has presented no evidence to the contrary. The Department’s evaluation committee did not complete the scoring process to compare the three vendors’ scores. Such a comparison is unnecessary where there is only one responsive bidder. By letter dated August 26, 1996 the Department again informed the vendors that it intended to reject all bids and issue a new request for proposals in September. Even though the Department had determined that Behring was the only responsive bidder, the letter did not address the responsiveness of any of the bids. The letter stated that the Department anticipated making changes to the specifications that would require a more structured response, i.e. revise the ITB to include a checklist for every required item which the bidder would cross-reference in its bid response. There is no evidence that the Department anticipated making changes to the substance of the specifications. On or about September 5, 1996 Behring sent the Department a Notice of Intent to protest the rejection of all bids and subsequently filed a timely formal written protest. In its formal protest, Behring referred to the Department’s conclusions in a memorandum dated August 23, 1996 that Behring was the only bidder to submit a conforming bid. Roche did not file a protest of the decision to reject all bids. On or about September 26, 1996 the Department sent Roche notice of Behring’s protest and enclosed a copy of Behring’s formal protest in Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 96-4475BID. Roche did not intervene in the bid protest. The final hearing in the bid protest was scheduled for final hearing on October 23, 1996. The day before the hearing, representatives of the Department and Behring met to discuss the possibility of settling the case. Shortly before the settlement conference, the Department’s counsel called a Roche representative, Betty Bennett, and informed her that Behring had requested a meeting to attempt to resolve the protest. He was unable to make contact with an Abbott representative. No one from Roche attended the meeting. The Department did not issue any formal written notice that it intended to settle the case with Behring. The Department did not know prior to the meeting what the parties would discuss. The Department did not attend the meeting expecting to “negotiate a contract.” At the meeting, Behring initially took the position that the Department should award the contract to Behring at $.90 per test and not seek further competitive bids. The Department took the position that the contract should be subject to additional competitive bidding to determine what the result would be with more than one competitive bid. After further discussion, Behring offered to lower its bid price. The Department’s representatives left the room to discuss the offer. Upon their return, Department representatives made Behring a lower counteroffer. Behring and the Department eventually arrived at an oral settlement under which the Department would award the contract to Behring at a price of $.77 per test and Behring would dismiss its protest. The Department based its decision to settle the bid protest with Behring on the following: (a) the risk of losing the bid protest and being required to pay Behring $.90 per test; (b) the desire not to further extend the existing contract at the current price of $1.07 per test; (c) the risk that a third attempt to solicit competitive bids would result in another protest and further delay; (d) the fact that Behring had submitted responsive bids to the two previous solicitations; (e) the assumption that subsequent bids by Roche and Abbott would be higher when they included the omitted items that caused their rejection. There is no persuasive evidence to indicate that the Department’s reasons for settling Behring’s bid protest were pretextual or otherwise invalid. The Department correctly concluded that it might have to pay Behring $.90 per test if it lost the bid protest regardless of the applicable standard of proof in that proceeding. The Department also was justified in assuming that Roche’s bid price would be higher when it included the previously omitted printers. For these and other reasons set forth above in the Findings of Fact, the Department’s decision to settle the case by negotiating a lower contract price with Behring was in the best interest of the state of Florida. On October 23, 1996 the Administrative Law Judge in Case No. 96-4475BID entered an order closing the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. The Department did not issue a Final Order setting forth the final disposition of the case. By letter dated October 30, 1996 the Department informed Roche and Abbott that it had negotiated a satisfactory contract with Behring pursuant to Rule 60A-1.018(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. This letter advised Roche that the Department intended to award the contract to Behring. In the letter, the Department gave Roche the opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to protest the intended agency action. By letter dated November 8, 1996, Roche protested the notice of intended award to Behring. Without objection, Roche submitted an amended petition on December 10, 1996. Behring filed a petition for leave to intervene on November 27, 1996. An order dated December 11, 1996 granted that motion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a Final Order awarding the contract for ITB No. 96-DC-6847R to Behring Diagnostic, Inc., and dismissing the protest of Roche Diagnostic Systems. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Intervenor was properly qualified to complete the construction project contemplated by Invitation to Bid No. DCF-03211120 (ITB)
Findings Of Fact The Department issued the ITB for a construction project, involving the re-roofing of Buildings 1 and 2 at 12195 Quail Roost Drive, Miami, Florida. The ITB was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 24, 2008. The ITB outlined the terms and conditions for responsive bids. The ITB indicated, among other things, that all sealed bids were required to be submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, by January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. Leo Development submitted its sealed bid at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. FBM submitted its sealed bid by the date and time, but at a different location—the offices of Russell Partnership— contrary to the ITB. All other bidders submitted their sealed bids at the location and by the date and time, in accordance with the ITB. The Department’s architect of record on the project, Russell Partnership, and one of its principals, Terry Holt, performed the examination and bid tabulation. Mr. Holt, a registered architect for approximately 36 years, was very familiar with the procurement process and had extensive experience in determining whether a bidder was licensed by DBPR in order to complete the work contemplated for a project. The sealed bids submitted at 401 NW 2nd Avenue, S-714, Miami, Florida 33128, on or before January 15, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. were as follows: All Time Roofing, with a bid of $73,400.00; Taylor Roofing, with a bid of $59,708.00; Leo Development, with a bid of $54,109.00; John W. Hunter Enterprises, with a bid of $75,000.00; and Trintec Construction, with a bid of $75,500.00. 9. FBM’s bid was $71,600.00. Mr. Holt determined that Leo Development was the lowest bidder. FBM’s bid was not considered as being non-responsive. Additionally, Mr. Holt reviewed Leo Development’s website to ascertain as to whether any factors existed to disqualify Leo Development. The website failed to reveal any basis for Mr. Holt to disqualify Leo Development. Having discovered no basis to disqualify Leo Development as the lowest bidder, Mr. Holt submitted the list of bidders, with their bids, to Bill Bridges, the Department’s senior architect and a registered architect for approximately 25 years. Mr. Bridges was the person responsible for oversight of the ITB process. As Leo Development was the lowest bidder, Mr. Bridges reviewed the website of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (Division of Corporations) in order to ensure that Leo Development was registered with the Division of Corporations. His review revealed that Leo Development was a fictitious name properly registered to Leo Premier Homes, LLC. Further, Mr. Bridges performed a license background check on Leo Development in order to ensure that Leo Development was licensed by DBPR. Mr. Bridges reviewed DBPR’s website, which revealed that Frank Anthony Leo was the owner of Leo Development and that the following licenses were issued by DBPR: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Development; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Development. Mr. Bridges confirmed and was satisfied that Leo Development was properly licensed to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Mr. Bridges recommended that Leo Development be awarded the ITB as the lowest responsive bidder. FBM filed a written protest (Initial Protest) of “its exclusion from the bid tabulation.” The Department issued a Final Order Rejecting Bid Protest (Final Order) on February 19, 2009. The Final Order provided in pertinent part: FBM was determined non-responsive because the bid was not presented at the time and place specified in the ITB. . . FBM’s formal written protest alleges that FBM, on the date of the bid submission/bid opening, was misdirected as to the location of the bid opening. . . . FBM’s protest must be rejected because it does not state a claim that could entitle it to relief. . . In the context of a bid protest proceeding . . . the protest must adequately allege that the protestor could obtain the contract award or otherwise benefit should the protest be successful. . . Assuming all of FBM’s factual allegations are true and that those facts entitle FBM to have its bid considered, FBM would still be entitled to no relief. Had FBM’s bid been accepted, FBM would have been the third lowest of six bidders. FBM’s formal protest does not allege that the lowest and second lowest bids were deficient in any manner. FBM was not injured in fact, because it still would not have received the contract award. Accordingly, FBM’s formal written protest is REJECTED. No appeal was taken by FBM of the Department’s Final Order rejecting FBM’s Initial Protest. Among other findings, the Department’s Final Order on FBM’s Initial Protest found that, taking FBM’s allegations as true, FBM would have been the third lowest bidder. FBM would not have been the second lowest bidder. The parties agree that the holder of a certified building contractor’s license and a certified roofing contractor license would be permitted to complete the work contemplated by the ITB. Subsequent to the opening of the sealed bids, Leo Premier Homes, LLC, registered the fictitious name of Leo Roofing & Construction with the Division of Corporations. After the registration with the Division of Corporations and after the Department’s Final Order, licenses were issued by DBPR. As to the licenses issued, the record of the instant case provides2: Qualified Business Organization License #QB50182 to Leo Premier Homes, LLC, Leo Roofing & Construction; Certified Building Contractor License #CBC1254723 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction; and Certified Roofing Contractor License #CCC1328402 to Frank Anthony Leo, Leo Roofing & Construction. The licenses reflect the same license numbers, as before, and only the fictitious name is different on each license to indicate Leo Roofing & Construction.3 The contract for the ITB was entered into between the Department and Leo Development. In these proceedings, the Department incurred costs in the amount of $1,311.05.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing FBM General Contracting Corporation’s Protest and awarding costs in the amount of $1,311.05 to the Department of Children and Family Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of August, 2009.
