Findings Of Fact Respondent provides services to the residents of Immokalee from office space which it is currently leasing from Sunburst. The lease of the present facilities expires on August 31, 1985. DHRS is in need of more office space than it currently fills in order to meet the growing demand for its services in the Immokalee area. Therefore, DHRS issued an invitation to bid, inviting interested persons to submit bids for its required office space. Three bidders responded: Badcock Furniture Corporation, Sunburst Urethane Systems, Inc., and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. Badcock Furniture Corporation is not a party to these proceedings in that it did not seek an administrative remedy under Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes. The bid acquisition has been designated by DHRS as Lease No. 590:1590. DHRS formed a bid evaluation committee to evaluate the bids which were submitted. The committee, consisting of William Samford, Residential Service's Director for Development Services, Frank Last, Senior Human Services Program Manager for Economic Services, Frances H. Clendenin, Administrative Services Director, John S. Cato, General Services Manager, and Ed Gauthier, Human Services Program Administrator for the Immokalee programs, visited the three prospective bid sites and evaluated the bid proposals. Each member individually reviewed and rated the bids and recorded his or her ratings on a form entitled Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors). The individual ratings were admitted into evidence as HRS Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. After the individual review, the committee met together for purposes of reaching a consensus evaluation. Based on that consensus, the committee generated a memorandum to the Department of General Services outlining the twelve evaluation criteria used and the points awarded to each bidder. On or about March 7, 1984, DHRS published its notice of intent to award Lease No. 590:1590 to Chuck Bundschu, Inc., as the successful bidder. By stipulation, only four of the evaluation criteria are in dispute as to the points awarded to each bidder. Those criteria resulted in the following ratings: Criteria 1 - Rental rate including projected operating expenses to be paid by lessor. Out of a total rating of 30 points, Sunburst received 30 points because it had the lowest rental rate during the term of the lease and the option years. Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received 27 points based on a formula designed by the committee. Under the formula, the maximum of 30 points was awarded to the low bidder if that bid was below the rent that had been set as the area rate and the other bidders then received points based on a ratio between their bid and the low bidder. Criteria 2 - Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid. A total of 20 points was available to each bidder in this criteria. Sunburst received 18 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received the entire 20 points. The basis for the lower point award to Sunburst was that some of the proposed office space was in a residential building and the second floor of the two-story building was being and would be used for migrant farm housing. The property of Chuck Bundschu, Inc., was totally suitable and was well located. Criteria 4 - Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposal will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations provided the facilities are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. Both Sunburst and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. would provide space in not more than two locations. However, Sunburst's buildings did not have a covered walkway connecting the buildings and the Bundschu property did. Therefore, Sunburst received 8 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc. received the maximum 10 points. Criteria 6 - The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Sunburst received two points and Bundschu received the maximum of five points because the characteristics of the neighborhood and the actual layout of the property was more conducive to the conduct of Departmental operations. Specifically, Sunburst's property had a congested parking lot where many people gathered including some undesirable persons. These people and their activities resulted in a higher crime rate in the area. Further, migrant housing would exist on the floor above the offices that would house valuable food stamps, thereby creating a security threat. Finally, a proposed additional parking site would result in cars traveling across a walkway where clients and employees might be injured. Bundschu's property had none of these drawbacks. The memorandum from the bid evaluation committee to the Department of General Services stated the committee's findings and point award totals for the twelve criteria. That memorandum indicated that Badcock Furniture Corporation received a total of 59 points, Sunburst received 79 points and Chuck Bundschu, Inc., received 93 points. It is undisputed that a clerical error occurred in the memorandum and the totals as reported were incorrect. At hearing, testimony was given that the corrected totals should have been 91 points for Sunburst and 95 points for Chuck Bundschu, Inc. However, even these totals do not agree with simple addition of the points as they are listed separately by criteria. It is found that the correct totals for the separate points awards as stated in the memorandum is 90 points for Sunburst and 95 points for Chuck Bundschu, Inc. Despite the discrepancy in the actual point totals is reported in the memorandum, a review of the individual evaluation forms shows that each evaluator independently awarded Sunburst fewer points than Bundschu. While there was contradictory evidence regarding the actual total points awarded and the method by which the consensus was reached, the clear and convincing evidence is that Bundschu was evaluated to be the best bidder by every evaluator and the evaluators properly applied the criteria. It is undisputed that the property offered by Chuck Bundschu, Inc., is on property partially zoned "VR", and before offices could go into the building, a provisional use variance must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County. The bid evaluation committee did not consider zoning in evaluating the bids because zoning was not an element specified in the invitations to bid. The invitation to bid does not require the proposed site to be compatibly zoned in order for the bid to be valid and responsive. If the contract is awarded and the successful bidder fails to make the space available as agreed, whether because of zoning or otherwise, the successful bidder shall be liable to DHRS for liquidated damages for each day that the property is unavailable. Zoning is not an element to be considered in the award of the bid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which awards the contract for Lease No. 590:1590 to Chuck Bundschu, Inc., as having submitted the lowest and best bid proposal. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Grguric, Esquire 900 Sixth Avenue South Suite 201 Naples, Florida 33940 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906
The Issue Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin's challenge to Respondent's preliminary determination to award Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 Building, Inc. should be sustained? Whether Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt's challenge to said preliminary determination should be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 1 In March, 1991, after requesting and receiving approval from the Department of General Services, the Respondent issued an Invitation to Bid for Lease No. 590:2241 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). The cover page of the ITB contained the Bid Advertisement, which read as follows: The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative services is seeking approximately 17,064 net rentable square feet of office space to lease in Indian River County within the following boundaries: North, to Lindsey Road, South to Olso Road, East to A1A and West to Kings Highway. Space must be in an existing building. Occupancy no later than October 1, 1991, or within 120 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Desire a five (5) year lease with five (5) one year renewal options. Sealed bids will be received until 3:30 p.m.,, April 24, 199[1] at Riviera Beach, FL. Information and specifications will be provided to all interested parties at a mandatory pre-proposal conference to be held at Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 1050 15th Street West, Riviera Beach, FL. 33404, April 5, 1991 at 1:00 p.m. The Department of HRS reserves the right to reject any and all bids received and if necessary to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive bids. The office space sought by Respondent was to house a client service center that is currently operating out of a 12,000 square foot facility owned by Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin. Respondent needs approximately 5,000 more square feet of office space for this center. Page B-1 of the ITB contained the definitions of various terms used in the ITB. Among the terms defined was "lowest and best bid." "Lowest and best bid" was defined as follows: That bid selected by the District Administrator, designee, or Deputy Secretary upon the recommendation of the bid evaluation committee following an objective and detailed process to evaluate and compare bids. "Lowest" refers to the total evaluation score. Weights for evaluation criteria are prescribed on pages B-7 through 9. Actually, this information was found on pages B-5 though 7 of the ITB, which read in pertinent part as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness, such as use of Bid Submittal Form, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, and signatures. Non- responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Non-responsive bidders will be informed promptly by certified mail. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed property and application of the evaluation criteria. The committee's recommendation will be presented to the Department official having award authority for final evaluation and determination of a successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA AWARD FACTORS The successful bidder will be that determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based upon the award factors enumerated below: Associated Fiscal Costs Rental Rental rates for basic term of lease. Evaluated using present value methodology by application of she present value discount rate of 8.74%. 2/ (Weighting: 35 minimum) Rental rates for optional renewal terms of lease. Rates proposed are within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. (Weighting: 5 minimum) Total for rental shall be not less than 40. Moving Costs: a) Cost of relocating communications network computer drop lines as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by the Department's management information office, or: (Weighting: 5 maximum) b) Cost of relocation of major statewide operational data system as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by qualified data center management. (Weighting: 6 maximum) Telephone costs as determined by a site survey conducted at each proposed facility by an engineer from the applicable deregulated vendor. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Relocation of furniture and equipment not addressed above. (Weighting: 5 maximum) LOCATION The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Proximity of facility to a preferred area, such as a courthouse or main traffic arteries. (Will not be applicable if there are no preferred areas within the bid boundaries). (Weighting: 5 maximum) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation near the offered space. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Aesthetics of the building, property the building site [is] on, and of the surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) Security issues posed by building and surrounding neighborhood. (Weighting: 1 maximum) PROPERTY Susceptibility of the property's design to efficient layout and good utilization, such as ability of physical structure to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. (Weighting: 15 maximum) Suitability of the building, parking area and property as a whole for future expansion. (Weighting: 5 maximum) Provision of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered (but fewer points given) which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two buildings provided the buildings are immediately adjacent to or within 100 yards of each other. If in separate buildings, the structures are connected by enclosed climate controlled walkways. (Weighting: 2 maximum) Prospective bidders were instructed on page B-3 of the ITB that they had to submit their bids on the 22-page Bid Submittal Form, which comprised Section C of the ITB. The Bid Submittal Form (BSF) provided detailed information regarding the needs of the Department and the terms, conditions and requirements that prospective bidders were expected to meet. Among the requirements addressed was that the proposed space be an "existing building," meaning that it was "dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured." The BSF further indicated that a multistory building would be acceptable, provided that it met certain specified requirements. In addition, pages C-3 through 4 of the BSF informed prospective bidders that, as part of their bid submittal, they would have to provide, among other things, the following: * * * b. A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" 1'0") floor plan showing present configurations with measurements. The final floor plan will be described in the specifications. * * * A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, configuration and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between Department and Lessor so as to best meet the needs of the Department. The subject of floor plans was also discussed on page C-11 of the ITB, which provided in pertinent part as follows: Final floor plans will be a joint effort of Departmental staff and the successful bidder. The successful bidder is to provide architectural services by a licensed architect to prepare renovation plans. The final floor plan is subject to Departmental determination and State Fire Marshal review and approval. 3/ Prospective bidders were issued the following advisement and warning on page B-8 of the ITB regarding their protest rights: Any person may dispute any part of the competitive bid process through the filing of a protest. To be considered, a protest must be filed in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10-13.11 Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the prescribed time limits shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prospective bidders, who did not want to file a protest, but merely desired clarification regarding a matter relating to the bidding process, were directed, on page B-3 of the ITB, to follow the following procedure: Any questions concerning an interpretation of meaning, ambiguity, or inconsistency on this project are to be received in writing by the project contact person listed on page A-1 [Steven Young) at least 5 working days prior to bid opening so that a written response may be provided to all bidders. 4/ The mandatory pre-proposal conference on the ITB was held as scheduled on April 5, 1991. Petitioner/Intervenor Schlitt, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin, and Intervenor 1436 Building, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "`1436") appeared in person or through a representative at the conference. One other prospective bidder, Alan Taylor, was also in attendance. Among the topics discussed at the pre-proposal conference was the present value index discount rate that would be applied in evaluating proposals. The prospective bidders were advised that the rate which appeared on page C-21 of the ITB-- 7.73%--, not the 8.74% rate appearing on page B-5, would be used. Prospective bidders were also told at the pre- proposal conference that the maximum number of total points available for moving costs was not 15 or 16 as a reading of the ITB might suggest, but 21: 5 for item 1)a) (computer drop lines);6 for item 1)b) (statewide operational data system equipment); 5 for item 2 (telephones); and 5 for item 3 (furniture and other equipment). Under the ITB, as originally issued and clarified at the pre-proposal conference (hereinafter referred to as the "Original ITB"), Respondent was to pay its own moving costs, as it had consistently done in the past, without any contribution on the part of the successful bidder and it would award points to each bidder for moving costs based upon what it would cost Respondent, according to its estimates, to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to the facility proposed by that bidder. The less the expense to the Department to relocate these items, the more points a bidder would receive. Accordingly, to the extent that he intended to offer space already occupied by Respondent, Petitioner/Intervenor Hedin had an advantage over the other prospective bidders under the Original ITB. Some time after the pre-proposal conference, David Feldman, 1436's representative, complained to Respondent about this advantage enjoyed by Hedin in the category of moving costs and inquired if anything could be done about it. Steven Gertel, the Respondent's Assistant Staff Director for Facilities Services, Kevin McAloon, the General Services Manager for Respondent's District IX, Louis Consagra, the then Office Operations Manager for General Services for District IX, and Steven Young, the Facilities Services Manager for District IX and the contact person referenced in the ITB, discussed the matter during a telephone conference call held on April 11, 1991. During their discussion, it was decided that it would be in the best interest of the Department, which was operating under severe fiscal constraints, to change the ITB to allow prospective bidders to essentially buy points by agreeing to pay all or a portion of Respondent's estimated moving costs. Such a change, it was thought, would enhance the competitiveness of the bidding process. Before making the change, however, Respondent attempted to quickly estimate what its costs would be if it had to relocate computer drop lines, statewide operational data system equipment, telephones, and furniture and other equipment to another facility in Indian River County within the geographical boundaries prescribed in the ITB. Respondent estimated that it would cost between $25,000 and $30,000 to relocate computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $35,000 to $45,000 to relocate telephones and $8,000 to $10,000 to relocate furniture and other equipment. In arriving at these estimates, Respondent relied upon agency personnel who, because of their experience, expertise and/or access to contracts with vendors and other pertinent documents, appeared to be reliable sources of information. On April 12, 1991, the day after the telephone conference call and twelve days before the scheduled bid opening, Facilities Services Manager Young, on behalf of the Department, sent by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested, to all four prospective bidders who attended the mandatory pre- proposal conference on April 5, 1991, the following memorandum: Page C-22 of the Bid Submittal Form has been changed and is enclosed for use in the Invitation to Bid. Please call me if you have any questions on this change/addition or any information that is needed to complete your Bid Submittal on or before 3:30 p.m., April 24, 1991. The "changed" page C-22 of the ITB, which accompanied the foregoing memorandum, provided as follows with respect to moving costs: The bidder will respond to the items as stated in the Bid submittal,, Page B-6, b. Moving Costs: 1) a) b), 2), 3). Department Bidder Estimate Response 1) a) b) $25,000 to $30,000 2) $35,000 to $45,000 3) $8,000 to $10,000 Young also telephoned each of the four prospective bidders and explained to them how moving costs would be evaluated in light of this revision to the ITB. He told them that if they indicated under "Bidder Response" on page C-22 that they would be willing to pay up to $30,000 for item 1, $45,000 for item 2 and $10,000 for item 3, and in Hedin's case, provided he submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent, 28% of these amounts, they would capture the maximum number of points available for each of these items, and that if they indicated a willingness to contribute less than these amounts, they would be awarded points in proportion to amount of their proposed contribution. 5/ Respondent's decision to allow Hedin to earn the same amount of points as the other prospective bidders for moving costs by pledging to contribute only 28% of what his competitors had to pledge was based upon square footage considerations. If a bidder other than Hedin was awarded the lease, Respondent would have to move into more than 17,000 square feet of space. If, on the other hand, Hedin submitted a bid that included the 12,000 square feet of space presently occupied by Respondent and he was the successful bidder, Respondents would be occupying only 5,000 or so square feet of space it had not previously occupied, or approximately 28% of the square footage that it would have to move into if the lease had been awarded to another bidder. The ITB, as so revised and clarified by Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised ITB"), contemplated that the successful bidder would be obligated to pay only Respondent's actual moving costs up to the amounts pledged on page C-22 of the bidder's completed BSF. Moving costs in excess of the amounts pledged by the successful bidder would be borne by Respondent. Respondent wanted to avoid a situation where, because of Respondent's estimating errors, a successful bidder: was forced to bear a cost in connection with its bid that it did not anticipate at the time it had submitted the bid. Respondent, however, was quite confident that the estimates it had made and incorporated in the Revised ITB would not prove to be too low. 6/ All four of the prospective bidders who participated in the mandatory pre-proposal conference submitted timely bids. Each of bids was deemed to be responsive. Facility Services Manager Young then performed the calculations necessary to determine the number of points that each bidder should be awarded for associated fiscal costs, including rental costs and moving costs. This was purely an objective and non-judgmental exercise. Young performed these calculations in accordance with the methodology that had been described to all of the bidders prior to the submission of their bids. Schlitt had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease, as well as for the five option years. Accordingly, he was awarded the maximum 35 points for the former and the maximum 5 points for the latter, for a total of 40 points. The scores received by the other bidders for rental costs were as follows: 1436- basic term: 34.125, and option years: 4.340; Hedin- basic term: 28.865, and option years: 3.710; and Taylor- basic term: 31.938, and option years: 4.575. Schlitt and 1436 indicated on page C-22 of their completed BSFs that they were each willing to pay up to $30,000 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, up to $45,000 for the relocation of telephones and up to $10,000 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment. Accordingly, they were both awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Hedin indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF that he was willing to pay up to 28% of these amounts ($8,400.00 for the relocation of computer drop lines and statewide operational data system equipment, $12,600 for the relocation of telephones and $2,800 for the relocation of furniture and other equipment). Accordingly, he too was awarded the maximum 21 points for moving costs. Taylor, who indicated on page C-22 of his completed BSF a willingness to contribute only a small fraction of the Respondent's estimated moving costs, received a total of 1.667 points for moving costs. After computing these scores 7/ Young prepared a written synopsis of all four bids that had been submitted. He gave copies of his synopsis to the four members of the bid evaluation committee, along with score sheets for them to use in their evaluation of these bids. Typed in on each score sheet were the scores the bidders had received for rental costs and moving costs. These scores were accurately reported on the score sheets except for the score that Hedin had been awarded for rental costs associated with the basic term of the lease. The score sheets erroneously indicated that Hedin had been awarded 32.375 points, rather than 28.665 points, for this item. The four members of the bid evaluation committee were: General Services Manager McAloon; Frank Mueller, District IX's chief financial officer; and Kathy Pelaez and Alfred Swanson, two HRS administrators who supervise staff headquartered in Respondent's Indian River County client service center. 8/ Young, because he was the Facilities Services Manager, was prohibited by agency practice 9/ from serving on the bid evaluation committee. The bid evaluations committee visited each of the bidder's proposed facilities before determining the amount of points to award them for the non- economic categories, i.e., location and property, set forth in the Revised ITB. The committee members visited Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities on the same day. They subsequently paid a visit to Hedin's proposed property, which consisted of the building presently occupied by Respondent, plus an addition of approximately 5,000 square feet connected to the existing building by a walkway. The delay in visiting Hedin's proposed facility was the result of a determination, later overturned, that the entire facility was not dry and measurable as required by the Revised ITB. Following their visits to Schlitt's, 1436's and Taylor's proposed facilities, the members of the bid evaluation committee met as a group and discussed each of these proposed facilities. They had a similar meeting and discussion about Hedin's proposed facility after their visit to that proposed facility. Applying the criteria set forth in the Revised ITB, the committee members agreed that the following point awards should be made for the categories of location and property: location/proximity to preferred area (evaluation criterion 2.a., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/public transportation (evaluation criterion 2.b., 5 point maximum)- all four bidders: 0; location/proximity to clients (evaluation criterion 2.c., 5 point maximum)- Schlitt: 3, 1436: 2, Hedin: 5, and Taylor: 1; location/aesthetics (evaluation criterion 2.d., 1 point maximum): Schlitt, 1436, and Hedin: 1, and Taylor: 0; location/security (evaluation criterion 2.e., 1 point maximum)- all bidders: 1; property/design (evaluation criterion 3.a., 15 point maximum)- Schlitt: 9, 1436: 15, Hedin: 14, and Taylor 10; property/future expansion (evaluation criterion 3.b., 5 point maximum): Schlitt: 4, 1436: 5, Hedin 3.5, and Taylor 3, and property/square footage in single building (evaluation criterion 3.c., 2 point maximum)- Schlitt, 1436, and Taylor: 2, and Hedin: 1. Each of the members of the evaluation committee then recorded these scores on their individual score sheets. Although they agreed to each award the same number of points, evaluation committee members were free to do otherwise. They were not subjects to any threats or coercion. The members of the evaluation committee made a good faith effort to fairly base their point awards on the evaluation criteria for the categories of location and property prescribed in the Revised ITB. For instance, they awarded Schlitt only nine out of a possible 15 points for property/design because of their reasonable concerns that the space he offered, which was located in a multistory building which would have other tenants in addition to the Department, would not be able to house large units together and in close proximity to interdependent units. The committee members did not have similar concerns about the space offered by 1436. Accordingly, they awarded 1436 the maximum 15 points for this category. The points awarded by the evaluation committee for location and property were added to the points the bidders had previously received for rental and moving costs to obtain a total point award for each bidder. The; results were as follows: 1436- 87.465 total points; Schlitt- 84 total points; Hedin- 83.875 total points; and Taylor- 56.18 total points. 1436's bid was therefore the "lowest and best bid," as defined on page B-1 of he Revised ITB. Consistent with the Revised ITB's pronouncement that "[t]he successful bid will be that determined to be the lowest and best," the evaluation committee recommended to the District IX Administrator that 1436 be awarded Lease No. 590:2241. General Services Manager McAloon, in his capacity as chairman of the evaluation committee, provided the District IX Administrator with a written justification for the committee's recommendation. 10/ The committee's recommendation, as well as its written justification, were adopted by the District IX Administrator, who, by letter dated October 3, 1991, to 1436, gave notice of the Department's intention to award 1436 Lease No. 590:2241. Copies of this letter were sent to all bidders. The Department's preliminary decision to award the lease to 1436 was the product of, not any fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious or unlawful conduct on the Department's part, but rather the honest exercise of the agency's discretion. After receiving their copies of the District IX Administrator's October 3, 1991, letter to 1436, Schlitt and Hedin filed protests and initiated the instant proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Lease No. 590:2241 to 1436 over the protests of Schlitt and Hedin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of February, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Heading Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Bid The Department, through an Invitation to Bid (ITB), sought to secure a contract for the management of the Dade County Public Health Unit parking lot located at 1340 N.W. 14th Street, Miami, Florida. By April 1, 1986, the bid opening date, bids had been filed with the Department on behalf of Kinney, Floyd, and LaSalle Parking, Inc. (LaSalle). The Department's selection team reviewed the bids and recommended that the contract be awarded to Kinney. Consistent with the selection team's recommendation, by letter of April 2, 1986, the Department advised the unsuccessful bidders that the contract had been awarded to Kinney and advised them of their right to protest the award. Floyd filed a timely protest of the award and alleged, inter alia, that Mr. Shera, the Department's Business Manager, had outlined the criteria to be used in evaluating the bids as including a consideration of the bidder's ability to: Provide parking services to . . . employees and clients for the lowest monthly rate. 3/ Upon receipt of Floyd's protest, the Department reevaluated the bids and the ITB specifications, and concluded that the ITB specifications contained an ambiguity which had resulted in a lack of uniform bid response. Therefore, the Department rejected all bids and rebid the contract. 4/ Pertinent to this case the bid specifications provided. SPACES AVAILABLE: 13 Uncovered Reserved, present rate $10.50/ month. 22 Covered Reserved, present rate $10.50/ month. 115 Reserved for Health Department Employees, present rate $7.35/month. 3 Handicapped 45 Daily rental 45 Daily rental 198 TOTAL CURRENT RATE: Reserved Parking $10.50/month. Health Department Employees $7.35/month Health Department Clients 50 percent discount on daily rates. Daily rates: 1st hour $1.00 Additional 1/2 hour $.50 All day $2.50 3:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. $1.50. MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES: 3. That in consideration for such services, the OWNER will allow the MANAGER the exclusive right to charge, collect the established fees for all those wishing to have their cars parked upon the parking premises. All fees must be approved by the owner. And, the mandated Bid Sheet required a response to three proposals: PROPOSAL FOR OPERATING THE LOT: PROPOSED RATES: PROPOSED NET INCOME DISTRIBUTION: Kinney's response to the ITB proposed to retain the current rates and offered a net income distribution of 25% to Kinney and 75% to the Department. Floyd's response to the ITB proposed rates of: RESERVED PARKING : $9.35/MONTH HEALTH DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES: $6.24/MONTH HEALTH DEPARTMENT CLIENTS : 50% DISCOUNT ON DAILY RATES DAILY RATES : 1ST HOUR $1.00 EACH ADDITIONAL 1/2 HR. $.50 : MAXIMUM ALL DAY $2.50 : 3PM - 7PM $1.50 and a net income distribution of 30% to Floyd and 70% to the Department. While it was the Department's intent to maintain the current rates and to evaluate the bids primarily on a net income distribution basis, the bid specifications were ambiguous and subject to an interpretation which would permit a bid based on different parking rates, as well as a variable distribution basis. Accordingly, because of the ambiguity in the bid specifications, all bids submitted in response to the initial letting should be rejected. The Rebid On rebid, the Department amended its bid specifications to clarify its intent that the current rates would remain in effect, and delineated the "determining factors for bid award. Specifically, the rebid specifications provided: SPACES AVAILABLE: 13 Uncovered Reserved, present rate $10.50/ month. 22 Covered Reserved, present rate $10.50/ month. 115 Reserved for Health Department Employees, present rate $7.35/ month. 3 Handicapped. 45 Daily rental CURRENT RATES: Reserved Parking $10.50/month Health Department Employees $7.35/month Health Department Clients 50% discount on daily rates. Daily rates: 1st hour $1.00 Additional 1/2 hour $.50. All day $2.50 3:00 P.M. - 7:00 P.M. $1.50 The rates will remain the same. The owner will have full jurisdiction in raising or lowering said rate any time during the contract period. * * * Determining Factors for Bid Award: Unarmed parking attendant (outline measures to be taken to secure vehicles in lot). Experience (outline number of years in parking business as parking lot management firm.) Proposed net income distribution (percent split). Provide bilingual parking attendant (Spanish and English, French desirable but not mandatory). By May 14, 1986, the rebid opening date, Kinney, Floyd and LaSalle were the only bidders to respond to the ITB. The Department's selection team reviewed the bids and again recommended that the contract be awarded to Kinney. Accordingly, by letter of June 6, 1986, the Department advised the unsuccessful bidders of its decision to award the contract to Kinney and of their right to protest the award. Floyd filed a timely notice of protest and formal written protest of the proposed award. Floyd's formal protest, filed June 6, 1986, asserted that: Floyd & Associates Protection Corp. submitted the lowest responsive, responsible bid, and should be awarded this contract - Bid No. DCPHU 4/86. We protest the recommendation of the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Team that Kinney Systems, Inc. be awarded this contract. The bidding process is supposed to protect small companies from the powers of a large company. At all times, the purchasing officers should operate with integrity and fairness to all suppliers. Floyd & Associates has a proven track record and should not be looked upon as inferior because we haven't been in business as long as Kinney. However, if you judge us on an equal and unbiased basis, Floyd should be awarded this contract. We have enclosed exhibit A as a true comparison as to the merits of both companies. 5/ Floyd & Associates should be awarded this contract; we deserve a piece of the American Dream. The Reevaluation Floyd's charge of racial discrimination, planted by Floyd's first protest and tacitly reasserted by it's second protest, was not lost on the Department. Notwithstanding the unsubstantiated nature of Floyd's charge, the Department, without notice to Kinney, purportedly reevaluated the bids. By letter of July 2, 1986, the Department advised Kinney, without explanation, that based on the "selection team's" recommendation the contract had been awarded to Floyd. 6. Kinney filed a timely notice and formal protest of the Department's action. The Department contends that Section 120.53(5)(d), Florida Statutes, authorized its reevaluation of the bid to amicably resolve the protest. The Department's reliance on section 120.53(5)(d), as permitting its unilateral decision to vitiate its prior award of the contract to Kinney, is misplaced. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, establishes a statutory framework for resolution of protests arising from the contract bidding process. Pertinent to this case, section 120.53(5) provides: Upon receipt of a notice of protest which has been timely filed, the agency shall stop the bid solicitation process or the contract award process until the subject of the protest is resolved by final agency action, unless the agency head sets forth in writing particular facts and circumstances which require the continuance of the bid solicitation process or the contract award process without delay in order to avoid an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare. The agency, on its own initiative or upon the request of a protestor, shall provide an opportunity to resolve the protest by mutual agreement between the parties within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, of receipt of a formal written protest. If the subject of a protest is not resolved by mutual agreement within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, of receipt of the formal written protest and if there is no disputed issue of material fact, an informal proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to s.120.57(2) and applicable agency rules before a person whose qualifications have been prescribed by rules of the agency. If the subject of a protest is not resolved by mutual agreement within 7 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, of receipt of the formal written protest and if there is a disputed issue of material fact, the agency shall refer the protest to the division for proceedings under s. 120.57(1). Under the provisions of section 120.53(5)(c), the Department was bound, absent circumstances not present here, to stop the bid solicitation process pending resolution of Floyd's protest by final agency action. Under the framework of 120.53(5)(d), final agency action could only occur through mutual agreement of the parties; an informal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(2) Florida Statutes, or a formal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. See: Cianbro Corp. v. Jacksonville Transportation Authority, 473 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The provisions of section 120.53(5)(d), which provide an opportunity to resolve a protest by "mutual agreement between the parties," is not an invitation to the Department to unilaterally reevaluate its decision. Such resolution can only occur "between the parties"; which must include, at a minimum, the successful bidder, the protestant, and the Department. Since Kinney did not participate or concur in the Department's action, and there existed disputed issues of material fact, Floyd's protest could only be resolved by a formal 120.57(1) proceeding. Accordingly, the Department's subsequent decision to award the contract to Floyd was improper. 7/ The Bidders Kinney, which has operated the subject parking lot under contract with the Department for the past 6 years, is one of the world's largest parking companies, with over 50 years of experience in parking lot operations. Kinney presently parks approximately 20,000,000 automobiles annually in facilities it owns, leases or operates under contract. These facilities range in size from fewer than 50 spaces to those with thousands of spaces. Currently, Kinney operates 20 lots in south Florida, which contain 16-17,000 spaces and generate in excess of $20,000,000 in annual receipts. The proof establishes that Kinney has the requisite experience to operate the subject facility, properly supervise its operations, and accurately account for the proceeds generated by the parking operation. Kinney's rebid proposed to operate the subject parking facility predicated on a net income distribution of 25% to Kinney and 75% to the Department. The protestant, Floyd, was established in August 1982 and, until approximately November 1985, had been exclusively involved in providing security services. In November 1985, Floyd received a contract from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to manage its parking garage in Miami, Florida; which accounts for Floyd's total experience in parking lot management. Under Floyd's agreement with INS, it still operates as basically an unarmed security service. Since the majority of patrons utilizing the INS garage are clients of INS, no fees are collected. In the unusual event that the patron's ticket is not validated by INS and a fee is due, Floyd's simply collects the money and immediately gives it to an INS official. Floyd offered no evidence that it has any experience operating an in-and-out lot similar to the subject parking lot, or that it has any established or proposed methods of management, supervision and accounting controls necessary to service the Department's parking lot. Floyd proposed, however, to operate the subject parking lot based on a net income distribution of 20 percent to Kinney and 80 percent to the Department. 8/ The Department's selection team evaluated the responses of Kinney and Floyd, and recommended that the contract rebid be awarded to Kinney even though the net income differential proposed by Floyd would facially generate more income for the Department. The selection team's recommendation was premised on its conclusion that given the experience of Kinney, juxtaposed with the inexperience of Floyd, it could expect a greater return from Kinney even with the lower net income differential. Of the 198 spaces in the Department's parking lot, only 45 are reserved for daily rental. The balance of the spaces are reserved on a fixed monthly rate for Department and other employees. Accordingly, the ability to maximize revenue in the lot is directly dependent upon the operator's supervision and control of the 45 daily spaces. Kinney has demonstrated its ability to insure that those spaces remain open for their intended purpose, to collect and accurately account for all funds collected, and to maximize revenues. Floyd on the other hand has no such experience and offered no evidence that it had any inkling of what was required to operate such a parking lot or any plans to acquire such expertise. The selection team's recommendation was therefore reasonable, and the Department's decision to award the contract to Kinney was premised on an honest exercise of its discretion. At hearing, Floyd chose not to participate and, accordingly, offered no evidence discrediting the Department's award to Kinney or supporting its entitlement. The Department did offer evidence, however, to support its decision to "re-award" the contract to Floyd and thereby vitiate its initial decision. The thrust of the Department's evidence was two fold: a claim of mismanagement by Kinney of the subject parking lot and a claim that the selection team incorrectly assumed Floyd was not properly licensed. The Department's assertions lack substance and conviction. The Department's claims of mismanagement are founded on losses occasioned in the operation of the parking lot from June through November 1985, the theft of a car from the parking lot, and alleged damages to four cars caused by the mechanical arm which controls ingress to the lot. The losses in revenue were not, however, the fault of Kinney. These losses resulted from Kinney's inability to use the 45 daily spaces because the Department had issued over 250 gate cards for its employees. Despite Kinney's protests, it was not until December 1985 that the Department cooperated in solving this problem by limiting the number of gate cards, and the severe over crowding in the lot was eliminated. The only other factor bearing on lost revenue was some theft by a Kinney gate guard; however, Kinney, consistent with its routine practice, used "shoppers" to police the integrity of its employee, and the employee was caught and discharged. Rather than reflect unfavorably on Kinney, its discovery of the theft is evidenced of its good supervision. The Department's remaining claims of mismanagement are equally without merit. The one car stolen from the lot during Kinney's tenure was that of a Department employee who had left her keys in the car. The damage, if any (none was shown), to four cars by the mechanical arm, was occasioned by one car following another car too closely into the lot. The mechanical arm was not shown to function improperly. The foregoing facts, together with the assurances of Mr. Shera, the Department's local manager, that Kinney and the Department have enjoyed a very favorable working relationship over the past six years, renders the Department's assertions of mismanagement not credible. The Department's final basis to vitiate its award to Kinney is predicated on its assertion that its selection team incorrectly concluded that Floyd did not hold an occupational license to operate a parking lot. Again, the Department's assertion is not credible. The proof is that Floyd's licensure was not the motivating factor in the selection team's award of the contract to Kinney. The team's decision was premised on Kinney's superior qualifications and perceived ability to generate more revenue for the Department, compared with the team's well founded concerns of Floyd's ability to perform. As importantly, Kinney advised Mr. Shera by letter of May 15, 1986, of its protest to Floyd's qualifications because of Floyd's purported failure to have an occupational license at the time of bid submittal. Mr. Shera, on behalf of the Department, awarded the contract to Kinney by letter of June 5, 1986, and did not disqualify Floyd. Accordingly, the evidence supports the conclusion that the Department did not incorrectly exclude Floyd because of any licensure requirement. The totality of the evidence, including the demeanor of the witnesses, compels the conclusion that the Department's decision to support Floyd's bid was occasioned by its desire to avoid any appearance of discrimination, as opposed to a fair exercise of its discretion. Such conduct is arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the evidence supports the award of the subject contract to Kinney.
Findings Of Fact Respondent (DHRS) published a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Medicaid transportation services on May 24, 1985. The RFP identified five transportation categories which would be the subject of the contract awarded the successful bidder. In response to the RFP, Petitioner (B & L Services) and Intervenor Friendly Checker Cab. Co. (Friendly) were the only entities to submit bid proposals. Friendly's response to the instant RFP was rated superior to the B & L proposal by the DHRS bid evaluation committee. The committee further recommended to the DHRS District Administrator that Friendly be awarded the contract. As noted, there were five categories of transportation involved in the current RFP. Friendly's bid was roughly equivalent to that of B & L Services' bid for both intracounty and intercounty non-emergency ambulance/stretcher service (one category) based on anticipated mileage. Because the RFP called for a "fixed price per unit of transportation" and because a "unit is defined as a one-way trip," (See RFP I.E.) it is questionable whether this portion of Friendly's bid was in compliance with the RFP. Friendly's bid was lowest for demand- responsive ambulatory transportation (more than 24 hour notice category) and demand- responsive ambulatory transportation (less than 24 hour notice category) whether or not the transportation to be provided was intercounty or intracounty. Friendly was lowest bidder for demand-responsive wheelchair transportation (more than 24 hour notice category) and for demand-responsive wheelchair transportation (less than 24 hour notice category) if the transportation was intracounty but B & L Services was low bidder for intercounty transportation in these last two categories. The RFP required that potential bidders possess a Medicaid Provider Number. B & L Services possessed such a number. Friendly also was an approved Medicaid provider and possessed a Medicaid Provider Number prior to submitting its proposal in response to the RFP, although Robert J. Siedlecki individually, did not. Robert J. Siedlecki purchased the entity known as Friendly Checker Cab and its trade name in 1978. At the time of the submission of the current bid proposals Siedlecki was operating Friendly as a sort-of one man show which he characterized as a "sole proprietorship" . There is only uncorroborated hearsay testimony that during the course of the preliminary informal bid resolution process, the Office of the Secretary of State verified to Vera Scharitt contract manager for DHRS; that Friendly Checker Cab Co. was "re-established" as a corporation on July 16, 1985. (After contract inception date). Accordingly there was established no limitation on Mr. Siedlecki's personal liability. Most of the bid evaluation committee members who testified erroneously believed they were rating a corporation when they rated the Friendly bid proposal because of the word/symbol "Co." Petitioner contended that this status of Friendly and interrelationship of Friendly to other business entities of which Robert J. Siedlecki is a principal constituted sufficient camouflaging of interests to render Friendly an unresponsive bidder. Prior to the RFP in question, both B & L Services and Friendly had provided transportation services to DHRS pursuant to contract. The preceding year; Friendly had submitted a proposal in response to an RFP similar to the RFP in question. Robert J. Siedlecki submitted that former bid as Friendly for the category of ambulatory transportation in the same manner in which he submitted his proposal for Friendly for the five category contract under consideration herein, except that the present Friendly bid title page utilizes the trade name "Friendly Checker Taxis Company", another trade name owned by Mr. Siedlecki and the document agreeing to contract specifications and requirements lists "Friendly Checker Taxicabs Co." The record is silent as to what "Friendly Checker Taxicabs Co." may bed but Mr. Siedlecki also owns it and the trade name of "Friendly Checker Cab. Co., Inc." which he stated is a corporation. The use of a different entity's name on the title page of the current Friendly bid proposal is characterized by Mr. Siedlecki as a "typographical error," because at his office they use these names interchangeably. In fact, although inadvertent and for no ulterior purpose; the interchangeable use of several different entity names throughout Friendly's bid proposal constitutes a material error which may have contributed to confusion of the bid evaluation committee over the identity and capability of the true bidder. The prior year; Friendly was awarded and provided the ambulatory transportation category of a similar contract. That award and the award of other categories to B & L Services in response to the prior year's RFP were apparently made category by category within the same five categories as were covered by the present RFP. B & L Services contends that the bid evaluation committee members were misled with regard to the present proposals by use of only one rating sheet per each bidder as opposed to one rating sheet per bidder per category bid on. The current RFP provided that: "III.D. . . .Proposers may submit a proposal for one or more types of services stated in this RFP" (RFP pp.2-3) and "V.C.4. . . .Proposers may submit a proposal for one or more types of service stated and must specify whether the cost is for countywide services, only, intercounty services only, or both." (RFP p.8) However, the current bid evaluation committee members who testified all erroneously believed a single contract for all five categories was intended. Only the non-voting contract manager testified otherwise. The rating sheet misled the committee in its established award procedure. Allegations of interrelationships between Intervenor Friendly and other business entities controlled by Mr. Siedlecki, such as "S & M," "Kinko Elevator," and "B & L Operating Co." (not to be confused with Petitioner B & L Services Inc.) were not established as camouflaging or confusing the identity of the true bidder. Paragraph L. of the RFP required that the original of all bid proposal responses be signed by an "official of the organization submitting the proposal who is authorized to bind the service operator to their proposal" (RFP page 6). Friendly's bid proposal title page indicates "Friendly Checker Taxi Company" with "Inquiries Coordinator Robert J. Siedlecki President," and "Project Director Karen Caputo." Robert J. Siedlecki testified that within Friendly's bid proposal response documents, he signed the page requiring acceptance of contract terms and conditions as Robert J. Siedlecki, individually. This document bears his signature with no title. He also testified that he signed the affidavit of non- involvement in any feasibility study of the implementation of the subject contract as Robert J. Siedlecki, individually. This document bears his signature with no title. He also testified that he signed the certificate of self-insurance as Taxi, Inc.'s self insurance fund administrator. This document refers to "Friendly Checker Taxi" with his signature as "administrator." The administrative assessment documents refer to "Friendly Checker Cab Co." with Robert J. Siedlecki as "director." He testified that he signed the financial statement as Robert J. Siedlecki as President of Friendly Checker Cab, Co. and this testimony is confirmed on the document itself. He testified that he signed the document agreeing to all specifications and requirements of the contract as Robert J. Siedlecki, individually. That document refers to "Friendly Checker Taxicab, Co." and is signed by Mr. Siedlecki with no title. All these documents were required by the RFP and their completion resulted in the higher rating for Friendly's proposal. However, rationalizations within the internal workings of Mr. Siedlecki's mind of when he is an official of different entities and when he is an individual is not easily discernible from the actual bid documents. These rationalizations affected full disclosure required by the RFP and contributed to confusion of the bid evaluation committee members as to the identity, nature, and capability of the true bidder. Concerning financial statements; the RFP required providers to: "V.D.4. Submit a copy of the most recent financial statement. A Certified Public Audit is preferred." (RFP p.8). B & L Services' financial statement in its current bid proposal was dated December 31, 1983. Its coversheet is dated March 12, 1984 and purports to be signed by a firm of certified public accountants. This coversheet is actually a statement that the March 12, 1984 compilation relies on representations of B & L Services' management. (Petitioner B & L Services). It may be B & L Services' "most recent" financial statement, but this "compilation" does not constitute a certified public accountant's unqualified opinion let alone a "certified statement" or "certified public audit" within certified public accounting standards. Friendly's financial statement submitted with its current bid proposal likewise was not a certified public audit but was dated May 15, 1985 and was verified by Robert J. Siedlecki as President of Friendly on June 19, 1985, and thus was more current than the financial statement of B & L Services. The Friendly financial statement seemingly contains all information associated with Friendly's operations, but does not contain all details of Robert J. Siedlecki's personal and individual assets and liabilities. As a result, the Friendly financial statement is substantially defective and misleading for a sole proprietorship. This defect is particularly significant in misstating Friendly's financial status in the instant case because Mr. Siedlecki individually is involved in other business dealings and litigation which could affect his personal liquidity and thus the capability of Friendly to perform the DHRS contract. B & L Services' response to the current RFP did not include an acceptance of responsibility statement nor a completed administrative assessment checklist, both of which were required by the RFP and failure of B & L Services to include each constituted a material and substantial noncompliance with the RFP. Friendly's response to the current RFP did include a completed administrative assessment. It also included an acceptance of responsibility statement which materially complied with the RFP in all other respects except concerning identity and capability of the true bidder as reflected in Finding of Fact 12, above. The current RFP called for five categories of transportation services. Intercounty transportation requirements (involving transportation portal to portal through three counties) and intracounty transportation requirements (involving transportation between any two points within Broward County) cross category lines. (See Findings of Fact 2 and 5 above). At least two categories of services to be performed under the current contract did not require a Broward County Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) license. The RFP permitted the successful bidder to sub-contract for the provisions of services under the contract in question upon the following terms: "III.F. The proposer shall execute with the District X Medicaid Program Office a General Revenue Federal Funds Contract with appropriate attachments which complies with monitoring standards. Said provider may subcontract for provision of transportation services. The provider is responsible for assuring that the subcontractor meets all requirements for participation in the Medicaid Programs abides by the provisions of the contract and meets all state and local licensing requirements." (Emphasis supplied) (RFP pp. 3-4) Friendly, through Robert J. Siedlecki, made its decision to sub-contract the non-emergency transportation categories of the current contract some time around the time the bid was opened by DHRS. No information about subcontracting or subcontractors is apparent from Friendly's bid proposal documents. AAA Wheelchair Wagon Service had been issued a Broward County NEMT license on June 20, 1985, which was one day prior to the submission and opening of bid proposals and prior to the date set for inception of the contract. Prior to the start of the contract Friendly requested and received permission from DHRS to subcontract the wheelchair/stretcher portions of the contract to AAA Wheelchair Wagon Service. Petitioner's Exhibit 7, a 6/14/85 letter from Dr. Martin, Assistant Director Broward County Emergency Services Division, to Mrs. Nancy Porter, a bid evaluation committee member was submitted to the committee for informational purposes so the committee would know what entities were NEMT licensed by Broward County to do non-emergency medical transportation in Broward County. The letter, although vague; represents by elimination, that Friendly and AAA Wheelchair Wagon Service were not licensed on June 14, 1985 by Broward County but B & L Services, Inc. was so-licensed on that date. The RFP provides that: "I.D.6. List vehicles to be used, identifying number and licenses with proof of insurance, listing type and amount of coverage, attaching copies of all current applicable state and local licenses and permits," (RFP page 8) However, neither the DHRS contract manager nor any of the bid evaluation committee members who testified had any knowledge at all of what licenses were required to perform any of the contract's five categories, and none realized that certain licenses which were no longer necessary and/or which were issued to many other Siedlecki-owned entities or to Mr. Siedlecki personally had been attached to Friendly's proposal while B & L Services attached to its proposal its Broward County NEMT license but not its state NEMT license. Some of the 90 employees listed on Friendly's bid proposal should have been indicated as independent contractors instead. Additionally, the insurance compliance documents mention "Friendly Checker Taxi" and, according to Mr. Siedlecki's oral testimony, some of the vehicles listed as Friendly's property were apparently owned by independent dispatch drivers and some by Taxi, Inc., which is yet another entity owned and controlled by Robert J. Siedlecki. These errors result in a material noncompliance of Friendly's proposal with RFP requirement I.D. 6 (RFP page 8). However, the authority of Robert J. Siedlecki as administrator of the Taxi, Inc. Self- Insurance Fund in relation to the number of Taxi, Inc. vehicles listed in the Friendly bid proposal is less than clear from the record and since the burden of proof is upon Petitioner to demonstrate each element of non-compliance and the extent of this non-compliance by competent substantial evidence, no non- compliance arising from alleged criminal violations under Florida Statutes governing the requirements of self insurance funds and their administrators has been adequately demonstrated. The RFP required bidders to: "I.D.3. Submit evaluations of projects similar to the one proposed in the RFP (previous experience is desired but not required)" (RFP p.8). Friendly's bid proposal outlined 20 years of service to the community including service to and from the local airport. B & L Services contends this information is falsified due to Siedlecki's takeover of Friendly as sole proprietor of Friendly in 1978. The competent substantial evidence falls short of establishing deliberate falsification, but in light of the foregoing findings of fact and the sole proprietorship status of Friendly, this portion of the Friendly proposal is materially misleading of the overall experience of Friendly. B & L Services did not present any evidence to show that it was an eligible transportation provider under 10C- 7.45(3)(a) F.A.C. B & L Services presented no evidence to rehabilitate the deficiencies of its proposal and no evidence to show the superiority of its bid over that of Friendly. Pleadings of record indicate Petitioner and Respondent have entered into agreements concerning damages, if any, as part of their stipulations for continuance of the formal hearing but B & L Services presented no evidence of damages incurred by B & L Services as a result of the bid award to Friendly.
The Issue Whether Respondent should sustain Petitioner's challenge to the preliminary determination to award Bid No. DCPHU 10-91 to Kinney System of Florida, Inc.?
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: In November, 1991, Respondent issued Invitation to Bid No. DCPHU 10-91 (hereinafter referred to as the "ITB"). Through the ITB, Respondent solicited bids to manage the Dade County Public Health Unit's parking lot located at 1350 N.W. 14th Street in Miami, Florida. The managerial responsibilities to be assumed by the successful bidder were described in the ITB as follows: That the OWNER will grant unto the MANAGER, the full exclusive management rights to operate a public parking service, and said MANAGER will take the exclusive rights to operate upon the premises and driveways, of what is commonly known as a "Public Parking Service" at and for the Dade County Public Health Unit. The term "Public Parking Service" as indicated above, is defined as meaning "those patrons wishing to avail themselves of a paid parking service." MANAGER will furnish competent and courteous uniformed parking attendants, during the times and on the days and hours as may be deemed necessary, and to be set forth by the OWNER. It is understood and agreed, all employees are in the employ of MANAGER, solely and not in the employ of OWNER. OWNER is in no way liable to employees for their wages or compensation. That in consideration for such services, the OWNER will allow the MANAGER the exclusive right to charge, collect the established fees for all those wishing to have their cars parked upon the parking premises. All fees must be approved by the OWNER. The ITB indicated that, in order to be deemed a "qualified bidder," the bidder "must be licensed to do business in the State of Florida." The following advisement was given in the ITB regarding how the bids of "qualified bidders" would be evaluated: Bidders shall be evaluated on the basis of proposal for operating the lot, proposed rates, proposed net income distribution, proposer's financial condition, prior job performance, and recommended detailed anticipated operating expense budget for a twelve (12) months [sic] period. So that Respondent would have information upon which to evaluate the financial condition of those submitting bids, the ITB directed all bidders to submit: "1. COPY OF 1990 OR LATEST FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND 2. FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN AND 3. ANNUAL REPORT."1/ There are three basic types of financial statements that accountants prepare: those that are the product of an audit (hereinafter referred to "audit statements"); those that are the product of a review; and those that are the product of a compilation (hereinafter referred to as "compilation statements"). Of the various types of financial statements produced by accountants, certified audit statements are considered to be the most reliable and compilation statements that are produced without the benefit of the accountant's examination of the source documents and materials upon which they are purportedly based are considered to be the least reliable. In preparing such compilation statements, the accountant simply puts the figures he has been provided by his client in financial statement form without verifying the accuracy of these figures. Accordingly, it is standard practice in the accounting profession for accountants to warn readers of such compilation statements that they "do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the[se statements]." The ITB did not specify what type of financial statement bidders had to submit along with their bid. There was no indication in the ITB that a compilation statement would be deemed unacceptable. Petitioner submitted a timely bid in response to the ITB. Its bid was accompanied by the financial statement required by the ITB. The financial statement was a compilation statement prepared by Petitioner's accountant, Herbert Ehrlich. Appended to the statement was a letter written by Ehrlich. The body of the letter read as follows: We have compiled the accompanying balance sheet of Centre City Parking Inc. as of December 31, 1990, and related statement of income, retained earnings and supporting schedules, for the year then ended, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of financial statements information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them. Management has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures and the statement of cash flows required by generally accepted accounting principles. If the omitted disclosures and statement of cash flows were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the company's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. The shareholders2/ have elected to treat the company as a small business corporation for income tax purposes as provided in the Internal Revenue Code and the applicable state statutes. As such, the corporation income or loss and credits are passed through to the shareholders and combined with their personal income and deductions to determine taxable income on their individual returns. In issuing such a written warning regarding the compilation statement he had prepared for Petitioner, Ehrlich was acting in accordance with the standards of acceptable accounting practice prescribed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Kinney System of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Kinney"), Meyers Parking System, Inc. and Republic Parking System also timely submitted bids in response to the ITB. Kinney's bid was accompanied by a certified audit statement of its parent corporation, Kinney System Holding Corporation. There was no financial statement, however, reflecting Kinney's individual financial condition. A bid evaluation committee comprised of five members evaluated each of the four bids submitted in response to the ITB. The members of the committee determined that, of the four bids submitted, Petitioner's was the lowest. They were concerned, however, based upon the statements made in Ehrlich's letter, that Petitioner had Ehrlich prepare its financial statement without giving him the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the representations it had made to him regarding its financial condition. Because of these concerns, they eliminated Petitioner's bid from consideration, notwithstanding that it was the lowest responsive bid submitted by a qualified bidder, and recommended that the contract be awarded to Kinney, whom they determined to be the next lowest qualified and responsive bidder.3/ The committee members' decision was announced in a letter dated January 13, 1992, the body of which read as follows: Based on the proposed net income distribution, references, background and financial condition, the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Committee recommends award of the annual parking lot management contract to Kinney Systems [sic] of Florida, Inc. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Protests not filed within the prescribed time limit will not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of intent to protest must be filed with the Administrative Services Director named in the bid invitation within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten days after a notice of intent to protest is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the Administrative Services Director. A copy of this letter was mailed to Petitioner. Petitioner subsequently protested the committee's recommendation in accordance with the procedures set forth in the letter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order sustaining Petitioner's protest and awarding Petitioner the contract advertised in the ITB. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of March, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Respondent on the ground that the proposed space was not "dry and measurable" at the time of the bid.
Findings Of Fact The bid specifications in the solicitation by the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security (DLES) for its Lease No. 540:0977 (office space in Orange County) required that proposed space be in an existing building "dry and capable of being physically measured to determine net rentable square footage at the time of bid submittal." The requirement that proposed office space in response to Lease No. 540:0977 be "dry and measurable," as described in the preceding finding, is a long-standing, standard requirement found in the bid specification form developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS) (formerly the Department of General Services (DGS)) for use by all agencies of the State of Florida. DMS' (and, formerly, DGS') long-standing interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement in the standard bid specification form is that the building must have a roof and walls, with windows either in place or covered over so that the building interior stays dry in adverse weather conditions. In response to the DLES solicitation for bids for its Lease No. 540:0977, the Petitioners submitted a bid for space in a former Publix strip shopping mall, formerly known as the Northgate Shopping Center, located at 5023 Edgewater Drive, in Winter Park, Florida. At the time of the bid, the mall was unoccupied and in the process of being renovated and was a designated construction site. The building had been gutted, and the glass in the front of the building had been removed. The glass could be referred to as "windows" but actually would make up the top two-thirds of the front wall of the building. As a result, without the glass, the front "wall" consisted of a three to four foot rise of concrete blocks, and the front of the building was otherwise open. There was a 12-foot, eight-inch overhang over the front "wall," but wind-blown rain could enter the building, and apparently did. (There was standing water on the floor of the gutted building. There also were missing or unsecure doors along the back wall of the building.) When Susan Early, the DLES employee in charge of the bid solicitation, received the Petitioners' bid and saw the photographs of the building required by the bid solicitation, she questioned whether the building was "dry and measurable." To help answer her question, she asked another DLES employee, who was located in the Orlando area, to go to the site, take pictures, and send a report of her findings, together with the photographs. The report and photographs indicated to Early that the building was not "dry and measurable." But, instead of relying on the information she had, she sent another, Tallahassee-based DLES employee to the site and received confirmation of her understanding as to the condition of the building. She then contacted Mary Goodman, the person at DMS who had the most experience in the area of soliciting and evaluating bids of leased office space, and who ultimately would be responsible for approving the DLES lease. Goodman advised Early that the DLES should reject the Petitioners' bid as non-responsive because it was not "dry and measurable." The DLES also rejected, as being non-responsive, the only other bid received in response to the bid solicitation. In the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, DOAH Case No. 88-3357BID, entered September 21, 1988, the Division of Administrative Hearings rejected a bid as not offering "dry and measurable" space because the building "had a roof, a slab, and walls, which comprised 50 percent of the vertical plane from the slab to the roof." The bidder's argument that the building "had a four foot overhang" and that "the overhang prevented rain from entering the building" was rejected as not being credible "given the large amount of window space which was not enclosed." The winning bid, which was upheld as being a "dry and measurable" was an abandoned bowling alley that "had walls, a slab, and portions of the exterior walls were boarded over, possibly in the location of existing windows or window openings. The roof did have a hole, which was approximately three feet in length and allowed water to leak into the building." (Citations to the record omitted.) The facts derived from the Final Order, The Koger Company v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, supra, do not in themselves prove that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid. Although the Petitioners' bid in this case was for a building that once had a certificate of occupancy, the Petitioners' bid in this case is more similar in other respects to the rejected bid than the successful bid in the Koger Company case. For example, like the rejected bid in the Koger Company case, the Petitioners' bid had partial exterior walls. The Petitioners proved that they also submitted a bid for the lease of office space in the Northgate Shopping Center in response to a bid solicitation by the Florida Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission). The bid was evaluated, along with others, and the lease was awarded to another bidder. It can be inferred from this that the Department of Corrections made a determination that the Petitioners' bid was "dry and measurable." However, those facts alone do not prove the DLES, in this case, acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly. They only would prove that the two agencies interpreted the phrase "dry and measurable" differently. There also was evidence that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) interprets the phrase "dry and measurable" differently than DLES does. But it was not proven whether HRS would have accepted a bid for space having the characteristics of the Petitioners' bid. The Petitioners argued persuasively from the evidence presented that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities. Sometimes, space in a building under construction or substantial renovation can be leased at lower rates. Presumably for that reason, the Department of Corrections (Parole and Probation Commission) and HRS interpret the requirement differently. But, given the requirement that bid space be "dry," it cannot be said that the DLES acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in rejecting the Petitioners' bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, enter a final order rejecting the bid of the Petitioners to lease office space to the Department in Winter Park, Florida, Lease Number 540:0977. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3922BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should be noted, however, that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Rejected as not proven, according to the DLES interpretation of the "dry and measurable" requirement, that the bid space was "existing." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. It should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected in part as not proven, in part as argument, and in part as irrelevant. It also should again be noted that the missing "windows" in front made up approximately two-thirds of the front wall of the building. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. In part, rejected as irrelevant and not proven. (Evidence as to the HRS manual and related facts was excluded as being irrelevant.) The rest is accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Irrelevant and unnecessary. (It was established at the hearing that the Petitioners' bid was rejected only because the bid space was not "dry"; DLES does not contend that it was not "measurable.") Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. In part, irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary (what Mr. Taylor's definition is.) In part, cumulative. In part, rejected as argument. In part, accepted and incorporated (that the requirement that bid space be "dry," as interpreted by the DMS and the DLES, can be impractical when applied to the real world of building renovations and may exclude possible good lease opportunities.) Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. (Assuming it acts consistently from case to case, an agency's choice not to waive technicalities cannot be called "acting fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly.") Rejected as being argument and as not proven. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Except for the number of square feet, which is in error, accepted and incorporated. 2.-5. Accepted and incorporated. 6. Rejected as contrary to the findings of fact and the greater weight of the evidence that there were no walls in front. (They extended only about a third of the way up to the ceiling.) 7.-8. Accepted and incorporated. 9. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Taylor 170 East Lake Elbert Winter Haven, Florida 33881 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle South East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Transportation, advertised its Invitation to Bid on Contract No. E4504, State Project Job No. 99004-3509 for work consisting of providing trees and shrubs with on-site placement for State Road 858 in Broward County, Florida. The Invitation to Bid advised that a mandatory pre-bid conference would be conducted on January 10, 1991. Although it was the responsibility of Kathleen L. Mims to submit bids on behalf of Mims Gardens, Inc., and to attend pre-bid conferences, Stephen H. Mims attended the mandatory pre-bid conference for this bid instead. At the pre-bid conference, after all attendees were provided with bid packages, the meeting was called to order by Teresa L. Martin, Respondent's Assistant District Contracts Administrator. Martin and Carl Higgins, the Project Engineer, explained unit pricing and how averaged prices were to be calculated. Higgins explained that although some of the pay items consisted of aggregate quantities of different plants, only a single average price was to be calculated for the total number of plants required for that category and only one figure was to be placed in the box for each pay item even if that pay item consisted of different plants with different prices. When Martin and Higgins concluded their remarks, they gave the attendees the opportunity to ask questions regarding the bid and the proper completion of the bid form. Stephen Mims heard the explanation for calculating the average price for the total number of plants in a single pay item category. He did not pay much attention to the explanation, however, because he was concentrating on counting the number of pages in his bid package. Although he did take some notes on some of the information given during the mandatory pre-bid conference, he made no notes regarding calculating the prices to be submitted on the bid form. He assumed that whatever information was needed would be included in the bid package itself. After the mandatory pre-bid. conference, he gave the bid package to Kathleen L. Mims to complete and submit to Respondent. He did not show her the notes that he had taken and did not give her the information given to him at the mandatory pre-bid conference regarding the fact that only one number was to be provided for each pay item even if that pay item consisted of plants with different prices or regarding how to calculate a single average price for the total number of plants in each pay item category. Kathleen L. Mims completed and submitted a bid on behalf of Mims Gardens, Inc. When she completed the bid price proposal sheet, she listed individual unit prices for each of the plants in the pay item categories that contained more than one plant. She did not calculate a single average price as required by Respondent in order that all bids could be evaluated against each other. Although Kathleen Mims had never previously submitted a bid to the Department of Transportation, and although the bid price proposal sheet was different than those she routinely completed, she did not contact Teresa Martin or Carl Higgins to inquire as to the proper method for completing the bid price proposal sheet. Although the Bid Blank itself contained no directions regarding the specific procedure to be used in filling out the bid price proposal sheet, she did not ask her husband Stephen Mims what information had been given to him during the mandatory pre-bid conference. Additionally, although the bid package advised potential bidders as to requirements for filing a protest regarding the bid solicitation itself, Mims Gardens did not protest the bid solicitation. Stephen Mims did not assist in the preparation of the bid proposal of Mims Gardens. When the bid proposal for Mims Gardens was completed, Kathleen Mims did not show it to Stephen Mims to ascertain if it complied with the instructions given to him at the mandatory pre-bid conference. She simply filed her bid with the Department of Transportation on January 18, 1991, the deadline for submittal of bids for the project in question. Thirteen sealed bids were received and opened by the Department of Transportation. Mims Gardens submitted the lowest bid based on the contractor's total bid price from the bid form. Vila and Son Landscaping submitted the second lowest bid. On January 25, 1991, the Department posted its Notice of Intent to award the project to Vila and Son Landscaping. That notice advised that the Department had determined the bid of Mims Gardens to be an irregular bid proposal and that the bid of Mims Gardens was therefore rejected. One other bid also contained multiple quantities and prices in some of the pay item categories, was also declared irregular, and was also rejected. Kathleen Mims admitted at the final hearing in this cause that if she had attended the mandatory pre-bid conference, she would have been able to fill out the bid proposal sheet correctly. Mims filed its notice of intent to protest on January 25, 1991, and its formal protest filed on February 1, 1991, was timely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Declaring Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive; Rejecting Petitioner's bid; and Awarding Contract No. E4504, State Project Job No. 99004-3509 to Vila and Son Landscaping Corp. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of March, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-0990BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 except for the second and third sentences, 3-7, and 10-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The second and third sentences of Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 8, and 9 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, the first sentence of 3, 4, and 6-11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 and the second sentence of Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 3 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Hankins, Assistant General Counsel Susan P. Stephens, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Nancy Katherine Neidich, Esquire 2810 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 102 Post Office Box 5121 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN.: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent Department acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in making a decision to award Central Florida Legal Services, Inc., the Intervenor, a bid concerning a proposed contract to enter into Lease No. 800:0045. Embodied within that general issue are questions involving whether the Petitioner, Robert Allan Weinberg's (Weinberg) response to the Department's Invitation to Bid (ITB) was responsive, was the lowest and best bid and whether the Intervenor's bid was responsive to the ITB and was the lowest and best bid. Finally, it must be determined whether the Department properly evaluated the bid proposals in accordance with legally-acceptable, competitive bidding principles, in an honest and non-arbitrary fashion.
Findings Of Fact This dispute arose upon the Department electing to seek office space for personnel of its District 12, in Daytona Beach, Florida. After considering the type and nature of the facilities it needed, the Department ultimately published a set of specifications for the desired facility in an ITB. The ITB included detailed instructions for preparation and submittal of bids and a relevant form. A pre-bid conference was conducted and thereafter, three vendors submitted bids. One proposal was determined by the Department to be non- responsive because the amount of space contained in the bid proposed by that vendor did not meet the Department's specifications contained in the ITB. That agency decision was not contested. The bid submitted by the Intervenor, as well as the Petitioner, were both determined to be responsive by the Department. After evaluating the proposals based upon criteria contained in the ITB, the Department ultimately determined that the lowest, best and most responsive bid was that submitted by the Intervenor. It notified the bidders of its decision to award the subject bid to the Intervenor, and the Petitioner filed a protest. A formal written protest was timely filed, initiating this proceeding. The issues raised by the parties, concerning the relative responsiveness of the two bids, revolve around the question of adequate parking, the status of existing tenants in the buildings, a consideration required by the terms of the ITB, the question of adequacy of "dry and measurable" space, the question of "location" (including building appearance, appearance of the property, the character of the neighborhood, security issues, design or layout of the proposed space, and provision for future expansion). Petitioner's Responsiveness The Petitioner's response to the ITB is deficient in terms of provisions for parking, as well as concerning the disclosure of the status of existing tenants in the Petitioner's building. The parking facilities offered by the Petitioner do not meet the requirements of the ITB. The ITB requires that 60 parking spaces be available for the exclusive use of the Department. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Item 21 in evidence (the ITB) provides: For this facility, the Department has determined that a minimum of 60 parking spaces are required to meet its needs. Its parking is to be provided as part of a lease cost to the department. The lessor will grant to the lessee an exclusive right to use 60 parking spaces. Lessor shall submit with this bid submittal a letter certifying that the lessor agrees to the requested number of parking spaces on site, states the number of parking spaces per square foot of space as required by the local zoning jurisdiction and provides a site plan of the parking lot identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces conform to local jurisdiction requirements of number and size, and that the number of parking spaces requested in this invitation can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirement of other tenants (emphasis contained in original document). The Petitioner's bid submittal does not show spaces assigned to specific other tenants, as required by the ITB, and does not state the number of parking spaces per square foot of space required by the local zoning jurisdiction, which is the City of Daytona Beach, Florida. The Petitioner proposes to house the Department in two sections of an existing building. Those sections are presently occupied by other tenants. Other space within the building is also presently occupied and will continue to be occupied, even if the Department decides to lease the Petitioner's space at issue. The Petitioner's site plan shows that it has 92 spaces available to serve tenants in that building located on the building site. In addition to those spaces, the Petitioner proposes to use eight (8) additional spaces located off-site. Certain space in the Petitioner's proposed building is presently leased to the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). That lease will remain in effect even if the Petitioner leases the space at issue to the Department. Under that HRS lease, 29 spaces are committed to HRS on an exclusive basis, with six (6) other spaces on a non-exclusive basis. There is additional office space in the building presently occupied by private businesses, which totals 4,470 square feet. Under the City of Daytona Beach Code, the parking requirement for 4,470 square feet of commercial office space, in a building the size of the Petitioner's is 16 spaces. The eight (8) parking spaces off the building site, proposed to be used by the Petitioner, are adjacent to and serve an existing building that also houses a private business. That building has 16 total parking spaces, including the eight (8) which the Petitioner is proposing to allocate to the agency, if the bid is awarded. The building contains 3,900 square feet. Under the City of Daytona Beach Code, it must have a minimum of 14 parking spaces for that square footage. If the Petitioner leased space to the Respondent, its total parking space requirement to serve all of its tenants, including the proposed office space, under the City of Daytona Beach Code, would be 125 spaces. Eighty-nine (89) of those spaces would be for the exclusive use of the Respondent and HRS. The Petitioner's site plan, however, reveals that only 108 spaces are available, including the spaces at the off-site location. Additionally, the existing parking spaces of the Petitioner, designed to serve handicapped persons, do not conform to the current City of Daytona Beach Code. Handicapped parking spaces are required by that Code to be 12 feet wide, with an additional five feet provided for access of handicapped persons. In order to meet this dimensional requirement, the Petitioner's need for parking spaces to accommodate all tenants, will increase by four (4) spaces. He will need a total of 129 spaces to accommodate all tenants, including the Department, should the bid be awarded. He has only 108 spaces available. Mr. Weinberg testified on behalf of the Petitioner, to the effect that the parking lot could be re-configured in order to gain 13 more spaces. This did not include the four additional spaces that would be needed to properly accommodate the handicapped parking spaces to the requirements of the City of Daytona Beach Code. The Petitioner's bid submittal plan, however, does not reflect any site plan involving re-configuration of the parking area. Moreover, it was not established that the reconfiguration proposed by the Petitioner can be accomplished under the mandates of the City of Daytona Beach Code. If it could, the Petitioner would still not have sufficient spaces to meet the requirements in the ITB, as well as the requirements of existing tenant leases and code requirements, concerning parking spaces for relevant amounts of building square footage allocated to the various tenants. The Petitioner's bid also does not meet the criteria of the ITB containing the status of existing tenants. The ITB requires that vendors provide information regarding the rights of existing tenants, including written documentation regarding their status, as that relates to the availability and the time of availability of the space proposed in the bid. The ITB provides, in pertinent part: Existing tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledg- ment of the lessor's bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date or earlier to allow lessor's renovation work to be completed must be included with the bid submittal. If the existing tenants are on a month-to-month lease, the bidder must provide a letter of explanation of this condition. There are two existing tenants in the space which the Petitioner has proposed to lease to the Department. The Petitioner offered no written documentation from either tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and lessee's ability to vacate the premises. The only information which the Petitioner provided was for one of those tenants and that was not signed nor acknowledged by the tenant. No information was provided, as required by the ITB, as to the other tenant. Intervenor's Responsiveness The Petitioner maintains that the Intervenor's proposed office space was not "dry and measurable" at the time the bid was submitted by the Intervenor. The Petitioner also contends that the Intervenor's bid does not meet the parking facility requirements of the ITB. The criteria in the ITB require a definition of "dry and measurable" space available and also contain provisions allowing the vendor time to complete the facility through renovation, etc., subsequent to the bid submittal, but prior to the occupancy time specified in the ITB. The ITB provides, on page 2 in the second paragraph: Space to be made available: 07-01-95 or within 182 days after notification of bid award, whichever occurs last. Under the heading, "Handicap Standards and Alterations", at page 4 of the ITB, the ITB provides: Lessor agrees that the demised premises now conform, or that, prior to lessee's occupancy, said premises shall, at the lessor's expense, be brought into conformance with the require- ments of Section 553.48, F.S., providing requirements for the physical handicapped and the requirement of public law 101-336, July 26, 1990, known as the "American With Disabil- ities Act of 1990.". . . The proposed space must be in an existing building or a building which is to be complete by July 1, 1995, and is 50 percent complete on the bid deadline submission. To be considered as existing, the entire space must be dry, fully enclosed, and capable of being physically measured, to determine net rentable square footage, at the time of bid submittal. Reno- vations to bring the facility into compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local codes and regulations and/or to meet with desired arrangements are permitted, if carried out in accordance with prescribed procedures: Bids offering multi-story or multi-level buildings must have all stories serviced by an elevator which meets the requirements of DCA accessibility manual . . . (emphasis in original). The Intervenor's proposal meets these requirements. The facility proposed by the intervenor is in an existing building. "Dry and measurable" means that the facility has exterior walls and a roof and is at least enclosed enough as to not to become wet or to be wide open to the elements. The Intervenor's proposed building has exterior walls and a roof and is enclosed with windows and doors secured so that it would not get wet or be open. There is ample space within the Intervenor's existing building to determine the net rentable square footage and to ensure that the square footage being offered meets the bid specifications. In fact, measurement was undertaken by the Intervenor's representative, including its architect, and the space and site plans were made available to representatives of the Department, who were in a position to make the same measurements when they conducted a site visit of the premises. The only part of the facility that was not dry and measurable at the time of bid submission was a proposed new elevator, and entrance space related to the elevator, which the Petitioner has proposed to construct in order to meet the "Americans with Disabilities Act" requirements. The elevator and related space needed to accommodate entrances into the second floor of the building by the elevator were not dry and measurable at the time of bid submission and were not required to be by the terms of the ITB. The express provisions of the ITB allow vendors to renovate facilities in order to meet government regulations "prior to lessee's occupancy." The vendor is not required to have the space ready for occupancy until July 1, 1995, or 182 days after notice of award, whichever is later. The Intervenor has committed to complying with these requirements of the ITB and will be subject to a penalty if it does not, should the bid be awarded. Thus, if the vendor is offering a multi-story building, it is not required to have a handicapped accessible elevator already in place and operating at the time of bid submission. It simply must be installed prior to the lessee's occupancy. Therefore, under the terms of the ITB referenced above, the elevator-related space would not be required to be part of the dry and measurable space computation submitted with the bid. The Department agreed at the pre-bid conference that the 60 exclusive parking spaces it would require, as specified in the ITB, would meet the ITB criteria if within 1,000 feet of the building. In response to this criteria, the Intervenor offered most of the required spaces at the site of its building. It also offered to make spaces available at three other locations as alternatives. It offered to make 48 of the 50 spaces it has on its own building site exclusively available to the Department and also offered 21 parking spaces on "Lot B" or "Parcel B", as delineated in its bid. This lot is within 1,000 feet of the Intervenor's building, which was offered in the bid, and is approximately 350 feet away. It can accommodate the 21 parking spaces, but will necessitate a variance from zoning requirements, in order to place 21 spaces on Lot B. The ITB allows bidders 30 days from the date of any award to deal with such zoning issues and resolving any zoning problems. If this lot is used, the Intervenor will seek a variance in order to be able to put the 21 spaces on the lot. The Intervenor does not yet have the variance, but there is no evidence of record that would establish that it cannot be obtained from the City zoning authority. The Intervenor has an option to lease Lot B, where the 21 parking spaces would be located, and, therefore, has sufficient control of it. Another alternative offered by the Intervenor is designated as "Lot A" or "Parcel A" in its bid. This lot is across an existing municipal parking lot from the Intervenor's facility being offered. It includes 69 parking spaces and is within 1,000 feet of the Intervenor's building. The Intervenor has secured this facility through an option to purchase. The only remaining step in order to purchase the lot would be for the Intervenor's board, responsible for the operation of its programs, including the building, to execute the option it has already entered into. This also constitutes sufficient control over the property to comply with the terms of the ITB. This parking lot and the spaces thereon meet the requirements of the ITB. The third nearby lot, available to the Intervenor, is designated as "Parcel D" or "Lot D" on the Intervenor's bid documents. Additional spaces could be made available on this lot. It is 1,070 feet away from the Intervenor's building, however, and thus does not meet the 1,000-foot requirement set by the Department at the bidders' conference, in its interpretation of the specification concerning parking. The demonstrated availability of the other parking areas and spaces, however, establishes that the Intervenor has sufficient parking available, within the required distance, to meet the terms of the ITB. Moreover, the Intervenor's building will house the office of the Intervenor, as well as the office of the Respondent/Department. The Intervenor's building is located directly adjacent to a free municipal parking lot. This lot would be available to employees of the Intervenor, as well as Intervenor's visitors, and as well as to employees of the Department and the Department's visitors, who, for whatever reason, might not use the exclusive dedicated parking spaces. Because it is in a downtown development area, the Intervenor is not required, under the City of Daytona Beach Zoning Code, to provide any parking for its building. Bid Evaluations The Department received bid responses from the two parties and proceeded to evaluate them. The part of the evaluation based upon prices bid by the vendors was conducted by Department personnel in Tallahassee. The part of the evaluation based upon more subjective factors was conducted by three Department employees in Daytona Beach, who ultimately have to work in the facilities that the Department acquires through this procurement process. The price evaluation was undertaken with the assistance of a representative of the Department of Management Services, who is familiar with statutory and rule requirements for a proper evaluation of bids. Price was apportioned 40 of the total 100 points available in the bid evaluation process. The price evaluation resulted in the Petitioner receiving 40 points because it had the lowest price of the two subject bids. The Intervenor received 33 points for the price criterion. The three Department employees designated to evaluate the other aspects of the bid proposals conducted site visits at each of the vendors' facilities. During the site visits, the evaluators walked through the parking lots and counted the spaces, checked the exit door locations, inquired about heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning facilities and equipment, evaluated the condition of the buildings and how they were being maintained, checked security lighting and other security issues, checked on placement of the lobbies and how offices would be positioned, observed the availability of natural lighting and surveyed neighborhood conditions. Each evaluator then conducted evaluations based upon factors other than cost, without consulting each other. They used an evaluation form that relates to various criteria which come directly from the ITB. Upon completion of the evaluations, the completed forms were forwarded to the Tallahassee office of the Department. The evaluation criteria allow three categories of evaluation under the general heading of "location". Ten points are allowed as a maximum in the category of "availability and frequency of public transportation within the proximity of the space being offered." The evaluators gave the Petitioner five, six and five points, respectively, for its response to this category. They gave the Intervenor seven, six and five points. Both facilities have public bus stops near the building which provide good access to public transportation. The Intervenor's facility is located within a few blocks of the transit transfer station, which offers the advantage that bus passengers will be able to get to the Intervenor's facility without the need of a transfer which could save them considerable time. The Department of Juvenile Justice is the type of state agency which has a great deal of business with clients and their family members of a lower-income status, who might frequently have to rely on public transportation. Nine (9) points are allowed in the evaluation criteria for the category of "appearance of the building property and neighborhood of the property being offered," under the general heading of "location". The Petitioner was accorded three, five and four points, respectively, for its response to this category. The Intervenor was given nine, eight and seven points. This is admittedly a subjective criteria. The appearance of a facility and its surrounding area can make a difference in the morale and productivity of the working staff, as well as the attitude of visitors to the facility. The Intervenor's building is in a renovated, historic structure located in the historic preservation section of the downtown area of Daytona Beach. It has a great deal of aesthetic appeal and has been the subject of several newspaper articles noting the attractiveness and functionality of the renovation. The Petitioner's structure, on the other hand, although well-landscaped and maintained, is a metal, prefabricated building, not as aesthetically interesting or pleasing. It is also located adjacent to higher crime areas in the City. The evaluation criteria allow for four points for the category of "security issues posed by the building and surrounding area" under the category of "location". The evaluators scored the Petitioner's response at two, two and one points for this subject. They scored the Intervenor's bid three, three and two points for the same category. It is apparent that the Petitioner's facility is located in an area which is somewhat crime-prone. While the evidence does not reflect any criminal activity on the Petitioner's site itself, at least one evaluator was intimately and personally familiar with the neighborhood and the criminal problems occurring there. This familiarity was confirmed by Department personnel from police reports showing the area to be a high-crime area. Under the "facility" heading, the evaluation criteria and form allows points for four different categories. It allows 15 points for the category of "susceptibility of the design and space being offered to good utilization by differing segments of the Department." The evaluators gave the Petitioner seven, five and six points for their three evaluations of this response. They scored the Intervenor's submittal at 15, 12 and 10 points. The Intervenor's proposal offers a building that has windows on all four sides with abundant natural lighting, good visibility, and contiguous space. The Intervenor's facility can be very easily renovated into appropriate space for the different segments of the Department. The Petitioner's facility, on the other hand, has few windows, offers limited natural lighting and is not easily visible from the street. Additionally, the Petitioner offered divided space within its building so that some segments of the Department's work force would be physically separated from one another, with access between the two divided areas of office space being only obtainable by going outside the building and then in another door of another part of the building. The evaluation form also allows 10 points for the category of "susceptibility of the building parking area and property as a whole for future expansion." The Petitioner received a score of three, five and five points for this category by the evaluators. The Intervenor's response received seven, eight and three points for the same category. The Petitioner's facility offers no opportunity for expansion unless existing lessees leave the building. There is no room for additional parking for expansion purposes. The Intervenor's facility has space on the first floor not being leased at all at the present time and a portion of the third floor could be enclosed to provide additional space. Further, since the only other tenant is the lessor, there is a prospect that the lessor itself might move to other facilities in order to accommodate Department expansion. Lot A offers considerably more parking spaces than the Department or other tenants of the Intervenor's building need. Furthermore, the Intervenor's facility is located adjacent to a free, municipal parking lot which is only moderately used. Under the same general heading of "facility", the evaluation form and criteria allows ten points for the category of "having all the square footage in a single building will earn more points than square footage offered in more than one building." The Petitioner is offering space in a single building. However, the Petitioner's space would be divided so that the Department's office space would not all be contiguous, and personnel would have to go from one side of the building to the offices on the other side of the building only by going outside the building. This is functionally akin to space being in more than one building. Thus, the Petitioner's proposal would have some of the disadvantages of being like a proposal for more than one building. Workers would not be as readily able to assist one another in dealing with work loads or as easily undertaking many of the work activities requiring them to communicate with each other in each other's physical presence as easily as in a contiguous set of offices located in a single building. It is true that the Petitioner is proposing all of its space in one building. Thus, it meets the ITB criteria in this regard. It also can be argued as the Department evaluators found, that because the space functions akin to being in separate buildings, because of the separation of the offered office spaces, it should be evaluated as being somewhat analogous to space located in two separate buildings. Thus, although both bids were responsive to the ITB in terms of offering space physically and technically within a single building, it was not arbitrary for the evaluators to accord more weight to the Intervenor's response, since all of the office offered by the Intervenor is contiguous space in the same building. However, even if the evaluators had or should have ranked both bids equally under this "single building criteria", that alone would not alter the evaluators' result that the Intervenor's bid and facility was the best response to the agency's needs expressed in the ITB. The evaluation criteria and form also allows a maximum of two points to be accorded to the category of "if space is offered in more than one building, are the buildings connected by overhangs and sidewalks," under the heading of "facility". The space offered by both bidders, the Petitioner and the Intervenor, is clearly in a single building. All of the evaluators gave both parties an equal two points for this category which shows a lack of arbitrariness in the bid evaluation process. When the evaluation was complete, the Intervenor was accorded scores of 86, 82 and 72 points by the three evaluators. Two of the evaluators rated the Intervenor significantly higher, and the third favored the Petitioner's proposal by a single point. The total score given the Petitioner, taking into account its lower price, was 67, 71 and 73 points by the three evaluators. The total score accorded the parties by the three evaluators shows that the Intervenor's proposal was accorded a substantial advantage by two of the three evaluators. The evaluator scores were independently determined but were still generally consistent with each other. They were based upon logic and not merely upon a review of plans, figures, and written responses but also upon a detailed view of the two properties, parking spaces, and the like. Thus, it is determined that the scoring was consistent, logical, and not shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Based upon the scores by the evaluators, the Department determined that the Intervenor's bid was the lowest, best and most responsive and elected to award the lease to the Intervenor. There has been no preponderant proof offered to show that the decision or any of the evaluation decisions on individual categories, leading up to the ultimate score and decision to award, were fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal, or dishonest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Juvenile Justice dismissing the Petitioner's formal protest because the Petitioner lacks standing to initiate the subject proceeding and because the Petitioner has failed to establish that the determination to award a contract to the Intervenor was fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1736BID Respondent's and Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of fact of these two parties are accepted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. Certain proposed findings of fact accepted as true are immaterial to the resolution of the issues presented. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact A-F. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. J.(1-3) Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. K-L. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. M. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. N.(1-6- Subparts) Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Mr. Robert Allan Weinberg RW Custom Builders, Inc. 955 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire APGAR, PELHAM, ET AL. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In or about the fall of 1993, the Department issued a Request for Proposal and Bid Proposal Submittal Form (hereinafter referred to as the "RFP") for Lease No. 700:0674. Through the RFP, the Department solicited the submission of proposals to lease to the Department 5,748 square feet + 3 percent of office space in St. Lucie County for use as a probation and parole office commencing "5/1/94 or within 105 days after notification of award of bid whichever occurs last." According to the RFP, the term of the lease would be "[f]ive (5) years with an option to renew for an additional five (5) years." The probation and parole office in question is currently located in space leased to the Department by Petitioners.2 It has been at this location, which is in close proximity to the City of Fort Pierce police station, for approximately the last six years. Section A. of the RFP contained the "General Specifications and Requirements." The subject of "parking" was addressed in paragraph 7. of Section A., which provided as follows: Parking: Approximately 30 off-street spaces for the exclusive use of the employees and clients at no additional charge to the lessee. Parking space must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, and bumper pads installed. A minimum of two spaces must meet the requirements of the Standards for Special Facilities for physically disabled, Attachment D. BIDDER RESPONSE: a) exclusive spaces available on-site at no cost to the lessee; b) exclusive spaces available off-site at no cost to lessee. Spaces located from proposed facility. (distance) As An Option c) non-exclusive spaces available at no cost to lessee. Space located from proposed facility. (distance) Bidder's Initials Paragraph 12. of Section A. provided, in pertinent part, that "[t]he proposed space must be an existing building" and that the "[p]roposed use of this building must meet required zoning." Section B. of the RFP contained the "Space Requirement Criteria." Paragraphs 2. and 3. of Section B., which provided as follows, set forth the "Electrical requirements" and the "Telephone requirements," respectively: Electrical requirements Minimum of two duplex electrical outlets and one fourplex in each room or office including adequate additional fourplex outlets in each open clerical/file area. Facility complies with the National Electrical Code. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Telephone requirements Minimum of one telephone outlet in each room or office including additional outlets in each open clerical/file area. All wiring, existing or to be installed, complies with the National Electrical Code, Section 8000-3, Paragraph d. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The subject of "security" was addressed in paragraph 10. of Section B., which provided as follows: Security requirements: Security shall include but not be limited to the following: Locks on all outside doors and outside windows. Night lights on all outside doors. Night lights in parking area nearest building. Parking lot must be fully illuminated and create no dark shadows. Dead bolt locks on storage space doors. Convex detection mirrors in the lobby. Solid core doors swinging out into the lobby to separate lobby from secure areas. Electric pass-through buzzer locks (with keys) to be installed on solid core doors. Pass-through ports (similar to the Le Febure Model #BK-4431 walk up design window unit) to be used between the lobby and reception area. A two-way intercom system between reception area and the receptionist BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials Paragraph 14. of Section B. listed certain "Miscellaneous requirements," including the following: PROTECTIVE ALARM SYSTEM The lessor shall, at his own expense, install or cause to be installed, maintain and arrange for 24 hours monitoring with a Certified Security Company during the term of this lease agreement the following equipment in regard to the alarm protective system: Burglar Alarm and Fire Alarm Door bugs and Window Tape Dual-Tech Motion Sensors for Computer and Typing areas Panic button with Silent Alarm Two 1/2" Bullet proof glass (lexan) in Reception and Cashier's windows . . . Staff of both sexes will be required to work in this facility during both daylight and evening hours. An environment in which staff can expect to be safe is essential. BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGMENT Bidder's Initials The "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" were enumerated in Section of the RFP, which provided as follows: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated below: Rental, using Total Present Value methodology for basic term of lease (See #D, General Provisions Items 1 and 2) applying the preset value discount rate of 5.22 percent (Weighting: 40) Option period- rental rate proposed is within projected budgetary restraints of the department. (Weighting: 10) Conformance of and susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization and to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighting: 15) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of Departmental operations planned for the requested space. Building should be located in a professional business neighborhood.3 (Weighting: 7) Offers providing space all on the same floor. (Weighting: 5) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within one block of the offered space. (Weighting: 3) Availability of adequate dining facilities within two blocks of the offered space. (Weighting: 2) Proximity of offered space to the clients to be served by the Department at this facility. (Weighting: 5) Proximity of offered space to other Department activities as well as other public services. (Weighting: 3) Proximity of adequate parking area to the building. Must be well-lighted. (Weighting: 10) Total award factors= 100 The RFP's "General Provisions" were set forth in Section D. of the RFP. Among these "General Provisions" were the following: Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. . . . The Department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interest of the Department and the State. The Department reserves the right to reject any and all bid proposals for reasons which shall include but not be limited to the agency's budgetary constraints; waive any minor informality or technicality in bids, to accept that bid deemed to be the lowest and in the best interest of the state, and if necessary, to reinstate procedures for soliciting competitive proposals. . . . 10. Late bids, modification of bids, or withdrawal of bids: (a) Any bid received at the office designated in the solicitation after the exact time specified for receipt will not be considered and will be returned unopened. . . . Sealed bids will be received until 11:00 a.m. on November 23, 1993 . . . at which time all bids will be publicly opened and read aloud. Notification of award will be made within 30 calendar days, and shall be given either by posting the bid tabulation at the location where bids were opened or by certified United States mail, return receipt requested. . . . Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Subsection 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Protests not filed within the prescribed time limit will not be considered. To comply with this statute, a written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the request for proposal within 72 hours after receipt of this notice. Within ten days after the notice of protest is filed, a formal written notice of protest must be filed with the contact person listed in the Request for Proposal. Any questions concerning the specifications should be directed in writing to David Smith. . . Petitioners, Gulf and Hoyt C. Murphy submitted bid proposals in response to the RFP using the form provided by the Department. At no time prior to the submission of their bids did any of them protest to the Department concerning any of the provisions of the RFP. Gulf offered the Department 5,820 net square feet of office space in a shopping plaza it owns in the City of Fort Pierce (hereinafter referred to as "Gulf's plaza"). Petitioners offered the Department the same space they currently lease to the Department. Gulf's plaza consists of several buildings which, together, take up approximately 32,000 gross square feet of space. These buildings are not fully occupied. Vacancies exist. The plaza presently has approximately 117 on-site parking spaces.4 Adjacent to the plaza, on an out-parcel, is a Wendy's restaurant which also offers off-street parking. On the completed forms that they submitted, Petitioners and Gulf agreed to meet all of the specifications and requirements set forth in the RFP, including those relating to zoning,5 off-street parking,6 security, and electrical and telephone wiring, and, in addition, proposed the following per square foot rates for the basic lease and option periods: -BASIC LEASE Petitioners Gulf First Year $13.90 $14.35 Second Year 14.65 14.35 Third Year 14.90 14.35 Fourth Year 15.20 14.70 Fifth Year 15.50 14.70 Option PERIOD First Year $15.75 $15.05 Second Year 16.00 15.05 Third Year 16.25 15.05 Fourth Year 16.50 15.40 Fifth Year 16.75 15.40 The Department, through its bid evaluation committee, evaluated each of the bid proposals in accordance with "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. As part of the evaluation process, members of the bid evaluation committee visited each of the properties offered for lease. It appeared to the committee members, upon their visit, to the Gulf property, that Gulf would be able to provide the Department with "30 exclusive [parking] spaces available on-site," as it had promised it would in the RFP. On December 16, 1993, the chairman of the bid evaluation committee sent the following interoffice memorandum to Maria Cortes, the Department's Region IV General Services Manager, concerning the results of the evaluation process: The Lease Evaluation Committee has completed its review of the bid proposals and has conducted an on-site inspection of each subject building being offered for the above referenced lease [Lease #700:0674]. The average score for each evaluation criteria is listed below by bidder number for each bid. #1 [Petitioners] #2 [Gulf] #3 [Murphy] 1. 39.20 40 34.8 2. 9.40 10 7.70 3. 15 15 15 4. 6.3 7 6.3 5. 5 5 5 6. 1 1 1 7. 1.3 2 1.3 8. 5 5 5 9. 3 3 3 10. 9.6 10 9.6 TOTAL 94.8 98 88.7 It is the recommendation of the Lease Evaluation Committee that it would be in the best interest of the Department of Correction and the State of Florida to award this bid to bid number two (2), C.G. Gulf Property Associates, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership. This bidder received the highest evaluation score and was the lowest bid. In evaluating the three bids that were submitted, the committee members did not take into consideration the costs that the Department would incur if the Department moved the probation and parole office from its present location to either Gulf's property or Murphy's property, inasmuch as such moving costs were not among the "Evaluation Criteria (Award Factors)" set forth in the RFP. In any event, these costs would be minimal because the Department would utilize free inmate labor to accomplish the move. By letter dated December 22, 1993, the Department advised Petitioners of its intention to award Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf. Thereafter, Petitioners filed the protest that is the subject of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order awarding Lease No. 700:0674 to Gulf over the protest of Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 14th day of March, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed award of DCPHU Bid I-90 to the Intervenor, Meyers Parking Systems, Inc., for the management of a parking facility located at 1350 Northwest 14th Street should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact For approximately the last ten years, Kinney has operated the parking lot at the Dade County Public Health Unit building located at 1350 N.W. 14th Street in Miami, Florida (the "Parking Lot") pursuant to a contract with HRS. The existing contract between Kinney and HRS for the management of the Parking Lot was entered in June 1989 and was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1990. That contract included two one-year options to renew. The contract also included a provision that allowed either party to terminate the contract upon thirty days notice. The contracts for management of the Parking Lot in previous years were substantially identical in form to the existing contract. In February of each year, a contract review committee consisting of the head of the administrative services department of the facility (the "Contract Manager') and several other employees of the facility would meet to discuss the Parking Lot contract and to determine whether to renew the contract or rebid it. (This Committee will be referred to as "Parking Lot Committee.") The Contract Manager (whose title has been recently changed to Administrative Services Director) essentially chaired the Parking Lot Committee and appointed the other employees who served on the Committee. For the last ten years the Contract Manager has been responsible for overseeing this contract. During this time, his main contacts at Kinney were Chuck Adams, who was usually at the Parking Lot on a daily basis, and Mr. Adams' supervisor, Ken Deutsch. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams left the employ of Kinney sometime prior to February, 1990. The exact date of their departure was not established. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams now work for Meyers. Kinney's new representative with respect to the Parking Lot contract was Tony Benyon, who assumed those responsibilities on February 1, 1990. Mr. Benyon had previously worked for Meyers and was on the job only twenty two days before the decision was made to rebid the contract. On February 22, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met and determined not to renew the contract with Kinney. At the time this decision was made, the Contract Manager was aware that the former Kinney employees had switched jobs and were now working for Meyers. However, it does not appear that he brought the job changes to the attention of the Parking Lot Committee because at least one member of the Committee was not aware of the job changes. On or about March 23, 1990, HRS issued an invitation to bid for the management and operation of the Parking Lot (the "Invitation to Bid.") Although the evidence did not establish exactly how many time this contract had been bid in the past, it appears that bids were solicited for this contract on at least two prior occasions during the ten years that Kinney had been operating the Parking Lot. On each occasion, the Invitation to Bid form was substantially identical to the form used in March of 1990. Page 6 of the Invitation to Bid requested bidders to submit a resume of their backgrounds. Page 8 of the Invitation to Bid was entitled "Bid Sheet" and required bidders to submit the following information: "(1) Proposal for Operating the Lot; (2) Proposed Rates, (3) Proposed Net Income Distribution." The Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to provide any documentation regarding their financial condition nor did it indicate that prior job performance would be considered in evaluating the bids. The Invitation to Bid contained a provision that "any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening." Between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the bids were received, the Contract Manager admits that he "probably" had conversations with some of the bidders and responded to questions about the bid. The Contract Manager could not specifically recall any such discussions with potential bidders between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the date the bids were submitted. However, he admitted that it was likely that some discussions took place. Kinney was never advised of any such discussions between the Contract Manager and other potential bidders. Three sealed bids (including proposals from Kinney and Meyers) were received and opened by HRS at a bid opening on April 4, 1990. A fourth bid was disqualified because it was not sealed. The members of the Parking Lot Committee and representatives of the bidders were present at the bid opening. The bid submitted by Kinney proposed a net income distribution to HRS of 82.5 percent with the remaining 17.5 percent being retained by Petitioner. The Kinney bid also contained a specific breakdown of anticipated costs, fees and expenses to be deducted from the projected gross income to achieve projected net income, a resume and a list of references regarding other-lots being managed by the Petitioner in the area. Meyers and Hi-Rise Parking Systems, Inc. ("Hi- Rise") also submitted bids. Both of those bids contained a proposed net income distribution of 90 percent to HRS. Neither the Hi-Rise nor the Meyers' bids contained a resume or a list of local references of other lots being managed by the companies nor did they contain a listing of anticipated costs, fees and expenses. At the bid opening, the Contract Manager indicated that the bids submitted by Meyers and Hi-Rise were the low bids and the Parking Lot Committee would meet to determine how to "break the tie." At this point, Kinney was effectively eliminated from consideration. By letter dated April 10, 1990, the Contract Manager requested additional information from Meyers and Hi-Rise as follows: Company background information including officers, organization and latest financial/management audit; [and] At least three references to include name of contact person, firm, mailing address and telephone number. The Contract Manager did not request any additional information from Kinney or the disqualified bidder. On or about April 16, 1990, Meyers submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. On or about April 17, 1990, Hi-Rise submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. Thus, it is clear that information regarding the financial condition of Meyers and Hi-Rise was not submitted until after the bids were opened. On May 1, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met to discuss the additional information received from Meyers and Hi- Rise. At that meeting, the members of the Committee completed a "bid selection review form" that listed (1) net income distribution (2) references and (3) company management and financial condition as the criteria for evaluation of the bids. The Committee determined that Meyers and Hi--Rise were "tied" in all categories except financial condition. At best, the submitted financial information provides a cloudy picture of Meyers' financial status. The information indicates that Meyers showed an income loss for the year 1988-1989 of $3,670,000. While a large portion of this loss is apparently related to corporate restructuring, it does not appear that any members of the Parking Lot Committee understood or fully considered this financial information nor did they seek to have the submitted financial information reviewed by an accountant. Hi-Rise's financial records indicate that it is a significantly smaller company, but its records indicated a positive cash flow for the preceding year. Notwithstanding these facts, the Committee decided to award the contract to Meyers. This decision was essentially made on the recommendation of the Contract Manager. The bid selection review form stated as follows: Based on bids and additional information provided, the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Team recommended award of DCPH Bid No. I-90 to Meyers Parking System, Inc. On May 9, 1990, HRS provided all interested parties with a notice of its selection of Meyers as the successful bidder. In the Notice of Selection, HRS indicated that Meyers had been selected based on the proposed net income distribution, references, background and financial condition. Petitioner timely filed a protest of the proposed award of the contract. The Parking Lot Committee excluded Kinney from consideration based solely upon the net income distribution percentage. However, since the Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to specify or limit in any way the expenses that could be deducted from gross revenues prior to distributing proceeds to HRS, there was an insufficient basis to accurately evaluate the proceeds that HRS could reasonably expect pursuant to any of the bid proposals. HRS and Meyers have argued that, because HRS has many years experience and expense records relating to the operation of the Parking Lot, the information provided pursuant to the Invitation to Bid provided HRS with sufficient information to make a reasonable evaluation of the financial terms of the proposals. This contention is rejected. To permit such uncertainty and discretion to be built into the bid process would substantially undermine the integrity and dependability of the process. Item 12 on page 6 of the Invitation to Bid required that "bidders will submit a resume of their background and other local lots they are currently managing." No such resume or lists were provided by Meyers. Meyers contends that its response to Item 1 on Page 8 of 8 adequately addressed this requirement. That response provided as follows: PROPOSAL FOR OPERATING LOT. Meyers Parking System, Inc. proposes to operate the Dade County Health department's parking lot with the same high degree of professionalism that we are known for and have demonstrated to our other clients throughout the county. The facility will be managed by trained, uniformed, courteous employees and supervised regularly and closely with our field supervisors and our Regional Vice-President... This statement is not a sufficient response to Item 12 of the Invitation to Bid. During the Parking Lot Committee meeting on February 22, 1990, several complaints were made regarding Kinney's performance under the existing contract. However, no efforts were ever undertaken by HRS to terminate the existing contract with Kinney. While HRS contends that the complaints were part of the reason for deciding to rebid the contract, no steps were taken to disqualify Kinney from bidding on the new contract. In any event, most of the complaints voiced on February 22, 1990 would have been the responsibility of the prior managers of Kinney who now work for Meyers. In February and March of 1990, the disbursements to HRS under the existing contract diminished significantly. This decrease in payments was the result of embezzlement by Kinney employees. While HRS has cited this shortage to justify its decision in awarding the contract to Meyers, there is no evidence that HRS ever attempted to terminate the existing contract nor does it appear that the Parking Lot Committee considered this fact in deciding to eliminate Kinney's bid from consideration. Similarly, the evidence established that there have been problems during the months of March, April and May of 1990 with attendants failing to appear at work on time or leaving the job site. Again, however, there is no indication that HRS attempted to terminate the existing contract or that the Parking Lot Committee relied upon these factors in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration. There have been recurring complaints made to Kinney under the existing contract regarding excessive towing of cars from the Parking Lot. The problem of parking lot attendants ordering cars towed without the permission of HRS has existed off and on for sometime. Even though HRS representatives had voiced complaints about the. towing policies, the evidence indicates that this recurring problem became worse in the late spring and early summer of 1990. Nonetheless, HRS never sought to terminate the existing contract because of the towing problems nor did the Parking Lot Committee rely upon this fact in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for DCPHU Bid I-90 and issue a new Invitation to Bid. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31 day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31 day of October, 1990.
