The Issue This cause has been resolved upon Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss for Petitioner's failure to timely file the formal written protest required by Section 120.53(5) F.S. [1990 Supp.] to protest award of Respondent Alachua County School Board's BID 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems" to Intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Request for Bid 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems" dated June 14, 1991 was issued by Respondent Alachua County School Board and received by Petitioner/protestant Universal Network, Inc. on or about that date. The bid-closing date was 1:30 p.m. July 2, 1991. No one challenged or protested the specifications prior to the bid submittal date. Universal Network, Inc. and Crime Prevention Security Systems were the only bidders who timely filed bids on or before June 2, 1991. The request for bid accompanied by bid specifications had notified all potential bidders that School Board personnel also intended to open the bids on July 2, 1991, and stated that "Bid tabulations with recommended awards will be posted . . . on or about the Monday following bid opening, . . ." The request for bid also provided "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." (HO Exhibit 6) The bids were opened July 2, 1991, and oral communications were made by Respondent's personnel to the effect that Crime Prevention Security Systems would probably be successful since it was low bidder. However, Respondent's personnel delayed posting a formal intent to award on Monday, July 8, 1991 because Petitioner orally announced itself aggrieved by the process. Eight days after the bid opening, on July 10, 1991, Respondent's personnel met with both bidders in an effort to resolve any issue that could result in a formal protest. This meeting was tape recorded by the Petitioner. After this meeting, Petitioner filed a letter dated July 11, 1991 stating that Petitioner "learned" through "verbal notification" as of the July 10 meeting that it would not be awarded the bid, outlining its own prior contract work for the Respondent School Board, attacking the bid specifications, and notifying the Respondent that Petitioner would cease to monitor security under the existing contract at midnight on July 31, 1991. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it did not rely on this July 11, 1991 letter (HO Exhibit 1) as its notice of protest. Nothing was formally decided until, on July 16, 1991, Respondent, through its employee, David C. Hotary, formally posted its intent to award Bid 341 to Crime Prevention Security Systems. On that date, Respondent also wrote and hand-delivered a formal letter-notice of intent to Petitioner's president. That letter provided, in pertinent part: As follow-up to our meeting of July 10, and your letter of July 11, this is to advise that posting of the recommended bid award to crime prevention security systems occurred as of this date and will remain posted for a three day period. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Emphasis supplied) (HO Exhibit 2) There is no dispute that Petitioner actually received this written notice of decision or intended decision on July 16, 1991. This procedure complied with Respondent's obligations to provide notice of the award and a window for Petitioner's bid protest under the provisions of Section 120.53(5)(a). F.S. [1990 Supp.] and Respondent's rule (HO Exhibit 5). On July 17, 1991, the Petitioner's president filed with the Respondent a letter bearing that date which provided, in pertinent part, This letter is to inform you that Universal Network, Inc. is now formally protesting BID 341 "Bid Proposal For Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems." We base our protest on unpublished bid variances. (HO Exhibit 3) There is no dispute that this letter was filed with the Respondent within 72 hours "after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of agency decision or intended decision." It clearly constituted the "notice of protest" contemplated by Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S. [1990 Supp.] and is timely under that statute. Under that statute and pursuant to Respondent's rule, the 10 days for filing the required formal written protest would have run out on July 29, 1991, a Monday, allowing for Saturday and Sunday. On July 24, 1991, five days before the formal written protest was due, Respondent's personnel telephoned the Petitioner's president and a conversation ensued. Upon the representations at formal hearing of Petitioner's president Daniel Boudreau, it is found that this conversation encouraged him to file another letter to the Respondent on July 31, 1991. (HO Exhibit 4) Petitioner's president asserted that Respondent's July 24, 1991 phone call was only to urge him to file a letter setting out his grounds for protest more fully so that the issues between Petitioner and Respondent could be resolved informally. Filing a letter which sets out the grounds for a notice of protest is a fair description of what a formal written protest is supposed to do, and it was Respondent's position that the phone call was to urge Petitioner to file its formal written protest. Whether or not the filing of this July 31, 1991 letter could constitute a means of informal resolution of the bid dispute as asserted by Petitioner is a legal issue and is discussed in the Conclusions of Law, infra, but it is undisputed that Respondent's telephone call of July 24, 1991 actually encouraged Mr. Boudreau to file a more detailed letter and did nothing to discourage filing a formal written protest, which formal written protest is mandatory under the applicable statute and rule. Nonetheless, Petitioner filed nothing whatsoever in writing with the Respondent between July 17, 1991 (the date of the notice of protest) and July 31, 1991. On July 31, 1991, Petitioner filed with the Respondent its letter which provided, in pertinent part: This letter is to inform you that Universal Network, Inc. has formally protested BID 341 "Bid Proposal for Furnishing Monitoring Security Systems." We base our protest on unpublished bid variances. Universal Network, Inc. is now asking for a formal hearing and also will be willing to submit a new bid with the SBAC corrected bid specification. Petitioner's July 31, 1991 letter goes on to compare how Petitioner's bid would be altered as of July 31, 1991 if the original bid specifications had specified or clarified certain items or terms and to show that Petitioner's July 2, 1991 bid price would have been lower if that had been the case. (HO Exhibit 4) Petitioner's July 31, 1991 letter clearly constituted Petitioner's "formal written protest" as contemplated by Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S. [1990 Supp.] and the rule and is untimely under that statute and rule.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the School Board of Alachua County enter a Final Order dismissing the protest/petition of Universal Network, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale A. Boudreau, President Universal Network, Inc. 1031 NW 6 Street, Suite A-3 Gainesville, FL 32601 Thomas L. Wittmer, Staff Attorney School Board of Alachua County 620 E. University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Esquire 111 SE 1st Avenue Gainesville, FL 32602 Dr. Douglas Magann, Superintendent Alachua County School Board 620 East University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601
Findings Of Fact On December 5, 1984, the Department of Transportation (DOT) opened bids on State Project No. 89095-3414 and 89095-3419 in Martin County, Florida, for construction of a portion to the uncompleted I-95. Respondent was apparent low bidder but this bid was declared nonresponsive for failure to meet Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements. On December 7, 1984, Good Faith Efforts Review Committee reviewed the bids and found Jasper Construction Company had achieved only 8.43 percent of the 10 percent DBE goal requirements of the contract and that all other bidders had reached or exceeded this requirement. This committee did not find Petitioner had made a good faith effort to meet the DBE goals. On December 12, 1984, the Federal Department of Transportation approved the award of the bid to Wiley N. Jackson Company, the second lowest bidder. Petitioner was notified of DOT's intent to reject its bid and by letter dated December 13, 1984, petitioner protested DOT's rejection of its bid for failure to comply with the 10 percent DBE requirement and of the proposed award of the bid to the second lowest bidder. That letter requested an opportunity to "meet with you" to show Petitioner had made a good faith effort to meet the DBE requirements. On December 14, 1984, representatives of Petitioner and Respondent met to consider Petitioner's good faith efforts to comply with the DBE requirements. The results of that meeting were not submitted in these proceedings but on December 17, 1984, Respondent gave notice of its intent to award the contract to Wiley N. Jackson Company by posting with the clerk of Agency Proceedings. By letter dated December 26, 1934, hand delivered by Petitioner to Respondent, Petitioner referred to two phases of the project on which it had bid, advised that Jasper would like to have both contracts awarded it but if the Department was not going to award the Palm Beach County project to Jasper it did not want to enter into the Palm Beach/Martin County project. Petitioner further stated it was interested in an all-or-nothing deal and would like to meet with DOT at the earliest convenient moment. Funds for this project are Discretionary Interstate Lapse Funds provided by the Federal Government. Construction on this project must commence not later than February 4, 1985, or the funds will revert to the U.S. Treasury. On January 4, 1985, DOT entered an Order finding that it was necessary to proceed with award of the contract without delay in order to avoid an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, and welfare, cited many of the above-noted facts, and advised the parties of their right to seek injunctive or appellate relief pursuant to Section 120.59(3), Florida Statutes. On January 5, 1985, Petitioner filed the REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE HEARING which is the subject of this proceeding. This request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings by DOT on January 8, 1985, and immediately assigned to this Hearing Officer. On January 10, 1985, attempts to contact the attorneys for the parties revealed the attorneys were in circuit court on Petitioner's request for a temporary injunction to stop the bid procedure until Petitioner had an opportunity to litigate the good faith efforts by Jasper to comply with the DBE requirements. The circuit court denied Petitioner's request for a temporary injunction and scheduled a final hearing on the permanent injunction for January 22, 1985.
Findings Of Fact On February 25, 1994, DACS issued an Invitation to Bid ITB/DF-93/94-49 to obtain competitive bids for contractual services involving a biological assessment of approximately 44,334 acres of the Goethe State Forest in Levy County, Florida. The Invitation to Bid provided that the bids received would be opened at 2:30 p.m. on March 21, 1994. The Special Terms, Conditions and Specifications of the Invitation to Bid provided that references submitted by the bidder must be those of the bidder. The General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provided that the Department may waive any minor irregularity or technicality in the bids received. Bids must be evaluated upon the information furnished with the bid. No other information is used. At the bid opening, Conway was the apparent low bidder at $0.71 per acre for a total of $31,477.14, and Environmental Services was the apparent second low bidder at $1.0438 per acre for a total of $46,275.66. ESP's bid was approximately 47 percent higher than Conway's bid. ESP's bid was responsive to the ITB and ESP is qualified to perform the work required under the ITB. Conway submitted three references with its bid. However, Conway's three references were for work previously performed by Ms. Duever as an individual or as an employee of another company. The references were not those of the bidder, Conway. Linda Duever, the sole officer and director of Conway Conservation, Inc., read the invitation to bid and was aware of the specific requirement for references of the bidder. Ms. Duever thought the Department and the Invitation to Bid emphasized the importance of similar work to that sought by the Department. She did not seek information about the reference requirements, even though she had some doubt about the references she was submitting, thinking she could supplement the bid later if necessary. Nor did she protest the specifications within the timeframes established by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Conway is a closely January 26, 1993. However, Conway Conservation, Inc., and Linda Duever are two separate and distinct entities. The evidence demonstrated that the references of the bidders were an important part of the information to consider in the award of this bid since the references indicated that the bidder had the expertise to perform the work required in the bid but also had the financial wherewithal to complete such work and hire the necessary personnel or subcontractors to successfully complete the work required in the Invitation to Bid. In this case, Petitioner's references demonstrated expertise in the areas of knowledge required to complete a biological survey. However, what the references did not show and could not show because they did not reflect business done by Conway, was the financial ability of Conway to adequately complete a biological survey. Such information was very important to the Department and was not a minor irregularity nor technicality which could, or should, have been waived by DACS. Given these facts Petitioner's bid was not responsive to the Invitation to Bid and the Department was correct in rejecting Petitioner's bid and awarding the project to ESP. Finally, Conway is not certified by the Department of Management Services as a minority business enterprise pursuant to Section 288.703(4), Florida Statutes, although the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner could easily be so certified. However, bidder's minority status, either certified or not certified, does not change the result in this case. Status as a Minority Business Enterprise was not a consideration in this bid award. Therefore, Minority Business Enterprise status, or lack thereof, did not and could not have had any impact on the outcome. Moreover, the Department has no authority to change the terms and conditions under which a bid is to be awarded after the bids are opened in order to grant more favorable treatment to a potential minority business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a Final Order in this case dismissing Petitioner's formal protest and awarding the contract for the Project to Environmental Services and Permitting, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2121BID The facts contained in paragraphs A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, Q, R and S, of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs C, J, N and P of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 19, 20 and 21 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Isadore Rommes Senior Attorney Legal Office 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Kent A. Zaiser P. O. Box 6045 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6045 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399 John T. Lavia, Esquire Landers & Parsons, P.A. Post Office 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a public contract, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact The Request for Proposals In the fall of 2002, the Board issued Request for Proposals No. 026-CC10 (the “RFP”) to solicit offers on a contract for internet-based collaborative construction and claims reduction support services. As stated in Section II at page 1, the purpose of the RFP was [t]o commission one or more firms to provide the Board with internet-based collaborative construction and claims reduction support services. It is intended that this technology be gradually phased into the construction program as new projects from the District’s Capital Construction Five- year Work Plan come online. Miami-Dade County Public Schools is the fourth largest public school system in the nation and has a large-scale on-going capital construction program. The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the RFP was November 26, 2002. Section V of the RFP, which was titled “Required Information to be Submitted by Proposers,” prefaced a list of ten specific items with the instruction that “[a]ll proposals shall contain the following information and shall be presented in the following format[.]” There is no dispute that material compliance with Section V was mandatory and that proposals could be——and in fact were——disqualified from consideration for failure to include all of the required information. Section VI of the RFP set forth the scope of work. It provided, in pertinent part: The proposer(s) shall provide Internet collaborative construction and claims reduction support services for use in connection with the [Board]’s capital construction program which should include but not be limited to, the following: The proposer should provide an off- the-shelf application product and application service provider services on a purely web-based system. Users will access and interface with the application via the internet using Internet ExplorerTM browser software running on computer workstations under typical WindowsTM operating system. Users should not have to purchase or have installed on their workstations any other applications in order to use the application service provider's application. The application service provider should host all applications and data and own and/or own the lease to their facility as well as all hardware and software. The application should include but not limited to the following: * * * 9. Custom web site documents folders and subfolders creation and organization and the ability to submit multiple documents or files (select, drag and drop) to the project web site electronically from authorized computer workstations. Project folders should be capable of storing, including but not limited to, all plans, drawings, specifications, contracts, general conditions, surveys, geo-technical photographs, reports and other documents typically encountered in a multiple-large- project construction program. * * * 11. Ability to submit documents to specific web site documents folders or attach them to specific forms using facsimile machines to allow non-computer users to interface with the system. Ability to electronically print documents directly to web site documents folders from other WindowsTM applications. Ability to download documents from the project site and to resubmit them as new versions with all original maintained and accessible. * * * C. Furnish and install a zoom/tilt/pan web-camera and connect to a high speed Internet connection at each construction site. Proposers should provide web camera server equipment and ISP services necessary to support web camera functions such as automatic multiple daily view picture taking, picture archival and retrieval and time lapse playback of pictures. Section VII of the RFP, which prescribed various “submittal requirements,” stated in relevant part: Proposers shall indicate in their submittal, the capabilities of their system regarding the above scope of work, as well as the following: Initial set-up process, list Licenses requirements, state the software and hardware requirements for M-DCPS in order to use the web-based system (i.e. browser plug- ins, operating systems, etc). * * * E. Describe the training program to train M-DCPS in use of the web-based system, on site, number of classes, number of students and hours of training proposed. * * * Describe travel distance from technical support to M-DCPS. Provide technical support in person at M-DCPS when required. The Evaluation On December 9, 2002, a group of individuals who had been appointed to serve on a committee (the “Evaluation Committee”) whose task was to make a recommendation to the Board as to whom should be awarded the contract met to review the six proposals that were timely submitted in response to the RFP. The Evaluation Committee unanimously agreed that the proposals submitted by E-Builder, Constructware, and another vendor were responsive to the requirements of Sections V, VI, and VII; the other proposers were eliminated from further consideration. The Evaluation Committee decided to invite the three remaining contenders to make presentations to the Evaluation Committee at a later date. The Evaluation Committee met again on December 16, 2002. At that time, the three proposers still in the competition were allowed one hour apiece to demonstrate, explain, and answer questions about their respective solutions. After the presentations, the Evaluation Committee voted for the proposal which best met the needs of the District. When the votes were tallied, Constructware was the winner, with E-Builder in second place. Accordingly, the Evaluation Committee agreed to recommend that the contract be awarded to Constructware. Relevant Details About Constructware’s Proposal Because the instant protest is based largely on E- Builder’s contention that Constructware’s proposal was materially nonresponsive to several provisions in Sections VI and VII of the RFP, the following is a brief look at the relevant aspects of Constructware’s response to the RFP. In its proposal, Constructware addressed the items contained in Section VI by interlining specific responses within the relevant language of the RFP, which language was reproduced in its entirety. For present purposes, given the reasons for the recommended disposition that follows, it is not necessary to quote Constructware’s responses to Section VI, which are included in the evidentiary record in any event. Suffice it to say that Constructware’s proposal was complete in the sense that for each item listed in Section VI, Constructware provided a response, offered a solution, or explained what it could do if awarded the contract. Turning to Section VII, Constructware’s proposal stated in pertinent part as follows: [With reference to Section VII.A.,] Constructware is a true [Application Service Provider] requiring only a web-browser and a connection to the Internet. The System can function on a 56K connection, but faster bandwidth is recommended for maximum performance. * * * [With reference to Section VII.E.,] Constructware has established a team of individuals specifically geared to train and implement the application to M-DCPS’ unique needs. The Solution Group is made up of professional Implementation Managers and Certified Constructware Trainers. In most cases, the Implementation Manager will meet with your executive team to understand the scope of the program / project(s) and the desired goal of using the application. With this information and direct feedback from your team, the Implementation Manager will develop a scope document to help guide the team through this rollout. This information will be shared with the Certified Constructware Trainers to develop a custom training plan to meet your goals. Throughout the rollout, the Implementation Managers will stay in contact with your executive team to provide status and update the rollout plan as the project progresses. The following is a list of the standard training and implementation options available: Private Training – ½ day to 5 day per student depending on the amount of the product utilized and the type of user trained. Class sizes for private training are limited to 12 students. Train the Trainer – 5 day course designed to train in-house individuals to act as your personal certified trainer. Public Training – 3-day course in our Atlanta Headquarters covering the majority of the modules available. Implementation Services Orientation – Offered as part of the initial database setup, this orientation would assist your Constructware Supervisor on how to get started with the system. This orientation is done remotely utilizing Webex technology. * * * [With reference to Section VII.G.,] [b]ecause Constructware is an Internet-based application, technical support staffs have not been required to travel to a client’s site to resolve issues. Constructware utilizes the Webex technology to review user browser settings in the event a user has any problems accessing the product. Clients wanting a true web-based system should exercise caution dealing with vendors offering on site technical support. This is a prime indicator of workstation setups and additional software loads not required on true web-based solutions. Constructware’s Solutions Group offers consultant visits to ensure proper connectivity and browser settings in the event clients lack the technical staff that would normally handle these procedures. Constructware is headquartered near Atlanta, Georgia. All support staff and consultants are based in this office, but are accustom [sic] to traveling to client sites throughout the nation when required. E-Builder’s Protest By letter dated December 18, 2002, E-Builder was told that it would not be awarded the contract. The letter, however, did not notify E-Builder, as it should have pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes, that failure to file a formal protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3) would constitute a waiver of proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). To better understand what happened next, it is useful to know that the RFP, at page iii, set up an informal protest procedure as a nonexlusive alternative to formal administrative proceedings under the APA. According to this informal procedure, [p]roposers may file letters of protest no later than 48 hours prior to the Board Meeting for which the award is scheduled to be made. These letters of protest will be reviewed by Staff. Staff will offer the protesting proposer the opportunity for a meeting to discuss the protest. If the proposer is not satisfied with the response to the protest, he/she may request to address the School Board. On January 13, 2003, E-Builder submitted an “Official Letter of Protest” that was timely under the above quoted provisions because the Board was scheduled to make the award at its meeting on January 15, 2003. As a result of E-Builder’s informal protest, the item relating to the contract in question was removed from the Board’s agenda for January 15. By letter dated February 10, 2003, E-Builder was informed that the Board’s staff had decided that the informal protest was without merit and that E-Builder had “failed to demonstrate violation of any established procedures or misconduct on the part of the evaluation committee.” E-Builder was further notified that it could “request to address the school board [at its next meeting on February 12, 2003, when the award was expected to be made], or invoke the provisions of § 120.569 Florida Statutes.” On February 12, 2003, within 72 hours after receiving the letter just discussed, E-Builder delivered to the Board a letter styled “Supplement to Official Letter of Protest.” In this supplemental protest letter, E-Builder reiterated its desire to protest the intended award and expressed its intent to address the Board later that day. While there is room for debate, the undersigned finds and concludes that E-Builder’s correspondence of February 12, 2003, constituted a “notice of protest” which was effective to commence the formal bid protest process pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. At its meeting on February 12, 2003, the Board heard from E-Builder concerning the pending protest, and following that the recommendation to award Constructware the contract was tabled. (As of the date of the final hearing, the Board had taken no further action toward awarding the contract.) On February 20, 2003, E-Builder filed with the Board a “Petition of Committee Recommendation Regarding Request for Proposal No.: 026-CC10 and for Formal Administrative Hearing.” The undersigned finds and concludes that this petition constituted a timely filed “formal written protest” as that term is used in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes; as such, the February 20, 2003, petition is the operative pleading in this case. As bases for relief, E-Builder asserted in its petition, among other things, that Constructware’s proposal was materially nonresponsive for failure to comply with several of the RFP’s allegedly mandatory requirements. E-Builder also alleged that the Evaluation Committee had failed to take into account total annual cost when weighing the merits of the respective proposals.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order declaring E-Builder’s protest to be without substantial merit and authorizing the award of the subject contract to Constructware. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2003.
The Issue Whether the Department’s intended award of contract E2K97 for Asset Maintenance of the Duval County Roadways is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency rules or policies or the bid or proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact The following facts were agreed between the parties in their Joint Pre-Hearing statement: On June 18, 2007, FDOT posted the solicitation for asset maintenance of the Duval County Roadways through procurement E-2K97. The RFP requested technical proposals and bids for a five-year contract for maintenance of identified roads in Duval County. The RFP provides that the scoring of the technical proposals is to be weighted as follows: Administration Plan (20%), Management and Technical Plan (30%), Operation Plan (30%), and Plan for Compliance with Standards (20%). ESI did not file a protest of the RFP's terms, conditions, specifications, or provisions governing the method of ranking proposals within 72 hours of the posting of the solicitation. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on July 10, 2007. The technical and price proposals for this project were due by August 9, 2007. Four firms submitted timely proposals in response to the RFP. They were ESI, DBI, Infrastructure Corporation of America (ICA) and VMS. The proposals were evaluated by three registered civil engineers who are employed by FDOT: Jerry Ausher, Julius Rinosa, and Mark Kuhn. All four firms were determined to be responsive and received scores on their technical proposal and price proposal. DBI's average score on its technical proposal was 88, the highest of the four firms. ESI's average score on its technical proposal was 75.33, the lowest of the four firms. ESI's price proposal bid was $44,759,500.00, the lowest of the four firms. DBI's price proposal bid was $48,748,886.00, the second lowest of the four firms. After combining the technical scores and price proposal scores, the total proposal scores for the four firms were as follows: DBI = 89.14, VMS = 85.19, ESI = 82.73, and ICA = 82.68. On September 4, 2007, FDOT posted its notice of intended award to DBI as the winning bidder. ESI filed a notice of intent to protest on September 7, 2007, followed by a formal written protest on September 17, 2007. DBI filed a Petition to Intervene which was granted on November 7, 2007. As the intended awardee, DBI has a substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding and thus, has standing to intervene.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Amended Formal Written Bid Protest be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Johnson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation Office of the General Counsel Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Brant Hargrove, Esquire 2104 Delta Way, Suite 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Reuben Hamlin, Esquire Post Office Box 1620 Newberry, Florida 32669 Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Building, Mail Stop 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Building, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James C. Meyers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Building, Mail Stop 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether the Florida A&M University's intended action to reject all bids and re-advertise the project to construct "Utilities Improvement-Central Chilled Water Plant, Phase V", known as BR-389, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Neel Mechanical Contracting, Inc., is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in Florida and licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Its business is air conditioning, and it specializes in larger projects such as the one at issue herein. Robert C. Sullivan is the President of Neel Mechanical. Thomas Gregory Lang is a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical and the chief estimator for Neel Mechanical; Mr. Lang is the person primarily responsible for preparing Neel Mechanical's bid proposal for Project BR-389. The Florida Board of Regents is a corporate body consisting of the Commissioner of Education and thirteen citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by three members of the Cabinet; it is subject to the general supervision and control of the Department of Education. Sections 240.203(2), 240.205, and 240.207(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a member of the State University System, is charged generally with overseeing the state universities, and has the authority to approve and execute contracts for "construction for use by a university when the contractual obligation exceeds $1 million." Sections 240.209 and 240.205(6), Florida Statutes (1999). 4/ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ("FAMU") is a public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, and is one of ten universities in Florida's State University System. Section 240.2011, Florida Statutes (1999). The university president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for its operation and administration. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Frederick S. Humphries was president of FAMU, and Samuel J. Houston was the Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. Mr. Houston has primary responsibility for supervising the bid process and the staff that prepared the bid documents and evaluated the bids for Project BR-389. Mr. Houston acts in this capacity on behalf of President Humphries and the Board of Regents. Mr. Houston also is ultimately responsible for the administration of Project BR-389. Bayou Mechanical, Inc. ("Bayou Mechanical") is a mechanical contractor which submitted a bid on Project BR-389. Call for Bids In Volume 25, Number 13, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, dated April 2, 1999, FAMU, on behalf of the Board of Regents, issued a Call for Bids on Project BR-389, which involves construction of a chilled water plant on the FAMU campus. The Call for Bids provided that all bidders must have a valid Florida license to do the work at the time of bid opening and a minimum of five years experience with similar projects. Project BR-389 involves a construction contract and is the fifth phase of the construction of an underground chilled water system on the FAMU campus. The project consists of constructing a portion of the system and connecting it to the existing system. The Call for Bids notified prospective bidders that sealed bids would be received at FAMU on May 4, 1999, until 2:00 p.m., after which time the bids would be opened and the bid tabulations posted. The Call for Bids further provided: "Bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual." The Call for Bids advised that these documents were available at the offices of the Architect/Engineer for the project, Bosek, Gibson & Associates, Inc. ("Bosek, Gibson"), in Tallahassee, Florida. In Addendum #2 to the Project Manual, dated April 30, 1999, the date for submission of bids was changed from May 4, 1999, to May 11, 1999. The Project Manual contains Instructions to Bidders, consisting of pages 6 of 106 through 22 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 23 of 106 through 106 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; Special Conditions of the Contract, consisting of pages I-1 through I-10 and dated October 16, 1989; Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996; Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5 and identified as the February 1999 Revision; Exhibit L, Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 2 through 16; and the Technical Specifications, which are separately identified and numbered. As noted in the Call for Bids, drawings are also included in the bid documents. Neel Mechanical, Bayou Mechanical, and Council Contracting submitted bids for Project BR-389 on May 11, 1999, the date on which the bids were opened and the price proposals were read. According to the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form that was posted from May 14 through 19, 1999, Neel Mechanical was the apparent low bidder on the base bid and on the two alternates 5/; Neel Mechanical's base bid and its bid on alternates were within FAMU's budget for the project. Bayou Mechanical submitted the second lowest bid on the base bid and the alternates; Bayou Mechanical was within the budget on the base bid but over budget on the alternates. No recommended award or intent to award was indicated on the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form. Shortly after the bids were opened, several issues were raised with respect to the bid process. First, the FAMU staff discovered that Neel Mechanical had failed to affix its corporate seal to the signature page of the bid Proposal Form and to the Bid Bond that was part of the bid submission. Second, York International Company ("York") sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, a letter advising FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid. This letter raised the third issue: Of the two manufacturers identified in the project specifications, York and The Trane Company ("Trane"), only Trane manufactured a chiller that could meet the project specifications. Fourth, Mark A. Daughtery, a project manager for Bayou Mechanical, sent a letter dated May 14, 1999, to Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson advising him that Bayou Mechanical intended to file a formal protest on Project BR-389 and identifying two issues of concern to Bayou Mechanical: Neel Mechanical's failure to affix its corporate seal to its bid submission and "the Chiller being sole sourced to Trane Company." Each of these issues is discussed in detail below. Corporate Seal The Instructions to Bidders contained in the Project Manual provide: B-16 Preparation and Submission of Bids Each Proposal shall be submitted on the form contained in the Project Manual and bid prices shall be indicated thereon in proper spaces, for the entire Work and for all Alternates. (See B-8) In the event of a discrepancy in the bid amount on the Proposal between the numeric and written quotes, the written amount will govern. Each Proposal must give the full business address of the Bidder and state whether it is an individual, corporation or partnership. Proposals by a corporation must be signed with the legal name and seal of the corporation followed by the name of the state of its incorporation and the manual signature and designation of an officer, agent or other person authorized to bind the corporation. (Emphasis added.) When it was submitted on May 11, 1999, Neel Mechanical's bid did not include the impression of its corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form signature page or on the Bid Bond submitted as part of the proposal. After the bid opening, an employee of Neel Mechanical received a telephone call from Henry Swift, FAMU's Project Manager for Project BR-389, in which he advised Neel Mechanical that its bid had not been sealed. This conversation was followed by a request from Mr. Swift, sent via facsimile transmittal to Neel Mechanical on May 13, 1999, requesting a "Letter of Clarification which confirms your status as a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, registered with the Secretary of State, etc. Finally, please be sure to sign and seal your letter with your corporate seal." A letter to Mr. Swift, dated May 14, 1999, was signed and sealed by Robert C. Sullivan, President of Neel Mechanical. The letter was received in FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction on May 19, 1999. Shortly after Mr. Sullivan sent the May 14, 1999, letter, Neel Mechanical received another telephone call from Mr. Swift in which he advised Neel Mechanical that the seal needed to be physically affixed to the bid Proposal Form. Peter Lang, a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical, had business in Tallahassee, so Mr. Sullivan asked that he take the seal to Mr. Swift's office and affix it to the bid Proposal Form. When Peter Lang arrived at Mr. Swift's office, someone brought out the file and gave him the bid Proposal Form, and he affixed Neel Mechanical's corporate seal to the signature page of the form. Neel Mechanical's corporate seal was not affixed to the Bid Bond, although the seal of the surety company was on the Bid Bond when the bid was submitted. The Bid Bond was part of Neel Mechanical’s bid submission. FAMU verified on May 13, 1999, that Neel Mechanical was authorized to do business in Florida and held the requisite Florida license to perform the work required by the project. Centrifugal chiller specifications and York's letter of "intent to protest" Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications included in the Project Manual contains the specifications for the Centrifugal Chillers - Water Cooled to be installed as part of Project BR-389. Those specifications provide in pertinent part: PART 2 - PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Available Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide centrifugal chillers from one of the following: Trane Co., The York Int'l. UNIT DESCRIPTION: * * * Refrigerant: Chiller shall be provided with low pressure refrigerant HCFC-123. The size of the chiller specified for Project BR-389 was 2200 tons. 6/ Lane Jackins is the owner of Applied Mechanical Equipment and is a manufacturer's representative for York. He reviewed the technical specifications for the chiller contained in Part II of Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications for Project BR-389 and determined that York could not furnish a chiller that met the specifications. York does not manufacture a chiller of 2200 tons that uses R123 refrigerant, although it uses R123 refrigerant in smaller machines up to 750 tons. The equipment manufactured by York in the 2,000-ton range uses R134A refrigerant, which operates at different pressures than R123. The York equipment using R134A refrigerant is of an entirely different design than that using R123 refrigerant. In addition, York does not manufacture a chiller with the voltage required by the project specifications. Three or four days before the bids were to be submitted, either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lang spoke with Mr. Jackins about York's providing Neel Mechanical with a price for the chiller. Mr. Jackins responded that York would not submit a price for the equipment because York did not manufacture a chiller that would meet the technical specifications included in the bid documents. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: B-12 Basis for Bidding - Trade Names For clarity of description and as a standard of comparison, certain equipment and materials have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base the Proposal on the particular systems, equipment or materials specified and approved substitutes as provided in Paragraph 3.19, Substitutes, of the General Conditions. After bids are received, no equipment or materials will be approved as a substitute for the specified product. Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions provides: Substitutions Substitutions for a specified system, product or material may be requested of the Architect/Engineer, and the Architect/Engineer's written approval must be issued as an addendum before substitutions will be allowed. All requests for substitutions must be submitted prior to the opening of bids, and approvals shall be granted no less than seven (7) days prior to the bid date. Substitutions requested after that date will receive no consideration. Substitutions are changes in materials, equipment, methods, or sequences of construction, design, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, air conditioning controls, or other requirements of the Drawings or Specifications. (Emphasis in original.) In the portion dealing with "SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS," Section 15010 of the Technical Requirements, "MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS," provides as follows: By submitting a bid for equipment or material other than the "Design Basis Equipment" (i.e., that which is shown on the Contract Drawings), the Contractor: Represents that he has personally investigated the proposed substitute product and determined that it is equal or superior in all respects to that specified and complies with all the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions; Certifies that the cost data presented is complete and includes all related costs under this Contract but excludes costs under separate contracts, and excludes the Engineer's redesign costs, and waives all claims for additional costs related to the substitution which subsequently become apparent; Will coordinate the installation of the accepted substitute, making such changes as may be required for the work to be complete in all respects; and, Certifies that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the Contract Documents. Neither York nor any prospective bidder on Project BR-389 requested within the time limits specified in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions that a York product be substituted for the chiller specified for Project BR-389. Mr. Lang contacted Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson a day or two before bids were to be submitted and told Mr. Allen that York was not able to provide a chiller that met the project specifications. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen responded that he "was totally surprised that they [York] didn't have a machine that was going to meet this spec." 7/ Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on pricing information it received from Trane, which manufactures a chiller that meets the project specifications. An additional reason Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on the Trane equipment was his belief that, all things being equal, FAMU preferred to have Trane equipment installed in Project BR-389 because other chillers installed at FAMU were manufactured by Trane. Mr. Lang believed that the specifications for the chiller had been deliberately drawn to require use of Trane equipment. In a letter dated May 11, 1999, the day the bids for Project BR-389 were submitted and opened, Mr. Jackins notified FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid on Project BR-389. Mr. Jackins stated in the letter: The chiller as specified is a flat specification. There is only one manufacturer that will meet the criteria as spelled out in the contract documents. This is not in the best interest of the University System of Florida or the State of Florida. An official protest outlining all the proprietary items will be forthcoming. The letter was sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, prior to the time the bids were opened. Mr. Jackins believed that the "flat specification" was not in the best interest of the university because it precluded competitive pricing for the chiller. Mr. Sullivan learned on May 11 or May 12, 1999, that York intended to file a bid protest. Believing that Neel Mechanical would be awarded the contract as the apparent low bidder, Mr. Sullivan met with Mr. Jackins and several employees of Neel Mechanical, including Greg Lang, at which time Mr. Sullivan proposed an alternative to York's filing a bid protest. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Jackins that, in his opinion, the situation could best be handled through a meeting between Neel Mechanical, Mr. Jackins, Mr. Houston, and the project engineers. According to Mr. Sullivan's plan, Mr. Jackins could present York's pricing, and FAMU, with the engineers’ assistance, could decide if they wanted to switch from the equipment specified in the bid documents to York equipment. If FAMU agreed to accept the York equipment, then, if it were awarded the contract, Neel Mechanical would purchase the York equipment rather than the Trane equipment Neel Mechanical had included in its proposal. After some discussion, Mr. Jackins agreed with Mr. Sullivan's proposed solution. Post-bid activity from the perspective of Neel Mechanical Immediately after the bids were opened, Craig Allen, an employee of Bosek, Gibson telephoned Mr. Lang and asked if Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen stated that "this is a standard practice of mine on bid day to call the apparent low bidder and just make sure that they haven't found some colossal error in their math or whatever that made them low." 8/ Mr. Lang told Mr. Allen that Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. After this conversation, Mr. Lang waited for the letter from FAMU awarding the contract to Neel Mechanical. He was not concerned that the award was not made immediately because, in his experience, some time always passed between bid opening and the time the winning bidder received the contract. However, in anticipation of the award of the contract, Neel Mechanical proceeded to talk with subcontractors, to start scheduling the project, and to line up equipment that it would need to purchase for work on the project. Neel Mechanical employees also made several visits to the site of the project. At some point after the bids were opened, Mr. Sullivan heard that the procurement officials at FAMU were discussing with FAMU's legal department the issues of Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal to its bid and the ramifications of York’s threatened bid protest. Mr. Sullivan responded by telephoning the office of FAMU's general counsel. He spoke with Faye Boyce about these issues and told her that he considered his failure to affix the corporate seal to Neel Mechanical's bid to be insignificant. He also advised her that he had worked out an arrangement with the representative of York whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would talk with the engineers about the York chiller so a decision could be made whether they wanted to use the York equipment or stay with the Trane equipment which met the project specifications. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Boyce, Mr. Sullivan received the impression that she had looked into the issues he had raised in their previous telephone conversation. Mr. Sullivan could not recall Ms. Boyce's exact words, but had the impression from their conversation that the contract award to Neel Mechanical had been approved and that confirmation would be sent out shortly. At some point after Mr. Sullivan's conversation with Ms. Boyce, Greg Lang telephoned Henry Swift to find out the status of the contract award. Mr. Swift told Mr. Lang that, in Mr. Lang's words, "the problem had been reviewed and found to be insignificant, and . . . that the letter of intent to award had already been made." 9/ According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift told him that FAMU would notify the bidders of the intent to award the contract to Neel Mechanical. On the basis of this conversation, Mr. Lang believed that Neel Mechanical would receive a letter "just any day." When Neel Mechanical did not receive a letter, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Swift again. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift stated that he did not know why the matter was being held up. After this second conversation with Mr. Swift, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Houston several times but did not receive a return call. Mr. Lang then wrote a letter to Mr. Houston, dated July 9, 1999, in which he inquired about the status of the contract award: It has now been almost two months since you received bids for this project, and as the low bidder we have still not received notification of your intent to award. We have had several telephone conversations with the attorney representing the regents in this matter, and we were lead [sic] to believe that we would have received information before this time. Please review this matter and call us. If there are outstanding issues which concern you, we would like to know about them and work with you to get them resolved. Post-bid activity from the perspective of FAMU Mr. Houston and members of his staff considered the omission of the corporate seal to be a minor deficiency in Neel Mechanical's bid proposal. Nonetheless, even though Neel Mechanical had been allowed to seal the bid Proposal Form, Mr. Houston asked FAMU's Office of General Counsel to conduct research and determine if the deficiency was one that could be waived. Mr. Houston was not involved in drawing up the technical specifications for Project BR-389; rather, he relied on the project engineers to be familiar with the products to be used in the project. Mr. Houston advised the project engineers that he wanted a competitive bid, and, because the chiller was a major component of the project, he instructed the engineers to prepare specifications that could be met by equipment produced by at least two manufacturers. In a letter dated May 18, 1999, Craig Allen, the engineer at Bosek, Gibson who prepared the specifications for Project BR-389, notified Mr. Houston that he was not aware until the "notice of protest" was received from York that York could not provide a chiller of the required capacity which used R123 refrigerant. Mr. Allen advised Mr. Houston that Mr. Jackins, the York representative, had indicated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Allen to discuss York's chiller selections for the project. A recommendation that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical was signed on June 8, 1999, by Phyllis Nottage, the Assistant Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction; on June 10, 1999, by Mr. Houston; on June 14, 1999, by Louis Murray, an Associate Vice President of FAMU; and on June 14, 1999, by Robert Carroll, a Vice President of FAMU with supervisory authority over the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. The recommendation was contained in a document entitled "Award of Construction Contract," which provided as follows: On May 11, 1999, bids were received for the above-referenced project within the approved budget for the Base Bid and Alternates One (1) through (2), in the total amount of $3,996,400. The requirements for the Minority Business Enterprise Plan as set forth in the project specifications have been satisfied by the Contractor. The consulting Architect/Engineer and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office recommend the award of this contract to Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. President Humphries signed the Award of Construction Contract on June 17, 1999. The preparation and signing of the Award of Contract form and the preparation of the Letter of Intended Decision were part of the bid review process, but Mr. Houston considered them preliminary, without effect until the final decision on the contract award was made and the bidders were formally advised of FAMU's intended decision with respect to the award of the contract. On June 21, 1999, Mr. Houston received a telephone call from Kenneth Ogletree, Director of the Board of Regents’ Office of Facilities Planning, 10/ in which Mr. Houston was advised that the Board of Regents had received an inquiry from a legislator in reference to Project BR-389 and requesting that Mr. Houston prepare a response to the legislator's inquiry. Mr. Ogletree sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Carey Huff, President of Bayou Mechanical, to Durell Peaden, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and a State Representative from District In the letter, Mr. Huff complained that Neel Mechanical, although apparent low bidder for Project BR-389, had failed to seal the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond and that, therefore, Neel Mechanical's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Carey requested that Representative Peaden contact FAMU so that Bayou Mechanical would be awarded the contract for the project as lowest responsive bidder. Mr. Carey stated in his May 28, 1999, letter to Representative Peaden that the college had refused to allow Bayou Mechanical to examine Neel Mechanical's bid but that Mr. Houston had informed them that Neel Mechanical had failed to seal its bid properly. 11/ Mr. Ogletree also sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter from Representative Peaden to Dr. Adam W. Herbert, Chancellor of the State University System. In his letter, Representative Peaden asked that Dr. Herbert look into the matter and "see that all equity was followed in the bid process." In response to the Board of Regents' request that he respond to Representative Peaden's inquiry, Mr. Houston prepared a letter dated June 22, 1999. In this letter, which was directed to Mr. Ogletree, Mr. Houston stated that FAMU wished to award the contract for Project BR-389 to Neel Mechanical as the low bidder on the project. Mr. Houston stated that FAMU considered Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond to be a minor discrepancy. Mr. Houston further stated that FAMU's Office of General Counsel agreed with the conclusion regarding the corporate seal issue and recommended that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical. Finally, Mr. Houston advised Mr. Ogletree that President Humphries had signed the "Award of Construction Contract" form and that Mr. Houston's office was preparing "Letters of Intended Decision" to be sent to the bidders. The final decision on the contract award had not been made on June 10, 1999, when Mr. Houston signed the recommendation that the contract for Project BR-389 be awarded to Neel Mechanical, nor had it been made on June 22, 1999, when Mr. Houston wrote his letter to Mr. Ogletree. Rather, on June 22, 1999, the issues raised with respect to the bid process for Project BR-389 were still being reviewed by Mr. Houston and his staff and by FAMU's Office of General Counsel. The decision to reject all bids on Project BR-389 was made on June 24, 1999. On that date, Mr. Houston met with Vice President Murray, FAMU's attorney, and the Assistant Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction, and the issues relating to the bidding process for Project BR-389 were reviewed. Mr. Houston identified these issues as Neel Mechanical's failure to seal its bid Proposal Form and its Bid Bond; potential protests from York and from Bayou Mechanical; and the problem relating to the technical specifications for the chiller. Of these issues, Mr. Houston considered the most serious the fact that, of the two manufacturers listed in the bid specifications, only Trane could provide the chiller for Project BR-389. The chiller was a major part of the project, and Mr. Houston wanted at least two sources for the chiller in order to encourage competition so that FAMU would get the lowest possible price for the project. Mr. Houston was also concerned that the specifications for the chiller created a de facto "sole source" bid and that the bid solicitation would, therefore, be illegal because FAMU didn't satisfy the statutory requirements necessary for it to specify that the chiller be purchased from a sole source. 12/ FAMU's attorney advised the participants at the June 24, 1999, meeting that the legal department had found no precedent within the State University System for waiving the requirement in the bid documents that the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond be sealed with the bidder's corporate seal. The participants at the meeting considered all of the outstanding issues and decided that it would be in the best interests of FAMU to reject all bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. After the decision to reject all bids was made, Mr. Houston marked an "X" through the Award of Construction Contract form signed by President Humphries, and he prepared letters notifying the bidders of the intent to reject all bids for Project BR-389. Neel Mechanical's bid protest In a letter to Neel Mechanical dated July 6, 1999, Mr. Houston stated: Bids on the above referenced project were opened May 11, 1999. However, we regret to inform you that all Bids have been rejected as in the best interest of the University. This project is presently being re-advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University apologizes for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We trust that you will cooperate with our course of action and look forward to receiving a proposal from you at the next opening. Thanks for your continued interest in the State University System's Construction Program. The envelope containing Mr. Houston's July 6, 1999, letter was post-marked July 9, 1999, and the letter was received by Neel Mechanical on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: Rejection of Bids The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the Owner such rejection is in the best interest of the Owner. Paragraph B-1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides that the Board of Regents is the owner of the project. On July 13, 1999, after Neel Mechanical received the letter from Mr. Houston notifying it that all bids on Project BR- 389 had been rejected, Mr. Sullivan and Greg Lang went to Mr. Houston's office to urge him to rescind the decision and award the contract to Neel Mechanical. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Houston that they felt that the issue regarding the corporate seal was insignificant. At this time, Mr. Sullivan also told Mr. Houston that he and York had reached an agreement whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would present the York product to the University and let the University decide if it wanted to go with the Trane chiller or switch to a York product. Mr. Sullivan thought that Mr. Houston was sympathetic to Neel Mechanical but that the decision had been made by the administration and the legal department. Mr. Sullivan also got the impression that the decision to reject all bids was based on the corporate seal issue. On July 13, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Notice of Intent to Protest Bid to Samuel J. Houston, Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction at Florida A&M University and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. There is no dispute that the Notice of Intent to Protest Bid was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 13, 1999. On July 23, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings to Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. Also on July 23, 1999, a copy of the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was sent by United States Mail to the Board of Regents, Office of General Counsel, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1454, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950. There is no dispute that the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 23, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual dated October 16, 1989, provide: Bid Protest To be considered, a bid protest must be received by the Director, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1601 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, as provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Failure to file a notice of protest in this manner shall constitute a waiver of the Bidder's right to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. * * * B-26 Special Conditions Bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. (Emphasis added.) Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996, provides in pertinent part: (This supplement revises portions of the Project Manual for State University System projects dated October 16, 1989, and supersedes any other previously issued supplements related to the referenced topics.) Revise the Instructions to Bidders Section of the Project Manual as Follows: * * * Revise Paragraph B-22, Bid Protest, to read as follows: B-22 Bid Protest Any person who is affected adversely by the Board of Regents decision or intended decision shall file with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and State legal holidays, after receipt of the bidding documents if the protest is directed toward the bidding conditions or after the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision on contract award or bid rejection if the protest is directed toward contract award or bid rejection. Thereafter, a formal written protest by petition in compliance with Section 120.53(5), and Section 120.57, F.S., must be filed with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, within ten (10) days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Failure to file a timely notice of protest of [sic] failure to file a timely formal written protest petition shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. Any protest filed prior to receipt of the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision will be considered abandoned unless renewed within the time limit provided for protests. (Emphasis added.) Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5, provides in pertinent part: SUPPLEMENT TO PROJECT MANUAL ISSUED BY FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING PARAGRAPH B-26, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (February 1999 Revision) B-26 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - This supplement modifies paragraph B-26 by adding and clarifying bidding requirements and instructions. * * * PROTEST PROCEDURES: This paragraph supersedes the paragraph (No. B-22) under the general terms and conditions whereby the notice of intended protests or written formal protests including bonding requirements from bidders must be submitted to: Mr. Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, FL 32307. A bid tabulation with the recommended award(s) will be posted at the address indicated in Paragraph B-26, sub- paragraph 6 (Posting of Bid Tabulation). Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the award or intended award which is filed before the bid tabulation posting is null and void. To be considered, a notice of protest or formal written protest must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the specifications issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to any amendment issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added.) The instructions regarding the filing of bid protests in Supplement K supersede the instructions in Supplement J, which is dated February 13, 1996, and in the Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual, which are dated October 16, 1989. Summary The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is sufficient to establish that it timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings by hand-delivering the documents to Mr. Houston, at his office on the FAMU campus. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that FAMU acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in deciding that it was in the best interest of FAMU to reject all of the bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. First, FAMU's concerns that, by inadvertently including a technical specification that could be met by only one manufacturer, it had limited competition with respect to the chiller to be used in Project BR-389 and had inadvertently put out an illegal "sole source" specification were legitimate concerns. Mr. Houston instructed the engineer who prepared the technical specifications that he wanted the specifications drawn so that at least two manufacturers could provide the product, and the engineer prepared specifications relating to the "available manufacturers" which clearly contemplated that a chiller meeting the technical specifications could be provided by both York and Trane. FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered as one factor underlying the decision to reject all bids the lack of precedent in the State University System for waiving the requirement that the bid Proposal Form and Bid Bond carry the corporate seal of a corporate bidder. The evidence submitted by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the corporate seal issue was ultimately the only or even the major factor on which FAMU's decision to reject all bids was based. Mr. Houston identified the possibility that bid protests would be filed by York and by Bayou Mechanical as factors which FAMU considered in deciding to reject all bids. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as a whole permits the inference that the focus of the concern about the potential bid protests was not on avoiding the protests but on the validity of the issues raised by York and Bayou Mechanical. Accordingly, FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered these potential bid protests as one factor contributing to the decision to reject all bids. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish that the "Award of Contract" form executed by President Humphries on June 17, 1999, or Mr. Houston’s June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Ogletree bound FAMU to award the contract to Neel Mechanical or that the subsequent decision to reject all bids defeated the purpose of the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and denying Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1999.
Findings Of Fact On five dates in June and July, 1988, Respondent advertised in The Orlando Sentinel newspaper its Invitation to Bid for the project known as High School "BB." The advertisement announced that bids would be received at 2:00 p.m. on August 4, 1988, at which time all bids would be publicly opened. The advertisement stated that Respondent reserved the right to waive irregularities. The Invitation to Bid stated that bids received after the deadline "will be returned unopened" and bids "received on time" will be opened publicly. The Invitation to Bid also stated: "The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received when such a waiver is in the best interest of the Owner. The contract would be awarded, according to the Invitation to Bid, within 45 days after the opening of bids. The location designated for the opening of the bids was the Facilities Services building located at 6200 Chancellor Drive, Orlando, Florida. The bids were opened in a conference room within the building. Robert Gallardo, who is Respondent's Director of School Planning and Construction, was in charge of the bidding process. Mr. Gallardo has been in this position for six years. During this time, he has been responsible for the majority of school construction bids for Respondent. He estimates that he has supervised ten such bids. On August 4, 1988, Mr. Gallardo worked in his office in the Facilities Services building until 1:55 p.m. At that time, he asked his secretary if the bid tabulation forms had been prepared, and, with the forms, he left his office for the conference room where the bids were to be opened. Mr. Gallardo entered the conference room, which was occupied by a number of bidders' representatives, at 1:58 p.m., according to the clock on the wall. At a few seconds before 2:00 p.m., he first spoke, asking that all bids be handed in. He then asked his secretary to call the front desk to see if any bids had been turned in there and needed to be brought down the hall into the conference room. This was a normal procedure. In past bids, some bidders left their bids with the receptionist at the front desk. Prior to obtaining any response from his secretary who was talking on a phone in the conference room, Mr. Gallardo announced his name and position and announced that he was going to open bids. He then picked up a sealed bid from the pile of sealed bids in front of him. As he was about to open the envelope, at or about 30 seconds past 2:00 p.m., a man entered the conference room and said that he had a bid to deliver. The man disclosed the bidder which he represented, but Mr. Gallardo did not clearly hear the name and did not know whose bid was being offered to him. Mr. Gallardo accepted the bid and placed it at the bottom of the pile. The late bid was from Intervenor. A few seconds after it was accepted Mr. Gallardo opened the first bid. A few seconds after that, another man entered the conference room and attempted to deliver a bid. Mr. Gallardo refused to accept the bid because, as he explained, the first bid had already been opened. Mr. Gallardo's practice has consistently been to accept late bids, provided they are delivered prior to the opening of the first bid. Mr. Gallardo had not previously known of Intervenor, which had never previously even submitted a bid on a school job being let for bid by Respondent. Mr. Gallardo's only prior contact with Intervenor's representative who delivered the bid was seeing the man in the building, along with other bidders' representatives, prior to the opening of the bids; however, Mr. Gallardo did not know who the man represented. There was no fraud or collusion in the acceptance of the late bid. There was no evidence that, under the facts of this case, Respondent abused its discretion in accepting Intervenor's late bid. Petitioner's bid was lowest among the bids delivered prior to 2:00 p.m. However, Intervenor's bid was over $500,000 lower than Petitioner's bid on a project costing in excess of $25 million. Respondent has confirmed Mr. Gallardo's decision not to reject Intervenor's bid as late. On August 16, 1988, Respondent published the agenda for the next school board meeting, which was scheduled for August 23, 1988. One of the items to be taken up was the award of the contract for High School "BB." By letter dated August 18, 1988, Petitioner declined Respondent's invitation to participate in what the parties referred to as an informal hearing at the August 23 school board meeting. Threatening unspecified sanctions under state and federal law if Respondent awarded the contract at the August 23 meeting, Petitioner demanded a formal hearing and asserted that the bidding process should be stayed until resolution of the protest, under Section 120.5361 [sic -- apparently referring to Section 120.53(5)(c)]. By memorandum dated August 23, 1988, Respondent's attorney opined that Rule 6A-2.016(7) did not require Respondent to utilize the Section 120.53(5) bid protest procedures, but, out of an abundance of caution and in the interest of expediting resolution of the dispute, recommended the referral of Petitioner's protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By letter dated August 23, 1988, Respondent referred the protest to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4078BID Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted except to the extent that "timely" implies that Intervenor's bid was improperly accepted. Such an implication is rejected as legal argument. 2 and 4. Adopted in substance. 3. Rejected as irrelevant. 5-7. Rejected as not findings of fact except that the inference of Intervenor's efficient utilization of time following the deadline is rejected as unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. 8-9. Adopted to the extent relevant. 10-11. Rejected as irrelevant. 12-15. Rejected as subordinate to the procedures set forth in the Invitation to Bid and advertisement, especially concerning the waiver of irregularities. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as recitation of testimony through semicolon and irrelevant as to remainder except that the basis for Mr. Gallardo's decision is adopted and modified to add that he accepted the late bid in accordance win his past practice. Petitioner proved all of the facts in this proposed finding except that it could have used effectively any additional time. In any event, all of the facts in this paragraph are irrelevant and are rejected for this reason. The theory of Petitioner's case, as well as the evidence that it offered, was that in this and every other major bid, the last minutes before the deadline are critical due to the unwillingness or inability of subcontractors to supply critical numbers substantially before the deadline. This theory proves too much because, if true, the Hewitt court would have been constrained to consider such a universal fact and thereby would have prevented the agency in that case from accepting the late bid. The Hewitt case stands for the proposition that, in general, an agency may accept late bids before the first bid is opened. It is incumbent upon a frustrated bidder to show that the agency abused its discretion, under the circumstances of the individual case. Petitioner has in essence suggested that the burden is upon the agency to show that it did not abuse its discretion, at least once the frustrated bidder shows that it spent a lot of time and money in preparing its bid and could have used more time. To the contrary, Hewitt tells the frustrated bidder that it must find evidence of impropriety, such as fraud or collusion, in the agency's acceptance of the late bid. This mandate is especially clear in light of the recent Groves-Watkins decision. 18-19 and 22. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 17. Adopted. 20A-20F. Rejected as legal argument. First sentence rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. Second sentence rejected as speculative. Rejected as speculative and unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the evidence. 24A-27. Rejected as legal argument. Adopted in substance. Rejected as not finding of fact. Treatment Accorded Respondent/Intervenor's Joint Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted. 3-4. Rejected as not finding of fact. 5-6. Adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. 8. Adopted in substance. 9-12. Adopted in substance except that Mr. Gallardo did not arrive in the conference room "several minutes" before 2:00 p.m. and Intervenor's representative arrived about 30 seconds after 2:00 p.m. 13. Rejected as irrelevant. 14-15. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 17 in Petitioner's proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph G. Thresher, Esquire Dykema Gossett Ashley Tower Suite 1400 100 South Ashley Drive Post Office Box 1050 Tampa, Florida 33601-1050 William M. Rowland, Jr., Esquire Rowland, Thomas & Jacobs, P.A. 1786 North Mills Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Scott H. Johnson, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A. Two South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James L. Schott Superintendent Orange County Public Schools Post Office Box 271 434 North Tampa Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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 Whether the protest herein is premature under the terms of the Request for Proposals and Section 120.53(5) F.S.
Findings Of Fact This proceeding concerns a protest by Amdahl regarding DHSMV's "notice of intent to benchmark" with Unisys pursuant to RFP 046-95 REBID. The RFP was issued on April 5, 1995. Meetings concerning the specifications were held on April 14 and 18, 1995. No protests were timely filed with regard to the specifications. On May 4, 1995, the agency issued its notice of intent to benchmark as more specifically described below. The RFP is divided into three sections: the technical proposal, the price proposal, and the benchmark. So far, all proposals have been evaluated and ranked by DHSMV based on technical and price criteria. At this stage, Unisys is ranked first, and Amdahl is ranked second. When it had determined that Unisys had received the highest combined score on the technical and price proposals, DHSMV posted the tabulated scores of all proposers and notified them of the agency's intent to proceed to the benchmark evaluation phase of the RFP with Unisys. In an abundance of caution, the agency included in its notice of intent to benchmark, to which was attached the final point tabulation for all competing vendors, the notice of a right to protest within 72 hours pursuant to Section 120.53 (5) F.S. Amdahl timely filed its notice of protest and its formal protest. Without unnecessary elaboration, the thrust of Amdahl's protest is directed to Sections 3.23 and 6.0 of the RFP and DHSMV's scoring of the technical and price proposals. That protest includes, but may not be limited to, an accusation that the agency improperly permitted Unisys to manipulate its certified minority business enterprise compliance after the submittal of its response to the RFP. Amdahl further asserted that since a tabulation was attached to the notice of intent to benchmark and due to the wording of Section 120.53(5)(b) F.S., DHSMV Rule 15-2.003(2), and RFP General Condition 5 and Special Condition 3.5, Amdahl was required to challenge the DHSMV scoring and tabulation at this point in time or be presumed to have waived its right to protest. Pursuant to Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the RFP, the highest ranked proposer (as determined by the scoring system thus far) next must participate in a month-long benchmark designed to demonstrate the highest ranked proposer's ability to perform. If the highest ranked proposer fails the benchmark, DHSMV will eliminate the highest ranked proposer and the next ranked proposer will be given the opportunity to perform the benchmark. If the second ranked proposer fails, the third can try benchmarking, and so on. Once some proposer passes the benchmark tier of evaluation, the recommendation to award will be posted. Specifically, RFP specifications 4.1 and 4.2 which were not challenged by a protest within 72 hours of the last explanatory meeting thereon, read as follows: CONTRACT AWARD It is the intent of the DHSMV to require the qualified proposer scoring the highest number of points after the Technical evaluation, and Costs evaluation of the proposals to benchmark all proposed hardware and software on the configurations proposed . The Benchmark will be performed at the DHSMV, Kirkman Data Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Upon successful completion of the Benchmark described in ATTACHMENT-B , a recommendation to award the contract resulting from RFP 046-95-REBID will be submitted to the Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida. Final award of a contract for this RFP will be contingent upon the agency obtaining third party financing. MANDATORY BENCHMARK REQUIREMENT The hardware and software proposed in this RFP shall be benchmarked using the performance criteria set forth in ATTACHMENT-B. This benchmark shall be performed utilizing ORACLE asw the DHSMV data- base standard. It is the responsibility of the proposer to insure that all hardware and software proposed meet this requirement. In the event any non conformity or noncompatibility is encountered at any time, the proposer will be eliminated from further consideration and the next highest points scoring proposer will be given the opportunity to perform the benchmark. (Emphasis in the original) DHSMV asserted unequivocally that in the present case, if Unisys does not pass the benchmark, then Unisys will be eliminated and Amdahl will be permitted to benchmark. It is equally clear that if Unisys passes the benchmark, then a recommendation to award will be issued. All concerned seem to recognize the foregoing as the natural flow of the RFP award procedure as contemplated by the RFP. Even the prayer for relief contained in Amdahl's petition states, in pertinent part, ". . . Amdahl requests that DHSMV suspend further action with respect to the contract award process until this protest is resolved by final agency action; . . . That a DOAH recommended order and a DHSMV final order be entered selecting Amdahl as the winning proposal for benchmarking and ultimate award of the contract; . . . . Amdahl asserts that it is both fairer and more efficient to score the competing proposals and resolve all scoring issues pertaining to the technical and price portions before benchmarking the interim winner, rather than providing an opportunity for the interim winner to negotiate the manner in which its products can be integrated to achieve conformance and compatibility with the agency's purposes; that the benchmarking procedure directed to Unisys cannot be monitored by Amdahl for possible protest purposes at a later stage; and that benchmarking permits Unisys to make further adjustments towards qualifying a minority enterprise that was not certified at the time Unisys submitted its proposal. Amdahl did not raise any of these issues prior to submitting its own bid.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order dismissing the current petition without prejudice to its appropriate issues being raised within the statutory time frame after the agency's recommendation to award contract described in Section 4.1 of the RFP is issued and prior to that recommendation to award being sumitted to the Governor and Cabinet. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1995 COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Miller M. Stephen Turner Jay Adams BROAD AND CASSEL P.O. DRAWER 11300 215 South Monroe St. Ste 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Enoch J. Whitney Judson Chapman Office of the General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Mary Piccard W. Robert Vezina III Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. 1004 De Soto Park Drive PO Box 589 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles J. Brantley Office of the General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399
