The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's intended award of a lease for office space to Intervenor, Anthony Abraham Enterprise, is arbitrary and capricious and whether the proposal of the Petitioner, Adlee Developers, the current lessor, is responsive.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that on April 7, 1991, the Department issued an Invitation to Bid entitled, "Invitation To Bid For Existing Facilities State Of Florida Lease Number 590:2286, Dade County" This procurement was for the provision of 30,086 net rentable square feet to be used for office space in Dade County. A 3% variance was permitted. The facility was to house the District's Aging and Adult Services office which has been a tenant in Petitioner's building for several years and remained there during the pendancy of this protest process. According to the published advertisement, a pre-proposal conference was to be held on April 22, 1991, with all bids due by the bid opening to be held at 10:00 AM on May 30, 1991. The pre-bid conference was conducted by Philip A. Davis, then the District's facilities service manager and included not only a written agenda but also a review of the evaluation process by which each responsive bid would be examined. Petitioner asserts that the potential bidders were told, at that conference, that annual rental increases for the ten year lease period could not exceed five per cent (5%) and claims that Abraham's bid exceeded those guidelines. Thorough examination of the documentary evidence presented and the transcript of the proceedings, including a search for the reference thereto in Petitioner's counsel's Proposed Findings of Fact, fails to reveal any support for that assertion as to an increase limitation. The ITB for this procurement, in the section related to the evaluation of bids, indicated that pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5-3 and 5-11 of HRSM 70-1, dealing with the procurement of leased space, the responsive bids would be reviewed by an evaluation committee which would visit each proposed facility and apply the evaluation criteria to it in order to determine the lowest and best bidder. The evaluation criteria award factors listed in the ITB defined a successful bid as that one determined to be the lowest and best. That listing of evaluation criteria outlined among its categories associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. As to the first, the committee was to look at rental rates for both the basic term of the lease and the optional renewal period. The rates were to be evaluated using present value methodology applying the present value discount rate of 8.08% and rates proposed were to be within projected budgeting restraints of the Department. The total weight for the rental rate category was to be no more than 40 points with 35 points being the maximum for the basic term and 5 points for the option. Evaluation of the location was to be based on the effect of environmental factors including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it on the efficient and economical conduct of the operations planned therefor. This included the proximity of the facility to a preferred area such as a co-location, a courthouse, or main traffic areas. This item carried a maximum weight of 10 points. Also included in location were the frequency and availability of public transportation, (5 points); the proximity of the facility to the clients to be served, (5 points); the aesthetics of not only the building but the surrounding neighborhood, (10 points); and security issues, (10 points). The third major factor for evaluation was the facility itself and here the committee was to examine the susceptibility of the offered space to efficient layout and good utilization, (15 points), and the susceptibility of the building, parking area and property as a whole to possible future expansion, (5 points). In that regard, the Bid Submittal Form attached to the ITB called for the successful bidder whose property did not have appropriate zoning at the time of award to promptly seek zoning appropriate to the use classification of the property so that it might be used for the purposes contemplated by the department within 30 days. In the event that could not be done, the award could be rescinded by the department without liability. The committee could award up to 100 points. The basic philosophy of this procurement was found in paragraph 1 of the Bid Award section of the ITB which provided: 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. After the bid opening, three of the four bids received, excluding Petitioner's which was initially determined to be non-responsive, were evaluated by the Department's bid evaluation committee according to the above point system which allowed no discretion or deviation from the formula in comparing rental rates between bidders. Once Petitioner's bid was thereafter determined to be responsive, it, too was evaluated by the committee. At this second evaluation session, relating to Adlee's bid only, the committee scored the bid and added its scores to the original score sheets upon which the other three bidders' scores had been placed. Abraham had the lowest rental rates for the basic term of the lease and received the maximum award of 35 points for that category while Adlee received points. Abraham received an additional 2.29 points for the optional period rates while Adlee got 0. In the other categories, "location" and "facility", which comprised 60% of the points, Adlee's facility was routinely rated superior to Abraham's except for the area related to susceptibility for future expansion in which Abraham was rated higher by a small amount. Overall, however, Adlee was awarded 620.41 points and Abraham 571.03 points and as a result, Adlee was rated by the committee to be the lowest and best bidder. RCL, another bidder, was rated second, with Abraham third and DCIC fourth. Thereafter, the committee chairman, Mr. VanWerne, forwarded the new (and complete) evaluation results to the District Administrator on June 14, 1991 by an addendum dated June 27, 1991 which recommended award of the bid to Petitioner, Adlee Developers. No award was made at the time. Several factors not pertinent to the issues here caused that delay. Among the major of these was pending legislation which would have transferred the operation needing this space to another agency. This transfer was never consummated, however. On or before March 20, 1992, the new District Administrator, Mr. Towey, who had been appointed to his office in December, 1991, and who was made aware that this procurement had not been finalized, requested all available material on it so that he could study it and make his decision based on his own review of the submission. As a part of his determination process, he visited and inspected both the Adlee and the Abraham sites. One of the factors he considered was what appeared to be the significant monetary discrepancy between the two pertinent bids. Initial calculations indicated that Abraham's bid was approximately $835,000.00 lower than Adlee's over the ten year basic term of the lease. This amount was subsequently determined to be somewhat lower but the discrepancy is still significant. Nonetheless, because of that difference, Mr. Towey called a meeting with the members of the evaluation committee which had evaluated the bidders and had recommended Adlee. His stated reason for calling that meeting was to allow him to hear their reasons for rating the submissions as they had done and to take that information into consideration when he made his final decision. None of the committee members who testified at the hearing at Petitioner's behest indicated any feelings of pressure or intimidation by Mr. Towey. During his meeting with the committee members, Mr. Towey went over several of the evaluation criteria award factors to determine the committee's rationale. Of major importance was the issue of cost, of the availability of the facility to transportation to and from the building, employee security and the ability to control access to the facility, and the availability of on-site parking without cost to both employees and clients. It appears the Adlee facility is a multistory building with some parking available on site and would be easier to control. In addition, it is closer to public transportation access points. There is, however, some indication that on-site parking for clients would not be free and the closest free parking is some distance away. According to Adlee's representative, this matter would not be a problem, however, as adequate, free on site parking, which apparently was not initially identified as a problem, could be provided in any new lease. The Abraham facility is a one story building surrounded by on-site parking. In that regard, however, at hearing, Petitioner raised the claim that the Abraham site did not, in actuality, provide adequate parking because the zoning requirements of the City of South Miami, the municipality in which the facility is located, did not permit the required number of parking spaces to accommodate the prospective need. Petitioner sought and received permission to depose the Building and Zoning Director for the city, Sonia Lama, who ultimately indicated that the Abraham site was grandfathered in under the old zoning rule and, thereby, had adequate parking available. In any case, had this not been true, under the terms of the ITB, any zoning deficiencies could have been corrected after award, or the award rescinded without penalty to the Department. After the meeting with the committee, Mr. Towey indicated he would probably go against the committee's recommendation. One of his reasons for doing so, as he indicated to them, was the appearance certain amenities in the facility would give. In the period between the time the committee met and Mr. Towey was ready to decide, there were several newspaper articles published in the Miami area which were negative in their approach to Department leasing policies and this publicity had an effect on him. In his response to a reporter's question, in fact, Mr. Towey indicated he would not permit the lease of any property which contained such amenities while he was District Director. There is some evidence that the wet bar referred to here was a sink and counter used by agency employees to make coffee. However, before making his decision, Mr. Towey also met with Herbert Adler of Adlee. Mr. Towey advised him he was concerned about the fact that the Adlee property provided a wet bar, a private bathroom and some other amenities in that suite of offices occupied by the Department. Mr. Towey was adamant in his public and private pronouncements on the subject that there would be no such amenities in HRS offices in his District while he was in charge. At the meeting in issue, Mr. Adler made it very clear he was willing to remove all the offending amenities to bring the space into conformity with Mr. Towey's standards. Mr. Towey obviously took Adler at his word as he did not consider this matter to be an issue when he evaluated the bids. Based on his independent evaluation of the proposals, and considering all the pertinent factors, Mr. Towey decided not to concur with the committee's recommendation and instead recommended to the Department's Office of General Services that the bid be awarded to Abraham. Because his recommendation differed from that of the evaluation committee, under the provisions of Section 5-13, HRS Manual 70-1, he was required to forward additional justification for his position. In his forwarding memorandum dated March 20, 1992 to Mr. King Davis of the Department's Office of General Services, Mr. Towey listed as his reasons for disagreement with the committee's recommendation, (1) the lower term cost of Abraham's bid, (2) his opinion that the one story floor plan of Abraham was more convenient and accessible to clients, and (3) the provision for ample free parking at the Abraham site as opposed to the limited parking at the Adlee building. Petitioner claims that Mr. Towey's justification for disagreement was improper because, (a) the rental difference he cited was not based on the ITB formula and did not consider the difference in square footage offered; (b) the rental rate comparison compared a proposed lease with an existing lease, not with a proposal; and (c) the reference to on-site parking referred to the situation under the existing lease with Adlee and not to what could occur under a new lease. The major factor in Mr. Towey's decision was the price differential between the two offerings. While the difference may not have been as great as presented initially by the department staff, even taken in its most conservative light of about half that amount, and considering the appropriate figures, the difference was still considerable and significant. In the continuing period of budgetary austerity under which state operations have been and must continue to be conducted, the financial consideration loomed large in his thinking. As for the parking situation, no change for the better was provided for in Adlee's proposal and even if it were, it was but one of several factors. When Mr. Towey's March 20, 1992 memorandum in justification of his disagreement was evaluated at the Office of General services, it was determined that his decision was rational and objectively justified. Thereafter, by letter dated April 2, 1992, the Office of General Services authorized District 11 to award the lease to Abraham and this decision was transmitted to all responsive bidders by letter dated April 7, 1992. It was this action which prompted Petitioner's protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the protest by Adlee Developers, Inc., of the award of procurement No. 590:2286 to Anthony Abraham Enterprises. RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 10th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2798 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted that the pre-bid conference was held but reject the finding that a 5% limit was mentioned. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted except for the next to last sentence which is rejected. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not probative of any material issue. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 30. Rejected. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Melinda S. Gentile, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell 200 East Broward Blvd. P.O. Box 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Paul J. Martin, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Suite 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Peter W. Homer, Esquire Greer, Homer & Bonner, P.A. 3400 International Place 100 S.E. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 John Slye General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On October 11, 1991, DOT's District Four office let out for bid district contracts E4551 and E4554. Contract E4551 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Broward County. Contract E4554 calls for the mechanical sweeping of Interstate 95 in Palm Beach County. At a mandatory pre-bid conference, the bidders for the Contracts were provided with a packet which included a Notice to Contractors and Standard Specifications. The Notice to Contractors is a four page document which is specific to each contract. The Standard Specifications are the same for all district contracts. Both the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications to the bidders required bidders to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price. Bidders could satisfy this requirement by submitting a bid guarantee of 5% of the bid, submitting a notarized letter of intent from a bonding company or by providing a Certificate of Qualification issued by Respondent. The Notice to Contractors for both Contracts provided as follows: Failure to provide the following with each bid proposal will result in rejection of the contractor's bid.... District contracts of $150,000 or less require the following as proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond: A notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a performance and payment bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project; in lieu of a notarized letter the following may be substituted: (1) a bid guarantee of five percent (5%); or (2) a copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department. (No emphasis added) Similarly, the first Standard Specification provides: 1.1 Bidders (contractors) A contractor shall be eligible to bid on this contract if:... (2) Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the District Contract Administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of your bid, should your firm be awarded the project.... The requirement to submit proof of the ability to acquire a performance and payment bond has been imposed on the Districts by DOT Directive 375-00-001-a (hereinafter the "Directive".) This Directive was in place at all times material to this proceeding. Section 3.2.2 of the Directive provides: A contractor shall be eligible to bid if: ...Proof of ability to acquire a performance and payment bond in an amount equal to the contract bid price is provided to the minicontract administrator with the bid proposal. As such proof all bids must be accompanied by a notarized letter from a bonding company, bank or other financial institution stating that they intend to issue a bond in the amount of the bid, should the firm be awarded the project. A bid guaranty as specified above may substitute as proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. This applies to bids amount over or under $150,000. A copy of the Contractor's Certificate of Qualification issued by the Department may be substituted in lieu of a notarized letter for those contracts not requiring a bid bond. The bids for the Contracts were opened on October 11, 1991 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Bids were received from four bidders: CPM, SCA, Florida Sweeping, Inc. and P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. In its bid proposals, SCA included executed bid bonds in an amount sufficient to cover the amount of each bid proposal. Each bid bond cost $55.00. CPM did not submit executed bid bonds with its proposals. Instead, CPM submitted letters from Mark A. Latini dated September 25, 1991. Those letters were provided on the stationery of Bonina-McCutchen-Bradshaw, Insurance and indicate that Mr. Latini is the "bond manager." The letters provide as follows: Amwest Surety Insurance Company is the surety for the above-referenced contractor and stands ready to provide the necessary performance and payment bond for the referenced bid should Certified Property Maintenance, Inc., be low and awarded the referenced contract. All bonds are subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request.... The letters submitted by CPM with its bid proposals were not notarized and were not binding obligations to issue bonds since they were conditioned upon meeting certain unspecified underwriting requirements at the time of the bond requests. The submitted bids were reviewed by the District Four Contractual Services Office. The bids submitted by CPM were the lowest for each contract. Its bid for Contract No. E4551 was $109,343.97. Its bid for Contract No. E4554 was $30,312.63. SCA's bids for the Contracts were $139,442.14 and $44,100.00, respectively. During the initial review of the bid proposals, the Contractual Services Office rejected CPM's bids for failure to have its bonding company "letters of intent" notarized. In addition, the bid proposals submitted by Florida Sweeping, Inc. were rejected for failure to note a required addendum and the bids submitted by P. F. Gomez Construction Co., Inc. were rejected because the "proposal bond was not of proper character". On October 18, 1991, DOT posted its Notice of Intent to Award the Contracts to SCA, the only bidder for the Contracts whose proposals had not been rejected. CPM timely filed protests of the proposed awards to SCA on October 22, 1991. The protests filed by CPM argued that its bids should not have been invalidated simply because the bonding company's letters did not include notary seals. At this point, the sole basis for the disqualification of CPM's bids was the failure to have the bonding company letters notarized. Respondent contends that, except for the absence of the notary seal, the letters submitted by CPM met the requirements of the Notice to Contractor and the Standard Specifications cited above. However, those letters are equivocal and do not evidence a binding commitment to issue a bond upon award of the contract. The DOT officials admit that they do not know what "normal underwriting requirements" would or could be required by CPM's bonding company. This conditional language makes it uncertain whether CPM could obtain the necessary bond. Therefore, it is concluded that those letters do not meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors, the Standard Specifications or the Directive. A hearing on CPM's protest was not held. CPM's president, Raymond Hanousek, who prepared CPM's bid and attended the pre-bid meeting, called DOT's District office the day the bids were opened and was informed that his company's bid was low, but was rejected because its bond commitment letter was not notarized. Mr. Hanousek spoke with Joseph Yesbeck, the District's Director of Planning and Programs. After their conversation, Mr. Yesbeck reviewed the file and met with Teresa Martin, the District's contract administrator for construction and maintenance contracts, and other members of the contracting staff. Ms. Martin explained why CPM's bid had been disqualified, and the matter was thereafter discussed with the District and Department attorneys. After reviewing the situation, Mr. Yesbeck determined that the failure to submit notarized letters should be considered a non-material deviation and the bids submitted by CPM should be accepted and considered the low responsive bids. Mr. Yesbeck concluded that the absence of the notary seal did not give any competitive advantage to CPM and that defects of this nature are routinely allowed to be cured. Therefore, he reversed the contract administrator's decision to disqualify CPM on both Contracts. The District secretary concurred in the decision reached by Mr. Yesbeck to repost the award of the Contracts. Mr. Yesbeck prepared a joint letter of reposting which removed CPM's disqualification and declared CPM to be the low bidder for both Contracts. At the time Mr. Yesbeck made his decision, he had not reviewed the Directive from the Assistant Secretary's office stating that there must be a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Mr. Yesbeck did not review the Directive until his deposition was taken one week prior to the hearing in this case. According to Ms. Martin, the option to provide a notarized letter from a bonding company as an alternative to the posting of a 5% bid guarantee or obtaining prequalification was designed to promote participation in state contracting by small business and minority business enterprise applicants. While DOT was apparently trying to make it easier and cheaper for companies to bid by not requiring a bond to be posted, the DOT Directive and the bid documents still clearly required unconditional proof that a bid bond would be issued if the contract was awarded to the bidder. CPM was not prequalified nor did it post a bond. Thus, in order to meet the requirements of the Notice to Contractors and the Standard Specifications, CPM's only option was to submit a notarized letter showing proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. DOT was never provided with any proof that CPM had been prequalified by the bonding company for a bond and/or that a bond would unconditionally be issued if CPM was awarded the Contracts. Because the letters stated they were "subject to normal underwriting requirements at the time of the bond request", there was some possibility CPM would not be able to obtain a bond. Such a condition was not permissible under the bid doucments. The decision to accept CPM's bid was contrary to the DOT Directive, the Notice to Contractors and the bid specifications which require that a bidder demonstrate proof of ability to obtain a performance and payment bond. Consequently, it is concluded that DOT's decision to accept the conditional, unnotarized letters submitted by CPM was arbitrary and capricious. There is some indication that other DOT Districts have, on occasion, waived the notarization requirement for the bond letter. However, it is not clear whether the language in the bid documents was the same or similar in those cases and/or whether the bond letters were conditional. In the past, whenever District Four has gotten a bid without a notarized bond letter, the bid was rejected. Apparently, there has never been a protest based on such a denial in District Four. Under Section 337.18, DOT does not need to require notarized, unconditional bond letters on contracts under $150,000. Indeed, there was a suggestion that some DOT Districts have dropped the requirement for certain contracts under $150,000. However, the bid documents in this case clearly required some proof that the bidder could acquire a performance and payment bond upon award of the Contracts. It was incumbent for all bidders to meet this requirement. It was arbitrary to delete this requirement after the bids were submitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the bids submitted by CPM to be non-responsive and rejecting those bids. Petitioner should enter into negotiations with SCA regarding the award of the contract. In the absence of a favorable negotiation, Petitioner should enter a Final Order rejecting all bids and opening the Contracts up for new bids. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent lawfully awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and, if not, whether Respondent is required by law to award the contract to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Background This case arises out of Respondent's award of contracts for main-line food and snack foods and beverages. Through these contracts, Respondent obtains the delivery of 334 different items--297 items of main-line food and 37 items of snack foods and beverages--to over 160 sites for preparation and service to Respondent's students, teachers, and noninstructional staff. During the school year, Respondent serves over 150,000 meals daily, and the Director of Respondent's Food Service Operations manages an annual budget of $55 million. The two relevant bidders in this case are Petitioner and Mutual Distributors, Inc. (Mutual). These are the only bidders that submitted nondisqualified bids for the main-line food contract. Petitioner and Mutual also submitted bids for the snack foods and beverages contract. A third bidder, Magic Vending, also submitted a bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. Mutual has held Respondent's main-line food contract in the past. However, for at least the past seven years, Petitioner has held the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Petitioner was the only bidder for the main-line food contract for the 1996-97 school year, and, pursuant to a provision of that contract, Respondent renewed this contract for the 1997-98 school year. Petitioner presently supplies school food for the school districts in Dade, Palm Beach, Collier, Lee, Indian River, Martin, St. Lucie, Hardee, Hendry, DeSoto, and Glades counties. The size of the Hillsborough school district limits the number of vendors capable of handling the main-line food contract, although nothing in the record suggests that either Petitioner or Mutual lacks the resources to provide the specified food in a timely fashion. Invitation to Bid By Invitation to Bid dated April 30, 1998, concerning Bid Number 3743-HM (ITB), Respondent solicited bids for two product groups: main-line food, which consists of frozen entrees, frozen foods, canned goods, and staples, and snack foods and beverages. The cover sheets to the ITB advise all interested parties that Respondent would accept sealed bids until 3:00 P.M. on May 26, 1998. The cover sheets state that, on or about June 16, 1998, Respondent would award the contract, which would be in effect August 6, 1998, to August 5, 1999. The cover sheets state that Respondent would make its decision "in the best interest of the District " The cover sheets require that all bids incorporate the following language: POSTING OF RECOMMENDATIONS/TABULATIONS Recommendations and Tabulations will be posted at the Hillsborough County School District, Purchasing Department, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602 at 10:30 A.M. on 06/11/98 for seventy-two (72) hours. Actions against the specifications or recommendations for award shall follow F.S. 120.53. Procedures are available and on file in the Purchasing Office at the address listed above. The cover sheets identify the schedule of bidding events. The month of April would be for testing new products and evaluating the nutritional information of approved brands. April 30 would be the date of mailing draft copies of the ITB to all interested persons. May 8 would be the date of the pre-bid conference, at which interested persons could bring product information forms for possible approval of other products than those tentatively specified in the ITB. The cover sheets reserved a couple of days immediately after the pre-bid conference for testing any additional new products. The schedule listed May 13 as the date on which Respondent would mail the final copy of the ITB to interested persons. The schedule states that Respondent would review bids and conduct a "pre-award audit," if necessary, from May 26 through June 3. Part I of the ITB contains "general terms and conditions." Part I states: When an item appearing in this bid document is listed by a registered trade name and the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" is indicated, only that trade-named item will be considered. The District reserves the right to reject products that are listed as approved and wa[i]ve formalities. Should a vendor wish to have products evaluated for future bid consideration, please contact, in writing, the buyer listed on the 2nd page of this bid. If the wording "no substitute, bid only or only" does not appear with the trade name, bidders may submit prices on their trade-named item, providing they attach a descriptive label of their product to this proposal. Sample merchandise bid hereunder as "offered equal" may be required to be submitted to purchase in advance of bid award. Substitutions of other brands for items bid, awarded and ordered is prohibited except as may be approved by the supervisor of purchasing. Part I of the ITB includes a number of "stipulations" that are deemed a part of all bids. The stipulations provide: Tabulations of this bid will be based only on items that meet or exceed the specifications given in Part III. All other lesser items will not be considered. Failure to submit, at time of bid opening, complete information as stated in Part III can and may be used as justification for rejection of a bid item. The bidders will not be allowed to offer more than one product/price/service on each item even though the vendor feels that they have two or more types or styles that will meet specifications. If said bidder should submit more than one product/price on any item, all prices for that item will be rejected. . . . The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and to request a re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid, which in all other respects complies with the invitation to bid and the bid document, provided that, in the sole judgement and discretion of the District, the item offered at the higher bid price has additional value or function, including, but not limited to: life cycle costing, product performance, quality of workmanship, or suitability for a particular purpose. . . . All bids shall be evaluated on all factors involved, including the foregoing, price, quality, delivery schedules and the like. Purchase orders or contracts shall be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined to be advantageous to the District, taking into consideration the factors set forth above and all other factors set forth in the request for bid as "lowest or lowest and best bid." The information called for on the item must be on the line with the item. When omitting a quotation on an item, please insert the words: no quotation, no bid or n/b. to eliminate any confusion about the item(s) being bid. . . . Any requirement by the bidder that certain quantities, weights, or other criteria must be met, in order to qualify for bid prices, will result in disqualification of the bid. Likewise, expiration dates or other constraints, which are in conflict with bid requirements, will result in disqualification. Bids may not be changed after the bid closing time. The exception would be if there was a misinterpretation of the unit for which the bid was requested. In which case, no dollar amount change would be allowed, and only a clarification as to the unit your bid represents will be considered. This must be done in writing 24 hours after notification to the bidder from the supervisor of purchasing. The submittal of a bid proposal shall constitute an irrevocable offer to contract with the District in accordance with the terms of said bid. The offer may not be withdrawn until or unless rejected or not accepted by the District. . . . 13. The District shall be the sole judge as to the acceptability of any and all bids and the terms and conditions thereof, without qualifications o[r] explanation to bidders. 27. This bid and the purchase orders issued hereunder constitute the entire agreement between the School District and the vendor awarded the bid. No modification of this bid shall be binding on the District or the bidders. 30. Variance in condition--Any and all special conditions and specifications attached hereto which vary from general conditions shall have precedence. Part II of the ITB contains "special terms and conditions." Section A of Part II explains that the purpose of the ITB is to establish a "'cost plus fixed fee per carton' annual contract for the delivery of main-line food and snack and beverages . . .." Section A projects that the annual value of Group A and Group B will be $8.5 million. Section A explains that the "product cost" is the vendor's actual cost, including delivery to its warehouse. The "fixed fee" is the difference between the vendor's cost and its selling price to Respondent. Section A notes that, while Respondent’s cost price may vary during the term of the contract, the fixed fee shall remain unchanged. However, Section K fixes the cost prices until December 31, 1998. As used in this order, "total cost" refers either to the total costs per item (i.e., the unit costs times the projected number of units to be purchased) or the total costs of all items, and the "bottom-line cost" is the total of the total costs of all items plus the fixed fee. The fixed fee includes the bidder's profit and is calculated by multiplying the fixed fee per carton, as stated in the bid, times the number of cartons actually delivered. Section B states: Bids will be awarded on the total bottom line cost and fixed fee for each group. To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for the bid award. A distributor may choose to bid on both groups, or on only one group. In the event of default or non- availability of product, the School District reserves the right to utilize the next rated low bidder and their stated bid prices as needed. Sections C and D explain that the term of the contract is one year, ending August 5, 1999, but the parties may extend the term, in one-year increments, through August 5, 2001. Section G provides that potential bidders "may attend a pre-bid conference," but attendance is not mandatory. Section G identifies the time, date, and place of the pre-bid conference. Section G adds: If you wish to submit additional brands within a current product description for approval, you must bring from the appropriate broker/rep, a District product information form with all requested attachments to the conference. Do not bring samples. We will evaluate the product information forms and determine if testing an additional brand is necessary at this time. Submitting a product information form does not guarantee that the product will be tested. Samples must be made immediately for any product information forms submitted. Section H states: To be considered for an award, the vendor must bid on each item within each group. Failure to bid on each item within each group will disqualify the vendor for that group bid award. Section I provides: After the opening of the bids, school officials will review the line-by-line prices. Accuracy of additions and extensions, brands, and compliance with all instructions will be reviewed in order to ascertain that the offer is made in accordance with the terms of the request for bid proposal. School officials who find any error(s) in calculations will adjust the bottom line figure accordingly. However, if errors are found which either disqualify the bidder, or will raise the bottom line offer to the point where the vendor may no longer be the apparent low bidder, school officials will review the line-item prices of the next lowest bidder. This procedure will continue until a suitable offer is selected. During the review of the low bid, school officials may audit invoices or quotations on selected items for the accuracy of cost prices quoted. The extent of this audit will be at the discretion of school officials. In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system. Section O states that vendors must deliver "the brand that is quoted on the bid sheet." If vendors are "temporarily out-of-stock of a particular item, they must deliver an equal or superior product at an equal or lower price with prior approval of the District Food Service Department." Section O warns that "[e]xcessive occurrences of out-of-stock items is cause for contract cancellation." Part III of the ITB contains "instructions for completing bid sheets," followed by 65 pages of bid specifications for main-line food and nine pages of bid specifications for snack foods and beverages. Each page of specifications contains several rows, with each row devoted to a separate item, and seven columns, with the columns labeled as item number, product descriptions, approved brands, bid unit, unit cost, estimated annual usage, and total cost. Part III provides detailed instructions for describing the items bid and listing the costs for each item. Detailed specifications describe each of the items to be bid. Under "product descriptions," the two paragraphs of Section B address the issue of domestic versus imported products. The first paragraph describes products that the winning bidder may purchase, but the second paragraph limits items than can be bid. The two paragraphs state: Except for items normally not produced in the United States commercially, the contractor should make every effort to purchase domestic products. Products may be allowed from outside the United States provided specifications are met and there is a significant price differential between imported products and those produced within the States. Written documentation of these price differentials must be provided in writing to the School District by the distributor prior to the approval of such purchases. Please note: for purposes of awarding the bid, all distributors shall bid domestic products (pineapple exempt). Under "product descriptions," Section C provides: The contractor must bid on the approved brands (Column 3), packer label or house label for all items. If Column 3 is blank, the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. For example, if bidding on a distributor's choice of pasta, the contractor would enter the following: Brand: Prince Product Code: 5115 If bidding on a distributor group label for green beans, the distributor must stipulate the code designation which may be a color or label, that denotes a product as being a particular grade. For example, Brand: North American/Larson Product Code: Blue If bidding a packer label the bidder must stipulate the name of the packer and the grade label designation, for example: Brand: Larsen Product Code: Lake Region For all packer label products Hillsborough County School Food Service Form "Private Label Chart for Fruits and Vegetables" (see Attachment D) must be completed and returned with the bid. Under "product descriptions," Section D states: "Bidder shall enter the grade of the brand offered only for those line items where grade is specified. " Under "approved brands," Part III provides: The bidder must bid on the approved brand and product code that is listed. If the column states "house brand," the School Board will accept the brand quoted provided it meets the product description. Some of the code numbers listed may be obsolete or incorrect, in which case the contractor may enter the correct code and submit written documentation provided by the manufacturer, verifying the correct code number. If any inconsistency exists between the approved brands and/or code numbers and the product description, the approved brand/code number will prevail. The decision as to whether a product does or does not meet the description provided in column 2 is at the discretion of the School District. A bidder may be requested to furnish acceptable confirmation from a packer that a product meets the requirements set forth in Column 2. Whenever approved brands are listed with house brands, the distributor's choice brand should be of equal or better quality than the approved brands listed. Buying group brands and codes are acceptable on frozen and canned fruits, vegetables, and juices, however, on further processed and manufactured foods the contractor shall quote a packer's brand. For example, a contractor may quote "Ore-Ida #1234, packed under the 'Code Red Label.'" Pre-Bid Conference Hank Morbach, Principal Buyer of Respondent's Purchasing Department, conducted the pre-bid conference on May 8. Also representing Respondent at the conference were Mr. Morbach's immediate supervisor, William Borrer, who is the Supervisor of Purchasing; Sherry Ebner, who is a Supervisor of Food Service Operations and a registered dietitian; and Mary Kate Harrison, who is Director of Food Service Operations, a registered dietitian, and Ms. Ebner's immediate supervisor. Minutes of the pre-bid conference reveal that Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner told the persons in attendance that they did not have to bid both groups, but must bid all items within the group for which they were submitting a bid. In response to a question from Mutual's representative, Mr. Morbach said that the bottom-line cost, not the fixed fee, would be the "deciding factor." In response to a question from Petitioner's representative, Mr. Morbach stated that, where code numbers were omitted for any item, specifications would prevail. The minutes disclose a discussion regarding imported versus domestic products. Although Respondent's representatives were initially ambivalent, Mr. Morbach "clarified by stating all products must be domestic." Likely, everyone understood that pineapples could still be imported. Following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued a revised ITB on May 13. Presumably, the ITB identified as Joint Exhibit 1 is the revised ITB, so all references in this order to the ITB are to the ITB as it was finally revised. Adverse Publicity Toward the end of the pre-bid conference, a representative of the Weekly Planet appeared. The Weekly Planet is a free weekly Tampa newspaper, and the representative was a reporter, who, since October 1997, had written several articles asserting, at least by implication, that Respondent's food program suffered from excessive costs, favoritism, and possibly even wrongdoing. Part of the adverse publicity concerned Ms. Harrison's husband, who represented several manufacturers from which Petitioner had purchased food for resale to Respondent while Petitioner had the main-line food contract. The Weekly Planet published an article asserting that the husband of Ms. Harrison had lost a civil action brought by his employer for diverted commissions. By the time of the subject procurement, an internal audit had disclosed no conflict of interest on the part of Ms. Harrison, but had suggested that Respondent add personnel in Food Service Operations to monitor vendor compliance and seek more competition in awarding the food contracts. To Ms. Harrison's credit, since her employment with Respondent in 1990, she has converted a food service program that was losing $2.5 million annually into a profitable operation. The record suggests, though, Respondent's staff was extremely sensitive during this bidding process to the adverse publicity surrounding Respondent's business relationship with Petitioner. The Bids Four bidders timely submitted sealed bids for the main-line food contract. However, Respondent promptly disqualified two of the bidders because they did not submit complete bids. One disqualified bidder submitted a bid that was incomplete, unsigned, and omitted five items in the main- line food group. The other disqualified bidder submitted an incomplete bid with only six items in the main-line food group. After submitting their bids, Petitioner and Mutual each sent Respondent letters stating that each bidder did not want the snacks and beverages contract unless it also received the main-line food contract. Respondent did not object to these late-attached conditions to the two bids and did not consider either bidder for only the snack foods and beverages contract. As provided in the ITB, Respondent's staff contacted bidders, after bid opening, to confirm that certain bid items complied with the specifications. By letter dated June 3, Respondent asked Mutual for documentation that 41 listed items met the specifications, that the Fineline/Paris brand that Mutual had bid is Grade A quality, and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 5. By letter dated June 10, Respondent asked Petitioner for documentation that thirty-seven listed items met the specifications and for a complete private label chart for all canned and frozen fruits and vegetables. The letter requests a response by June 12. Respondent wrote each bidder follow-up letters. In a letter dated June 12, Respondent asked Petitioner to document that five items met the specifications, and, in a letter dated June 15, Respondent asked Mutual to document that the same five items met the specifications. The deadlines in both letters were June 16. Mutual and Petitioner responded to these requests for additional information. By letter dated June 5, Mutual disclosed that Items 202 (broccoli), 300 (apple slices), and 366 (raisins) were imported. After receipt of the responses from the bidders, Respondent's employees further reviewed the bids. Early in this review, Respondent's employees realized that neither bid had complied entirely with the specifications. Among the deficiencies of Mutual's bid was the failure to quote a cost for Item 114, which is chicken wings. Mutual's bid identifies only a product, but no cost. Mutual's bid includes a cost for each of the other 296 items and a total cost, presumably for all 297 items. The ITB projects annual purchases for each of the 297 items. The ITB projects the purchase of 283,044 chicken wings. Petitioner bid 12.5 cents per chicken wing for a total cost of $35,309.50. Mr. Morbach justifiably tried to deduce Mutual's quote for chicken wings from the information contained in its bid. He logically assumed that the cost for Item 114 would be the difference between the total cost shown on Mutual's bid, which is shown on the bid, and the total cost for the other 296 items, which must be calculated separately. The details of Mr. Morbach's calculations did not emerge at the hearing, but it is possible to perform these calculations. Mutual's bid shows a total cost for all 297 items of $8,131,470.29. The total costs of each of the quoted 296 items comes to $6,785,080.14. The difference is $1,346,390.15. This figure clearly does not represent Mutual's bid for chicken wings, which would be thirty-eight times greater than Petitioner's bid and would representative the extraordinary cost of $4.75 per chicken wing. The calculations in the preceding paragraph are taken from Mutual's bid, including all changes shown on the bid, as it was submitted, that were made by Mutual. Mutual's representative initialed these changes. The calculations exclude all adjustments made by Respondent's staff because these calculations, which were made after bid opening, logically have no relevance in determining what, if anything, Mutual quoted for chicken wings. These adjustments can play no role in trying to determine, on the face of Mutual's bid, what it intended to bid for chicken wings. In addition to omitting the cost of one item, Mutual failed to bid numerous other items according to the specifications. Petitioner also failed to bid certain items according to the specifications, although Petitioner's bidding errors are fewer in number and less serious than Mutual's bidding errors. Incorporating the information charted by Food Service Operations staff, the following 25 paragraphs identify the errors in both bids. Item 121 is frozen Grade A turkey roasts with a 60/40 ratio of light to dark meat. Mutual's bid does not reveal the extent of white meat or whether the turkey roast is Grade A meat. Petitioner's bid does not reveal whether its turkey roast is Grade A meat. Item 128 is frozen corn dogs. Mutual bid an unapproved code number for an approved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $160,000 in each of the bids. Item 146 is natural swiss cheese. Mutual bid processed cheese. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 202 is Grade A cut broccoli in bulk. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 220 is shoestring French-fried potatoes. Mutual bid a shorter French-fried potato than specified. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 223 is shredded triangle potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same products, but Mutual's bid did not contain required information regarding grade, oil, and region grown. This is a relatively large component of the overall bid, representing over $140,000 in each of the bids. Item 232 is soft eight-inch tortillas weighing 1.39 ounces per serving. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same product, which weighs only 1.29 ounces per serving. Item 300 is canned sliced apples. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 328 is light, 26-percent concentration tomato paste. Mutual bid a product that does not meet the minimum- concentration specification. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 335 is boneless chicken meat that is predominantly white meat. Mutual and Petitioner bid the same brand, but different product code numbers. Mutual's bid is not predominantly white meat. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 366 is seedless raisins. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 399 is 100 percent semolina, spiral macaroni. Mutual's bid complied with the specifications. Petitioner bid a twisted egg noodle, instead of eggless spiral pasta. Item 431 is sugar sprinkles from one of five approved brands. Mutual bid an unapproved brand. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 448 is instant yeast. Mutual's bid includes information on a product that it did not bid. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 474 is Grade A Fancy apple jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids, and Item 475 is Grade A Fancy grape jelly with no less than 65 percent soluble solids. Neither bid provides sufficient information to determine if it met the specifications on either of these items. Item 480 is Dijon mustard. Mutual bid Dijon-style mustard. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 484 is whole pitted medium, ripe olives. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's complied with the specifications. Item 492 is whole, kosher pickles of approximately 95 in number per five gallon pail. Mutual and Petitioner bid larger pickles than specified. Item 505 is 50-grain white vinegar. Neither Mutual nor Petitioner provided the information necessary to determine if its bid complied with the specifications. Items 301, 308, 309, 323, and 331 are, respectively, unsweetened canned applesauce, crushed canned pineapple, sliced canned pineapple, canned pumpkin, and whole canned tomatoes. For each of these items, Mutual's bid did not provide the label to prove quality. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 325 is Grade A canned sweet potatoes. Mutual and Petitioner both bid Grade B. Item 212 is yellow frozen squash. Mutual bid an imported product. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Respondent's staff also noted on the chart that the yellow frozen squash was the second item manufactured by Fineline that was imported (the other was Item 202), and staff noted that it was "unable to determine if other frozen vegetables bid by this manufacturer are domestic as grading certificates were not provided." Mutual bid Fineline products for Items 201 (lima beans), 205 (corn), 208 (okra), 209 (peas), 211 (spinach), 214 (Italian-style vegetable blend), and 215 (Oriental-style vegetable blend). Cumulatively, the Fineline frozen vegetables represent a moderately large part of the overall cost, in excess of $53,000 of Mutual's bid. Coupled with the fact that two Fineline products were imported, Mutual's failure to demonstrate affirmatively that these produce are domestic constitutes additional failures to comply with the specifications and supports the inference that the products are imported. In an earlier version of their chart showing bidding errors, Respondent's staff identified problems with Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224. These are potatoes that the ITB specifies must be from the Pacific Northwest and processed in 100 percent canola oil. Respondent's staff determined that it was impossible to identify the source of these potatoes. However, Petitioner was able to document that some, but not all, of the potatoes that it bid for these six items were from the Pacific Northwest. In addition to failing to bid a cost for Item 114 and misbidding the numerous items charted by Respondent's staff, Mutual's bid failed to comply with the specifications for four other items. Item 229 is a frozen Gyro Wrap. Mutual bid a pita- fold bread product, even though a more expensive Gyro Wrap is available from the same manufacturer. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications Item 378 is pure almond extract flavoring. Mutual bid an imitation flavoring. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 402 is thin spaghetti of .062-.066 thickness in diameter. Mutual bid a thin-spaghetti product of 1.6 thickness in diameter. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. Item 456 is pancake syrup. Mutual bid an invalid code number. Petitioner's bid complied with the specifications. The parties devoted some attention during the hearing to Item 483, which is green olives. Mutual and Petitioner bid imported green olives, but domestic green olives are not available, at least in institutional quantities, so compliance with the specification of domestic green olives was impossible. Bid Evaluation and Award When Ms. Ebner informed Mr. Morbach of the errors that she had found in both bids, he suggested that they should eliminate the same item from both bidder's bids, if one bidder improperly bid the item. For example, if Mutual misbid fruit cocktail and Petitioner properly bid fruit cocktail, Respondent would delete the cost of fruit cocktail from both bids. The purpose of this adjustment, which reportedly is not atypical in school food procurements, is to avoid the unfair result of lowering the noncompliant bidder's bid, by reducing it for the cost of the misbid fruit cocktail, and leaving the compliant bidder's bid higher by the amount of the properly bid fruit cocktail. Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison agreed with this suggestion, and Respondent tabulated the bid costs accordingly. Mr. Morbach also suggested that they consider the bid of one of the disqualified bidders. Ms. Ebner disagreed with this suggestion. She rightly believed that they should not reconsider a bid that did not contain all of the specified items, and Mr. Morbach did not press the matter further. Although Ms. Ebner spoke daily with Ms. Harrison and Mr. Morbach, there were three larger meetings in late June and early July concerning the bids. The first meeting was during the week of June 22, the second meeting was early in the week of June 29, and the third meeting was on the Friday of that week, July 3. The only participants at the first of the three meetings were Ms. Ebner, Ms. Harrison, Mr. Morbach, and Mr. Borrer. For the second meeting, these four persons were joined by Dr. Michael Bookman, the Assistant Superintendent for Business and Research, which includes overall responsibility for the Purchasing Department; Michelle Crouse, of the Auditing Department; and Lee Chistiansen, another of Respondent's staff. The persons present at the third and final meeting were the same as at the second meeting, except that Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few, replaced Ms. Crouse. At the first meeting, Ms. Ebner expressed her belief that Petitioner's bid was better than Mutual's bid because Petitioner's bid complied with more of the specifications. She also expressed concern about the ability of Magic Vending to service the snack foods and beverages. Ms. Ebner's preference for Petitioner's bid was partly the result of her misplaced emphasis on awarding both contracts to the same bidder. It is likely that, at the first meeting, Mr. Morbach or Mr. Borrer informed Ms. Ebner that nothing in the ITB required that Respondent award both contracts to the same bidder. At the first meeting, everyone confirmed their agreement to adopt Mr. Morbach's suggestion to discard the cost of any misbid item in both bids, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Everyone agreed that this approach would facilitate a better comparison of bottom-line prices. Respondent's decision to eliminate the cost of any misbid item from both bids, even if one bid correctly bid the item, encourages bidding abuses. A bidder knowing that a competitor can quote lower prices for a wide range, for instance, of chicken items can neutralize this advantage by misbidding each of the chicken items, forcing Respondent to award the bid without regard to the lesser costs quoted by the competitor for the chicken items. The potential destructive impact on competitive bidding is incalculable where, as here, this kind of bid-tabulation method is unaccompanied by a provision in the ITB rejecting a bid in its entirety if it misbids more than a specified number or value of items. The ITB does not authorize Respondent's method of tabulating misbid items. As already noted, Stipulation 2 allows Respondent to tabulate bids based only on items that meet the specifications, but nothing in Stipulation 2 or anywhere else in the ITB authorizes the deletion of quotes for items bid in compliance with the specifications. Part I of the ITB allows Respondent to reject approved products, but this provision is part of a discussion of items approved for bidding and does not authorized the rejection of a cost quoted for an approved product. Nor do Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner rely on Stipulation 2 to justify tabulating bid costs by eliminating the costs of any misbid items, even if only one bidder misbid the item. Mr. Morbach and Ms. Ebner believe that the 1998 ITB permitted this approach, but the 1996 invitation to bid for school food did not. However, both invitations to bid contain Stipulation 2. Respondent has not cited the difference between the 1996 and 1998 invitations to bid to justify the tabulation method adopted by Respondent in this procurement. Respondent's staff have relied on ITB provisions allowing Respondent to waive formalities or reject all bids for support of their tabulation method. However, even if these provisions were not in the 1996 invitation to bid, they do not authorize Respondent's tabulation method. Mr. Borrer may have implicitly acknowledged the inadequacy of the claimed authority in the ITB for Respondent's tabulation method when he sensibly deleted the following language from a draft memorandum dated June 25 and bearing his name, but drafted for his revision by another employee: Products that were inconclusive or failed to meet specification were eliminated from all bids for the purpose of data analysis. Purchasing is given this authority to eliminate products by bid specifications, statutory guidelines and Board policy. Item 4, Page 3 of the bid specifications states, "The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, and request re-submission. The District further reserves the right to accept a bid other than the lowest bid. . ." In addition, Item I, Page 11 of the bid specifications states, "In reviewing bids, school officials reserve the right to waive technicalities when it is in the best interest of the school system." Also Board Policy H-5.6 states, ". . ., in accepting bids the School Board shall accept the lowest and best bid". (Legal Reference Florida Statutes 230.23, 237.02) The most succinct description of Respondent's tabulation method lacks much of a justification for its use. This description occurs in a typewritten question and answer that appears at the end of Petitioner Exhibit 36, but probably does not belong with that exhibit, which is a fax from Mr. Borrer to Respondent's counsel, Mr. Few. The question is, "Why did you choose to award the contract rather than re-bid after you determined that each vendor had made errors?" The answer states: Bids may not be rejected arbitrarily, but may be rejected and re-bid when it is in the best interest of the public (School District) to do so. . . . To re-bid without changing the bid would be unfair because the vendors had exposed their competitive price structure in public. Through the efforts of our skilled Food Service staff "errors" were discovered in products bid by Mutual and [Petitioner]. Since all vendors bid products that did not meet specifications, we determined that it would be proper to build a mathematical model in which we removed all identified items that did not meet specifications from both vendors. Our analysis based the award criteria on the same set of specifications and conditions for each vendor. Achieving comparability of food products was a complex time- consuming task. The award was recommended to go to the low vendor who would agree and be held to meeting our bid specifications at the price bid. Probably not more than one or two days after the date of the first meeting, Ms. Ebner prepared a draft memorandum, dated June 25, to Mr. Borrer, through Ms. Harrison. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 14 items not meeting specifications, and Petitioner bid three such items. The draft memorandum states that Mutual bid 11 items for which compliance was inconclusive, and Petitioner bid five such items. The draft memorandum also states that Mutual bid five imported items, despite the "discussion at the pre-bid conference that only domestic products were allowed." In the draft memorandum, Ms. Ebner recalculated the bottom-line costs of the bids of Petitioner and Mutual after discarding all costs for items that either bidder had misbid. She determined that Petitioner had the lowest snack foods and beverages bid. She also determined that Petitioner had the lower total bid for the main-line food and snack foods and beverages contracts. Still preferring an award of both contracts to a single bidder, Ms. Ebner concluded in the draft memorandum that Respondent should award both contracts to Petitioner, and Ms. Harrison concurred with Ms. Ebner's recommendation. At the same time, Mr. Morbach and Mr. Borrer were headed in the opposite direction from Ms. Ebner and Ms. Harrison. At the direction of Mr. Borrer, Mr. Morbach elicited a letter dated June 24 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, in which Magic Vending stated: "As a follow up to our conversation and subsequent to our bid submission, we are prepared to offer you a reduction in our overall bid of $15,000." The letter concludes: "The purpose of this reduction is to make the overall award process run more smoothly and to remove any potential complications." Although Petitioner had already written Respondent expressing no interest in only the snack foods and beverages contract, Respondent obtained this cost concession, which made Magic Vending's bid lower than Petitioner's bid, in case Petitioner changed its mind. By letter dated June 26 from Magic Vending to Mr. Morbach, Magic Vending assured that it would "abide by all the rules and specifications in addition to giving a $15,000.00 discount . . .." The letter concludes with a well- earned expression of gratitude by Magic Vending for Mr. Morbach's "consideration in this matter." As for the main-line food contract, Mr. Borrer obtained from Mutual a one-line letter dated June 26 from Mutual stating: "This letter is to assure you that all products quoted by [Mutual] on bid #3743-HM will meet the specifications as required." At the second meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, which evidently took place after the Purchasing Department had received the correspondence from Mutual and Magic Vending, Food Service Operations staff continued to recommend that the contracts be awarded to Petitioner. Everyone discussed the errors in Mutual's bid and the fact that the Magic Vending bid was $5000 more than Petitioner's bid for the snack foods and beverages contract. It is unclear if Ms. Ebner or Ms. Harrison yet knew of the price concession of Magic Vending, but everyone discussed that it would be controversial to award the contracts to a bidder that was not the lowest bidder. Apparently in anticipation of the award ultimately made, Petitioner served Respondent, on July 1, with a Notice of Intent to Protest the award of both contracts. By letter dated the same date, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would not stop the procurement process due to the "critical importance of this bid and the serious danger to the health of our children." In fact, Mutual and Magic Vending have been supplying main-line food and snack foods and beverages, respectively, since early August 1998. At the third meeting between the staff of Food Service Operations and the Purchasing Department, everyone agreed to recommend that the School Board award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending. The discussion at this last major staff meeting largely involved the matters that they had previously discussed. Unfortunately, no one ever discussed at these or other meetings involving Ms. Ebner how many errors a bid could contain before it should be disqualified. Likewise, no one ever discussed with her the distinction between awarding a contract on the basis of the lowest bid and on the basis of the lowest and best bid. However, Ms. Harrison discussed with Ms. Ebner the safety issues presented by imported, rather than domestic, foods. On the day prior to the July 7 School Board meeting now designated for the School Board to vote on the awards, Ms. Harrison advised Mutual by letter that Respondent's staff would recommend Mutual, "provided that any and all products found not to meet specifications will be replaced with products meeting specifications at the original bid cost." Petitioner Exhibit 13, which is a copy of this letter, lacks the attachment listing the noncompliant items. At the bottom of the July 6 letter is a signature space for Mutual's representative, indicating assent to the following sentence: "Indicate, by signing below, that you are in agreement to provide all products meeting specifications, including USDA Grade A products, at the original bid price." Petitioner Exhibit 13 contains the signature of Mutual's representative. On July 7, the School Board met and gave Petitioner's counsel and corporate representative brief opportunities to explain why Respondent should not award the main-line food contract to Mutual. However, the Board did not give Petitioner's representatives sufficient time to convey much meaningful or detailed information. Mr. Few, Dr. Bookman, and Ms. Harrison supplied the Board with more information, but unfortunately never disclosed that Mutual's bid contained more errors than did Petitioner's bid and that Mutual's bid contained more errors involving more substantive matters than did Petitioner's bid, as discussed below. Contradicting the advice given by Mr. Morbach at the pre-bid conference and ignoring the contrary provision in the ITB and ignoring the distinction in the ITB between items that the winning bidder may purchase additional items that may be bid, Mr. Few advised the Board that the ITB expressed only a preference toward domestic products and cited the unique example of olives as support for this interpretation. Dr. Bookman advised the Board that Mutual had assured them that all items bid were Grade A. He was evidently unaware that, as explained below, Mutual had still not obtained Grade A turkey roast, even though Grade A turkey roast is available. As late as the final hearing, Ms. Ebner admitted that Mutual had still not corrected one or two noncompliant items, although it is unclear if one of them is the turkey roast. Notwithstanding staff's assurances, several Board members expressed misgivings at having to absorb a lot of detailed information in a short period of time. Ms. Harrison informed the Board that they did not have time to defer action, implicitly and correctly informing them that they did not have time to rebid the main-line food contract. One Board member replied that she wanted all of the food to be USDA approved and that parents had enough to be concerned about without being concerned about what Respondent was feeding their children. A motion to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending failed by a 3-4 vote. A second motion to delay awarding these contracts passed 5-2, so that, individually, Board members could talk to staff to learn more about the bids and Petitioner's claim of bidding improprieties. The record does not reveal what staff told individual Board members. After a recess during which Board members, individually, met with staff, one of the Board members who had previously voted not to award the contracts moved to award the contracts to Mutual and Magic Vending, saying that Mutual had agreed to replace noncomplying products with products meeting the specifications. Relying on Mutual's promise to deliver conforming food items, as opposed to the noncomplying items that it had bid, this Board member reasoned that it was one thing to make a mistake with a bid, but another thing to make a mistake with the schoolchildren. The School Board unanimously approved the motion, and the meeting ended. By letter dated July 9 from Mutual to Mr. Borrer, Mutual addressed each of the 25 items charted by Respondent's staff, acknowledging that Mutual's bid had not complied with the specifications for nearly every charted item, but promising that Mutual would supply a product meeting the specifications for all of these items. However, concerning the moderately large component of the bid represented by Item 121 (turkey roasts, which represented over $62,000 in Mutual's bid), the letter states only: "Currently trying to locate an item to meet specifications." Bid Protest On July 10, Petitioner served Respondent with a Protest. The Protest asserts that Mutual's bid did not contain prices on all items, did not propose all domestic products, contained unapproved brands, bid unapproved product codes, and bid products different from those specified in the ITB. The Protest asserts that Respondent allowed Mutual to provide a letter after the deadline for receiving bids assuring that it would provide all Grade A product, as specified in the ITB. The Protest did not mention the snack foods and beverages contract awarded to Magic Vending. The Protest does not allege that Petitioner's bid is responsive. Respondent has not filed any responsive pleading raising the question of the responsiveness of Petitioner's bid. Respondent's Bid Policies Following receipt of Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Protest, Mr. Borrer sent a letter dated July 1 to Petitioner that contained Respondent's rules governing bids. This document, which is part of Petitioner Exhibit 37, is the source of Respondent's bidding rules set forth in the following two paragraphs. Respondent's rules provide for the protest of specifications as follows: Specifications—Any bidder that feels that their firm is adversely affected by an specification contained in a Sealed Bid or Request for Proposal issued by the Purchasing Department may file a written notice of protest with the Supervisor of Purchasing within seventy-two (72) hours after the receipt of the bid documents. . . . A formal written protest shall be filed by the bidder within ten (10) days of the written notice of protest. . . . These rules also provide for the awarding of costs, but not attorneys' fees, as follows: If, after the completion of the Administrative Hearing process and any appellate court proceedings[,] the School District prevails, then the School District shall recover all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, including charges made by the Division of Administrative Hearings, but excluding attorney's fees. . . . If the protestor prevails then the protestor shall recover from the School District, all costs and charges which shall be included in the Final Order or Judgement, excluding attorney's fees. Another source of Respondent's rules in the record is Chapter 7 of a compilation of Board policy that was applicable to the present procurement. This document requires that Respondent award bids "on the basis of the lowest and best bid which meets specifications with consideration being given to the specific quality of the product, conformity to the specifications, suitability to school needs, delivery terms and service and past performance of the vendor." Lastly, Mr. Borrer, by memorandum to the file dated July 9, noted that the two disqualified vendors were disqualified under Board Policy H-5.10, which states: "Bids received which do not meet specifications shall not be considered valid and shall not be tabulated." Ultimate Findings of Fact Bid Tabulation Method Is Clearly Erroneous, Contrary to Competition, and Arbitrary It is irrelevant whether the standard of proof governing a protest of specifications is a preponderance of the evidence or the more deferential standard, clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Petitioner has proved that Respondent's tabulation method is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Respondent's tabulation method potentially penalizes compliant bidders by eliminating their compliant items from the tabulation when a noncompliant bidder misbids the same item. The anti-competitive, arbitrary effect of this tabulation method may be ameliorated somewhat by the fact that the ITB is for a cost-plus contract. However, the ITB fails to impose any minimum requirement or threshold for compliant items, in terms of number or dollar volume--e.g., if a bid contains noncompliant items totaling more than one percent of the total cost bid, then the entire bid is rejected. This means that Respondent's tabulation method can destroy the competitiveness of the procurement by allowing a bidder purposefully or unintentionally to misbid a large number of items, resulting in the effective elimination of these items from the tabulation of bids submitted by bidders with superior access to these items. Under these circumstances, Respondent's selection of this tabulation method was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Is Nonresponsive The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid was responsive is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As already noted, it is impossible to deduce Mutual's quote for Item 114 from the face of Mutual's bid. A failure to quote a cost for an item is little different from a failure to bid the item. In the case of a complete omission, Respondent knows nothing of the item bid; in the case of the omission of only a quote, Respondent knows what item the bidder has bid, but not the cost of the item. The omission of the cost of a single item adequately described in the bid may be a minor irregularity, if the cost can be deduced by subtracting from the total cost of all items the total cost of all but the omitted item. Here, though, the difference between these amounts is clearly wrong, so that, if Respondent overlooks the omission, it leaves open the possibility of a later dispute over the cost of Item 114. Under the present circumstances, including the disqualification of two other bidders for omitting items, Respondent's failure to disqualify Mutual's bid was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Mutual's Bid Contains Material Variances The standard of proof governing Respondent's determination that Mutual's bid did not contain material variances from the ITB is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Food Service Operations staff identified numerous deficiencies in Mutual's bid. For Mutual's bid, Ms. Ebner's June 25 memorandum counts 14 items not meeting specifications and 11 items for which compliance is inconclusive due to Mutual's failure to submit the required documentation. Treating the misbidding of green olives and the potatoes specified in Items 217-19, 221-22, and 224 as minor irregularities due to the impossibility of compliance with the specifications concerning the origin of these items, Mutual's bid still reveals consequential deviations from the specifications. Using only the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Mutual's consequential deviations from the specifications include five imported foods, two meat products that fail to contain the required ratio of light to dark meat (one of the meat products and another product also failing to demonstrate the proper Grade), a lower Grade of canned sweet potatoes, shorter French Fries, excessively diluted tomato concentrate and inadequate documentation of the dilution of two jelly products, processed instead of natural cheese, and a missing ingredient from Dijon mustard. Of all the witnesses, Ms. Ebner was most capable, by training, experience, and job assignment, of understanding the significance of the deviations in Mutual's bid. For instance, addressing the seemingly inconsequential matter of excessively diluted jelly, Ms. Ebner noted that Respondent had had problems with runny jelly not remaining on peanut-butter- and-jelly sandwiches. The nutritional consequences of this seemingly harmless deviation are students discarding peanut- butter-and-jelly sandwiches that have lost their jelly. In each of these consequential deviations from the specifications, Mutual bid a cheaper product than specified, which conferred upon it an unearned competitive advantage, and a product of lower quality than specified, which jeopardized the primary purpose of the specifications to ensure that Respondent obtained food of high nutrition, safety, and taste for students and staff. Any implicit or explicit determination by Respondent dismissing the charted findings of deviations by Food Service Operations staff or treating them as minor irregularities rather than material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Besides the findings contained in the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff, Mutual misbid several other items. The consequential deviations from the specifications included seven imported items, a cheaper pita- fold than the specified Gyro wrap, and a cheaper imitation almond flavoring for pure almond flavoring. Any express or implied finding by Respondent discrediting these deviations would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Although an express or implied determination by Respondent that these deviations, standing alone, are minor irregularities would not be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, such a finding concerning these deviations, together with the previously discussed deviations charted by Food Service Operations staff, would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. The standard of proof governing the determination that Mutual submitted written assurances, after bid opening, that it would supply product in compliance with the specifications, is the preponderance of the evidence. However, the standard of proof governing findings of the significance of the submittal of these assurances is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Any implied or express determination by Respondent that Mutual's written assurances were not an attempt to change its bid after bid opening would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. As already noted, Petitioner has already proved, by this deferential standard, that Mutual's bid contained material variances from the specifications. The purpose of Mutual's written assurances was to eliminate these material variances, which, in fact, were still not entirely eliminated by the time of the final hearing. Petitioner's Bid Contains Material Variances Consistent with its determination that Mutual's bid is responsive and suffers no material variances, Respondent claims in its proposed recommended order that Petitioner's bid is responsive and contains no material variances. Respondent awarded the main-line food contract to Mutual because it submitted the lower bid. However, Petitioner demands the award of the main- line food contract, so it is necessary to consider whether its bid, which is clearly responsive, contains any material variances. Because of the resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to consider whether Petitioner's bid contains any minor irregularities, for which Respondent's implied or express refusal to waive would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Using the chart prepared by Food Service Operations staff and disregarding the green olives and six potato items, Petitioner misbid only seven items. In fact, the record reveals no other misbid items by Petitioner. Several of Petitioner's misbid items are relatively inconsequential. These are a tortilla slightly lighter than specified, larger pickles than specified, and omitted documentation showing the grain of vinegar. Mutual misbid these items also. However, three of Petitioner's misbid items are consequential. Although Petitioner's bid reflects the specified ratio of light and dark meat, unlike Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid of turkey roast fails, as does Mutual's bid, to provide sufficient documentation to show that it is Grade A. Like Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid is for Grade B canned sweet potato and fails to provide documentation that the two jelly products are not excessively diluted. The only consequential deviation in Petitioner's bid not found in Mutual's bid is Petitioner's failure to bid an eggless pasta. However, the standard of reference for determining whether Petitioner's bid contains material variances is not Mutual's bid, but the ITB. Although considerably more compliant than Mutual's bid, Petitioner's bid, when measured against the ITB and the importance of obtaining nutritious, safe, and tasty food for Respondent's schoolchildren, also falls impermissibly short of the mark. Petitioner's consequential deviations from the specifications also mean cheaper items than specified, through which Petitioner would have obtained an unearned competitive advantage, and products of lower quality than specified, which would have jeopardized the primary purpose of the ITB to ensure that Respondent obtained high-quality food. Impossible specifications, like domestic green olives or six potato items from the Northwest, or the failure to comply in some minor respect, such as sugar sprinkles from an unapproved manufacturer or excessively large pickles, may constitute minor irregularities. But the failure to ensure that each of the 297 items bid complies substantially in quality is not. Thus, an implied or expressed determination by Respondent that Petitioner's bid contains no material variances would be clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and arbitrary. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees. There is no direct proof of any factual basis to award fees. Perhaps Petitioner infers an improper purpose from the fact that, despite the benefit of highly deferential standards of proof, Respondent has not prevailed. Obviously, Respondent's failure to prevail is due to several express or implied determinations that were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. If this fact alone warranted a fee award, all agencies would be liable for fees in every bid case that they lost. The absence of such a statutory provision reveals the Legislative intent not to make agencies strictly liable for attorneys' fees in bid cases. The better approach is to permit an inference of improper purpose, but only if the agency were aware or reasonably should have been aware that its handling of the award was not merely clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, but was so egregiously so as to support an inference of improper purpose. Such is not the case here. There is no evidence of Petitioner's costs, and Petitioner did not request the administrative law judge to reserve jurisdiction or leave the record open for a later determination of costs.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Hillsborough County enter a final order setting aside the award of the main-line food contract to Mutual Distributors, Inc., and rebidding the contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Earl Lennard Superintendent School Board of Hillsborough County Post Office Box 3408 Tampa, Florida 33601-3408 Robert W. Rasch 129 Live Oak Lane Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 W. Crosby Few Few & Ayala, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Respondent acted contrary to the agency's governing statutes, rules, or policies or the bid specifications in its proposed decision to award Contract No. T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation ("Astaldi").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of the proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state agency authorized by section 337.11 to contract for the construction and maintenance of roads within the State Highway System, the State Park Road System, and roads placed under its supervision by law. The Department is specifically authorized to award contracts under section 337.11(4) to “the lowest responsible bidder.” On April 15, 2016, the Department advertised a bid solicitation for Contract T7380, seeking contractors for the widening of a 3.8 mile portion of U.S. Highway 301 in Hillsborough County from two lanes to six lanes between State Road 674 and County Road 672 and over Big Bull Frog Creek. The advertisement provided a specification package for the project and the “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” (“Standard Specifications”) used on Department roadway projects. The work included seven components: bridge structures (Section 0001), roadway (Section 0002), signage (Section 0003), lighting (Section 0004), signalization (Section 0005), utilities (Section 0006), and intelligent transportation systems (Section 0007). The advertisement identified 666 individual items of work to be performed and quantity units for each item. The project was advertised as a low-bid contract with a budget estimate of $51,702,729. The Department’s bid proposal form contains five columns with the following headings: Line Number; Item Number and Item Description; Approximate Quantities and Units; Unit Price; and Bid Amount. The bid proposal form contains line items for the seven components of the project. The utilities component contains 42 line items, each with an Item Number and Item Description. For example, Line Number 1410 corresponds with the following Item Number and Item Description: “1050 11225 Utility Pipe, F&I, PVC, Water/Sewer, 20–40.9 [inches].” Each bidder inserts a Unit Price for the line item in the corresponding “Unit Price” column. The “Bid Amount” column for each line item is an amount generated by multiplying a bidder’s Unit Price by the Quantities (determined by the Department) for each Line Number. The Bid Amount for each Line Number is then added together to generate the “Total Bid Amount” representing the bid for the entire project. Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, and other potential bidders attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. Prequalified contractors were given proposal documents that allowed them to enter bids through Bid Express, the electronic bidding system used by the Department. Plan revisions were issued by addenda dated May 10, 2016, and June 7, 2016. A Question and Answer Report was published and updated as inquiries were addressed. Bids were opened on the letting date of June 15, 2016. Bids for Contract T7380 were received from Astaldi, Prince, Hubbard, the DeMoya Group (“DeMoya”), Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, LLC (“Ajax”), and Cone & Graham, Inc. (“Cone & Graham”). The bids were reviewed by the Department’s contracts administration office to ensure they were timely, included a Unit Price for each line item, and contained the completed certifications required by the specifications. Bidders were checked against the Department’s list of prequalified bidders to confirm they possessed a certification of qualification in the particular work classes identified by the bid solicitation. Each bidder’s total current work under contract with the Department was examined to ensure that award of Contract T7380 would not place the bidder over its Department-designated financial capacity limit. Astaldi submitted the lowest bid, a total amount of $48,960,013. Prince submitted the next lowest bid, a total amount of $57,792,043. Hubbard’s total bid was the third lowest at $58,572,352.66. The remaining bidders came in as follows: DeMoya, $63,511,686.16; Ajax, $68,617,978.10; and Cone & Graham, $70,383,697.74. All bidders were prequalified in the appropriate work classes and had sufficient financial capacity, in accordance with section 337.14 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-22. The Department’s construction procurement procedure, from authorization to advertisement through contract execution, is outlined in the Department’s “Road and Bridge Contract Procurement” document (“Contract Procurement Procedure”). The scope statement of the Contract Procurement Procedure provides: “This procedure applies to all Contracts Administration Offices responsible for advertising, letting, awarding, and executing low bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts.” Limited exceptions to the procedure may be made if approved by the assistant secretary for Engineering and Operations. If federal funds are included, the Federal Highway Administration division administrator, or designee, must also approve any exceptions from the procedure. The stated objectives of the Contract Procurement Procedure are: “to standardize and clarify procedures for administering low-bid, design-bid-build, construction, and maintenance contracts” and “to provide program flexibility and more rapid response time in meeting public needs.” The Department’s process for review of bids is set forth in the “Preparation of the Authorization/Official Construction Cost Estimate and Contract Bid Review Package” (“Bid Review Procedure”). The scope statement of the Bid Review Procedure states: This procedure describes the responsibilities and activities of the District and Central Estimates Offices in preparing the authorization and official construction cost estimates and bid review packages from proposal development through the bid review process. Individuals affected by this procedure include Central and District personnel involved with estimates, specifications, design, construction, contracts administration, work program, production management, federal aid, and the District Directors of Transportation Development. The Bid Review Procedure contains a definitions section that defines several terms employed by the Department to determine whether a bid or a unit item within a bid is “unbalanced.” Those terms and their definitions are as follows: Materially Unbalanced: A bid that generates reasonable doubt that award to that bidder would result in the lowest ultimate cost or, a switch in low bidder due to a quantity error. Mathematically Unbalanced: A unit price or lump sum bid that does not reflect a reasonable cost for the respective pay item, as determined by the department’s mathematically unbalanced bid algorithm. Official Estimate: Department’s official construction cost estimate used for evaluating bids received on a proposal. Significantly Unbalanced: A mathematically unbalanced bid that is 75% lower than the statistical average. Statistical Average: For a given pay item, the sum of all bids for that item plus the Department’s Official Estimate which are then divided by the total number of bids plus one. This average does not include statistical outliers as determined by the department’s unit price algorithm. For every road and construction project procurement, the Department prepares an “official estimate,” which is not necessarily the same number as the “budget estimate” found in the public bid solicitation. The Department keeps the official estimate confidential pursuant to section 337.168(1), which provides: A document or electronic file revealing the official cost estimate of the department of a project is confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) until the contract for the project has been executed or until the project is no longer under active consideration. In accordance with the Bid Review Procedure, the six bids for Contract T7380 were uploaded into a Department computer system along with the Department’s official estimate. A confidential algorithm identified outlier bids that were significantly outside the average (such as penny bids) and removed them to create a “statistical average” for each pay item. Astaldi’s unit pricing was then compared to the statistical average for each item. The computer program then created an “Unbalanced Item Report,” flagging Astaldi’s “mathematically unbalanced” items, i.e., those that were above or below a confidential tolerance value from the statistical average. The unbalanced item report was then reviewed by the district design engineer for possible quantity errors. No quantity errors were found.1/ The Department then used the Unbalanced Item Report and its computer software to cull the work items down to those for which Astaldi’s unit price was 75 percent more than or below the statistical average. The Department sent Astaldi a form titled “Notice to Contractor,” which provided as follows: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has reviewed your proposal and discovered that there are bid unit prices that are mathematically unbalanced. The purpose of this notice is to inform you of the unbalanced nature of your proposal. You may not modify or amend your proposal. The explanation of the bid unit prices in your proposal set forth below was provided by ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION on ( ) INSERT DATE. FDOT does not guarantee advanced approval of: Alternate Traffic Control Plans (TCP), if permitted by the contract documents; Alternative means and methods of construction; Cost savings initiatives (CSI), if permitted by the contract documents. You must comply with all contractual requirements for submittals of alternative TCP, means and methods of construction, and CSI, and FDOT reserves the right to review such submittals on their merits. As provided in section 5-4 of the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction you cannot take advantage of any apparent error or omission in the plans or specifications, but will immediately notify the Engineer of such discovery. Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and confirmation of the unit bid price for the item(s) listed below by signing and returning this document. Section 5.4 of the Bid Review Procedure describes the Notice to Contractor and states: “Contracts are not considered for award until this form has been signed and successfully returned to the Department per the instruction on the form.” State estimating engineer Greg Davis testified that the stated procedure was no longer accurate and “need[s] to be corrected” for the following reason: Since the procedure was approved back in 2011, we’ve had some subsequent conversations about whether to just automatically not consider the award for those that are not signed. And since then we have decided to go ahead and just consider the contract, but we are presenting a notice, of course, unsigned and then let the technical review and contract awards committee determine. Astaldi signed and returned the Notice to Contractor and noted below each of the ten listed items: “Astaldi Construction confirms the unit price.” Mr. Davis explained that the purpose of the Notice to Contractor form is to notify the contractor that items have been identified as extremely low and to ask the contractor to confirm its understanding that in accepting the bid, the Department will not necessarily approve design changes, methods of construction, or maintenance of traffic changes. Section 6.6 of the Contract Procurement Procedure sets forth the circumstances under which an apparent low bid must be considered by the Department’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) and then by the Contract Awards Committee (“CAC”). Those circumstances include: single bid contracts; re-let contracts; “significantly mathematical unbalanced” bids; bids that are more than 25 percent below the Department’s estimate; 10 percent above the Department’s estimate (or 15 percent above if the estimate is under $500,000); materially unbalanced bids, irregular bids (not prepared in accordance with the Standard Specifications); other bid irregularities2/; or “[a]ny other reason deemed necessary by the chairperson.”3/ Bids that are not required to go before the TRC and CAC are referred to as “automatic qualifiers.” Because it was mathematically unbalanced, the Astaldi bid was submitted to the TRC for review at its June 28, 2016, meeting. The TRC is chaired by the Department’s contracts administration manager, Alan Autry, and is guided by a document entitled “Technical Review Committees” (“TRC Procedure”). The TRC Procedure sets forth the responsibilities of the TRC in reviewing bid analyses and making recommendations to the CAC to award or reject bids. The TRC voted to recommend awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi. The TRC’s recommendation and supporting paperwork was referred to the CAC for its meeting on June 29, 2016. The duties of the CAC are described in a document entitled “Contracts Award Committees” (“CAC Procedure”). Pursuant to the CAC Procedure, the CAC meets approximately 14 days after a letting to assess the recommendations made by the TRC and determines by majority vote an official decision to award or reject bids. Minutes for the June 29, 2016, CAC meeting reflect 21 items before the committee including: two single bid contracts; four bids that were 10 percent or more above the official estimate; one bid that was 15 percent or more above the official estimate on a project under $500,000; three bids that were more than 25 percent below the official estimate; and 11 bids with significantly unbalanced items, including Contract T7380 with an intended awardee of Astaldi. The CAC voted to award Contract T7380 based on the low bid submitted by Astaldi. A Notice of Intent to award the contract to Astaldi was posted on June 29, 2016. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 consisted of seven components: structures, roadway, signage, lighting, signalization, utilities, and intelligent transportation system. The Department does not compare bids by component, but looks at the total bid amount to find the lowest bidder. The Department also reviews the bids for discrepancies in individual unit items using the process described above. Astaldi’s bid of $48,960,013 was approximately $8.8 million below Prince’s bid of $57,792,043, $9.6 million less than Hubbard’s bid of $58,572,352, and $2.7 million below the Department’s public proposal budget estimate of $51,702,729. As part of its challenge to the intended award, Prince performed a breakdown of bids by individual components and discovered that nearly all of the differences between its bid and Astaldi’s could be attributed to the utilities component. Astaldi’s bid for the utilities component was $7,811,720, which was roughly $8.5 million below Prince’s utilities bid of $16,305,903 and $5.8 million below Hubbard’s utilities bid of $13,603,846.4/ The utilities component was included pursuant to an agreement between the Department and Hillsborough County, the owner of the water and sewer lines, relating to the improvement of water and sewer lines along the roadway limits of the project. The utility work consists of installing a new water- line and force main sewer. The existing water main and the existing force main conflict with the proposed location of the new storm drainage system. The new water main and force main must be installed, tested, and approved before being put into active service. To prevent water utility outages to customers, the new system must be installed and approved before the existing waterline and existing force main can be cut off and removed. Utility work is therefore the first task to be performed on Contract T7380. Once the utility component is completed, the contractor will furnish and install the stormwater system, the roadway, the bridgework, and all other components. Article 3-1 of the Standard Specifications5/ reserves to the Department the right to delete the utility relocation work from the contract and allow the utility owner to relocate the utilities. Utilities are the only portion of a Department contract subject to deletion because the funding is provided by the utility owner, which usually has allocated a certain dollar figure to contribute towards the contract prior to the bidding. If the bid for utilities comes in over the utility owner’s budget, the owner can opt out of the contract and self-perform. In this case, Hillsborough County had contracted with the Department to contribute $8.9 million for utility relocation work. The Department did not exercise the option to delete the utilities portion of the contract. Jack Calandros, Prince’s chief executive, testified that Prince uses a computer program called HeavyBid, created and supported by a company called HCSS, to build the cost components of its bids. Every witness with industry knowledge agreed that HeavyBid is the standard program for compiling bids in the construction field. Mr. Calandros testified that cost components include material quotes provided by third-party vendors and quotes from potential subcontractors. Labor and equipment costs are ascertained by using historical rates and actual cost estimates that are tracked by the HeavyBid software. Prince maintains its own database of costs derived from 20 years’ experience. Mr. Calandros stated that Prince’s internal labor and equipment rates are checked and adjusted at least once a year to ensure they are current and accurate based on existing equipment and personnel. Prince received three vendor quotes for the materials to perform the utility work on Contract T7380. In compiling its bid, Prince ultimately relied on a final quote from Ferguson Waterworks (“Ferguson”) of $8,849,850. Based on this materials quote and Prince’s overall utilities bid of $16,305,903, Mr. Calandros opined that it would not be possible for Astaldi to perform the utilities component for its bid amount of $7.8 million. Prince’s estimating expert, John Armeni, reviewed Astaldi’s bid file, read the deposition testimony of Astaldi’s chief estimator, Ed Thornton, and spoke to Mr. Thornton by telephone. Mr. Armeni also reviewed Prince’s bid and the bid tabulation of all bidders’ utilities component line items. Based on his review and his extensive experience in the industry, Mr. Armeni concluded that Astaldi’s bid does not include all costs for labor, material, and equipment necessary to construct the utilities portion of this project. Mr. Armeni reviewed the materials quote from Ferguson that Prince used in its bid. He noted that Astaldi’s bid file contained an identical quote from Ferguson of $8.8 million for materials, including some non-utilities materials. Mr. Armeni noted that the Ferguson quote for utilities materials alone was approximately $8 million, an amount exceeding Astaldi’s entire bid for the utilities portion of the project. Mr. Armeni also noted that Astaldi’s overall bid was 18 percent below that of the second lowest bidder, Prince. He testified that 18 percent is an extraordinary spread on a bid where the Department is providing the quantities and all bidders are working off the same drawings and specifications. Mr. Armeni believed that the contracting authority “should start looking at it” when the difference between the lowest and second lowest bidder is more than 10 percent. In his deposition, Mr. Thornton testified he was not aware of how Astaldi arrived at its bid prices for the utility section of the project. Mr. Thornton indicated multiple times that he was not Astaldi’s most knowledgeable person regarding the bid submitted by Astaldi on Contract T7380 project. He testified that Astaldi intended to subcontract the utilities work and acknowledged that the company received a subcontractor quote of $14.9 million after the bids were submitted. Mr. Thornton did not know if Astaldi had solicited the quote. He said it is not unusual for a company to receive subcontractor bids after it has been named the low bidder on a project. Mr. Thornton conceded that Astaldi’s bid did not include all the costs necessary to construct the utilities portion of Contract T7380. At his deposition, he did not have before him the materials needed to determine which items of cost Astaldi had omitted. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi was not missing any information it needed at the time of bid submission and understood that its price was to include all labor, materials, and subcontracting costs to perform the contract. After the proposed bid award, Astaldi used HeavyBid to produce a report indicating that the company now estimates its cost of performing the contract at $53,708,129.03, or roughly $4.75 million more than its winning bid. Mr. Thornton testified that Astaldi nonetheless stood ready to execute the contract and perform the work at its bid price. Central to the dispute in this case is Standard Specifications Section 9, “Measurement and Payment,” article 9-2 of which is titled “Scope of Payments.” In particular, subarticle 9-2.1 provides: 9-2.1 Items Included in Payment: Accept the compensation as provided in the Contract as full payment for furnishing all materials and for performing all work contemplated and embraced under the Contract; also for all loss or damage arising out of the nature of the work or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the work until its final acceptance; also for all other costs incurred under the provisions of Division I. For any item of work contained in the proposal, except as might be specifically provided otherwise in the payment clause for the item, include in the Contract unit price (or lump sum price) for the pay item or items the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals required for the complete item of work, including all requirements of the Section specifying such item of work, except as specially excluded from such payments. Prince contends that the second paragraph of subarticle 9-2.1 renders Astaldi’s bid nonresponsive because Astaldi admittedly failed to include “the cost of all labor, equipment, materials, tools and incidentals” in its bid. Prince points out that the “Technical Special Provisions” governing the utilities portion of the project reinforce the requirement that each bidder include all costs for the work. Technical Special Provisions Section 1-7.1 provides that “[p]ipe installation cost shall include all necessary work, equipment, and labor needed for installing the pipe, such as, coordination with existing utilities and support during construction and support of existing power poles during construction.” Technical Special Provisions Section 1-8.1 goes on to say that “[n]o separate payment will be made for the following items for work under this Technical Special Provision and the cost of such work shall be included in the applicable contract pay items of work,” followed by a comprehensive list of 30 items. Prince concludes that the requirement that each bidder include all costs, including costs of all necessary labor, equipment, and materials, in the Unit Price for each work item is “manifest” in the bid specifications and requires rejection of any bid that does not include all costs. Mr. Armeni opined that if one bidder excludes a portion of its costs, the other bidders are placed at a competitive disadvantage. Alan Autry, the Department’s central contracts administration manager, testified that five other projects were let as part of the bid package that included Contract T7380. He stated that it is typical for the Department to list multiple projects on one day. Mr. Autry’s office usually performs one bid letting per month, with the holiday months of November and December rolled together in a single letting. Mr. Autry stated that his office lets between 200 and 300 projects per year, not counting contracts that are let at the district level. Twenty other contracts were before the CAC at the June 29, 2016, meeting at which the Astaldi award in this case was approved. As noted at Finding of Fact 2, supra, Contract T7380 included 666 line items. Six companies submitted bids, meaning there were a total of 3,996 line items in this single contract. Assuming that the 200 to 300 other projects let by the Department’s Tallahassee office contain similar numbers, there are more than one million line items bid in any given year. If Prince’s reading of the bid specifications is correct, the Department is required to examine each of these line items and somehow make a determination whether the item includes all of the bidder’s costs. This problem of determining bidder cost is complicated by the presence of “companion” or “sister” items in bids, i.e., two items that must be considered in tandem to arrive at something like the actual cost of the work. Prince provided an example of such companion items in its analysis of the bids in this project. Two bid items included in the structures section of the bid proposal form were concrete culverts and reinforcing steel. The contractor may cast the culverts in place at the worksite or purchase them precast. If the concrete culvert is cast in place at the worksite, then reinforcing steel must be used to strengthen the culvert. If the concrete culvert is precast by a materials supplier, then the reinforcing steel has already been incorporated into the culvert at the time of installation. Mr. Calandros explained that when a contractor uses precast culverts, there is no need to list a separate additional cost for reinforcing steel; all costs are captured in the line item for concrete culverts. In this bid, Prince used precast culverts and therefore bid a penny per unit for reinforcing steel.6/ Bidders who cast the culverts in place showed a much higher cost for reinforcing steel but a lower cost for the concrete culverts. When the “companion items” were considered in tandem, the total cost for each vendor was fairly consistent. Prince’s explanation for companion items was coherent but did not explain how the Department is supposed to know which items are companion items as it undertakes the line-by-line cost examination of each bid in accordance with Prince’s reading of the bid specifications. Prince also failed to provide an explanation as to how the Department is to determine a bidder’s costs for any one line item or, for that matter, for its overall bid on a project. Bidders consider their cost information and the processes by which they build bids to be confidential proprietary information. In the instant case, Prince disclosed its own information (aside from materials costs) only under seal during litigation. In its ordinary course of business, the Department does not have access to this information. In fact, as noted at Finding of Fact 23, supra, the Department does not compare bids by component. It looks only at the total bid amount in determining the lowest bidder. Standard Specifications Article 3-8 reserves to the Department the right to perform an audit of the contractor’s records pertaining to the project upon execution of the contract. No authorization is provided to audit records of bidders prior to contracting. Standard Specifications Subarticle 2-5.1 allows bidders to indicate “free” or “$.00” for items that will be supplied at no cost to the Department. Though the Department’s practice, according to Mr. Autry, is to include zero bid items on the Notice to Contractor for confirmation of the price, subarticle 2-5.1 requires no Department investigation as to whether the bidder’s cost for a zero bid is actually zero. Bidders often bid a penny on items, as Prince did on reinforcing steel in this case. Standard Specifications Article 3-5 requires all contracts to be secured by a surety bond such that, in the event of a default by the contractor, the surety company will indemnify the Department on all claims and performance issues. Standard Specifications Section 4 provides that the scope of work is to be determined within the contract, including the furnishing of all labor, materials, equipment, tools, transportation, and supplies required to complete the work. The Department is authorized to make changes to the scope of work and make equitable adjustments of payments. If necessary, the Department may enter into supplemental agreements for additional or unforeseen work. Prince cautions that these change provisions could become relevant because Astaldi’s bid contains no information explaining how Astaldi will cover the $4.75 million difference between its bid price and its actual cost to perform the contract. Prince accurately states that nothing in Astaldi’s bid demonstrates that it has cash reserves to cover the loss and still complete the entire scope of the work.7/ Prince contends that this lack of demonstrable reserves renders Astaldi nonresponsible as to this project. Prince argues that it is error for the Department to rely on Astaldi’s certificate of qualification as proof of the company’s responsibility. The certificate of qualification process considers a contractor’s financial status at the time it submits its financial statements and other information regarding company resources. Prince contends that the Department’s assessment of the contractor’s financial statements and issuance of a certificate of qualification is insufficient to determine the contractor’s responsibility on a given bid. Prince argues that the Department is required by its governing statutes and the Standard Specifications to award a particular contract to the particular bidder that is the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, and that “responsible” for a given project is not synonymous with “prequalified.” Prince hypothesizes that under the Department’s practice, a bidder could possess a certificate of qualification issued in January, be indicted in another state for fraud and bribery in February, submit the lowest bid for a Department project in March, and be awarded the contract. By relying solely on the bidder’s certificate of qualification to determine responsibility, the Department could award a contract to a nonresponsible bidder. Section 337.14 provides that any person desiring to bid on any construction contract in excess of $250,000 must first be certified by the Department. Mr. Autry explained that the Department prequalifies contractors to submit bids on certain types of contract, such as major bridges and structures. Contractors applying for certification are required to submit their latest annual financial statements. The Department is charged with reviewing applications to determine “whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work.” § 337.14(3), Fla. Stat. The Department assigns the contractor work classes and a total capacity after evaluating its experience and financials. The Department’s certificate is good for 18 months, though the contractor’s capacity is reviewed annually. At the time of a particular bid, the Department verifies the contractor’s available capacity, which is simply its total assigned capacity minus current work the contractor is performing for the Department. Mr. Autry testified that the Department does not go back and look at a bidder’s financials to determine whether it can sustain a loss on a given project. The Department does not repeat its capacity analysis during the year, regardless of how many projects the company bids on. The Department’s analysis is limited to whether the company’s current capacity is sufficient for the project on which it is bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing Prince Contracting, LLC’s, second amended formal written protest and awarding Contract T7380 to Astaldi Construction Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In January of 1994, FDOT issued an Invitation to Bid ("ITB") for contracts FE2494Z1 and FE2494Z2 to provide storm shutters for the FDOT facilities in Zones 1 and 2 of the Florida Turnpike. The ITB was entitled "Storm Shutters, Removable, Manufacture, Furnish and Install." Prospective bidders for the contracts were provided with a packet which included General Conditions, Special Conditions, Specifications and General Special Provisions. The General Conditions set forth the procedures for submitting and opening the bids. The Specifications called for custom-sized removable storm shutters and detailed the materials and installation procedures that were required. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in the Special Conditions, Section 1.0, entitled "Description", and in the Specifications, Section 1.0, entitled "Scope of Work": Work under this contract consists of providing all labor, materials, equipment, tools and incidentals necessary to manufacture, furnish and install galvanized steel storm panels and accessories for all of Zone 1 & Zone 2 buildings and locations as identified in the building listing listings document, see Exhibit "A" Zone 1 & Exhibit "A" Zone 2. The bid package contained the following pertinent language in Special Conditions Section 8.1, entitled "Required Documents": Bidders are required to complete and return the State of Florida "Invitation to Bid" form as well as the bid sheet(s). These forms must be signed by a representative who is authorized to contractually bind the bidder. All bid sheets and the "Invitation to Bid" form must be executed and submitted in a sealed envelope. At a mandatory pre-bid conference on February 17, 1994, the Department's representatives were available to answer questions regarding the bid package. During the pre-bid conference, John Vecchio of the Department orally advised the prospective bidders that they should return the whole bid package, including the specifications, when they submitted their bid. No written amendment to this effect was issued. The bids were opened on March 3, 1994 in Fort Lauderdale. Bids were received for each contract from at least three bidders, including Accurate and Hurst. The apparent low bidder for both contracts was Broward Hurricane Panel Co. ("Broward"). Prior to the bids being posted on March 28, 1994, Broward's bid was determined to be nonresponsive and Broward was therefore disqualified. After Broward was disqualified, Accurate was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 2 and Hurst was the apparent low qualified bidder for Zone 1. Hurst's bid for the contract for Zone 2 was $85,000. Its bid for the Contract for Zone 1 was $36,000. Accurate's bids for the contracts were $84,854.82 and $36,287.16, respectively. Hurst was awarded the contract for Zone 1 and that decision has not been challenged. At the same time the Department announced the award of the Contract for Zone 1 to Hurst, the Department announced its intent to award the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Hurst timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest of the proposed award of the contract for Zone 2 to Accurate. Initially, FDOT raised as a defense that Hurst had not posted a protest bond as required by Section 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes. At the hearing in this matter, FDOT conceded that Hurst had subsequently posted a protest bond which had been accepted by FDOT. Hurst contends that Accurate's bid should have been deemed nonresponsive because Accurate does not have the ability to "manufacture" the specified product in its own facility. The 2 inch corrugated shutter required by the ITB has to be shaped on a special type of machine that rolls, presses and forms the metal. Hurst owns and maintains at its Opa-Locka facility a rolling mill capable of forming the panels to the bid specifications. Accurate is in the business of supplying the types of products sought by the ITB in this case. However, Accurate does not own the kind of machine necessary to shape the metal. The evidence established that for many years, Accurate has had a continuing business relationship with a local subcontractor, Shutter Express, that rolls, presses and forms raw material supplied by Accurate in accordance with Accurate's specifications. Shutter Express has the capability of fabricating shutters with a 2 inch corrugation in accordance with the ITB. Accurate is equipped to attach the headers and sills, drill the necessary holes, complete the assembly and install the final product. The ITB in this case did not preclude subcontracting any or all of the work specified. While the description of the work in the ITB includes the term "manufacture", this reference should not be read to mean that only those companies that were able to fabricate the entire product at their own facility could properly respond to the ITB. There is no logical justification for such a narrow interpretation. Only a few companies have the ability to completely fabricate the shutters on their own property. At the prebid conference, there was discussion amongst the prospective bidders about subcontracting the fabrication work and the FDOT representatives did not raise any objections to such an arrangement. It was widely understood by the parties present at the pre-bid conference that the Department was not interpreting the ITB in the restrictive manner now urged by Hurst. Such a reading of the ITB would have precluded from the bidding process a number of companies such as Accurate that routinely supply and install shutters. Hurst also contends that the bid proposal submitted by Accurate should be deemed nonresponsive because Accurate failed to include the entire ITB with its proposal in accordance with the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference. Hurst's proposals included the entire ITB. As discussed below, Accurate's proposal did not include the entire ITB. FDOT determined that all essential pages were included in Accurate's response and the evidence did not establish that this conclusion was arbitrary, capricious or fraudulent. Paragraph 6 of the General Conditions of the ITB provided: ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force and affect and are inapplicable to the bid. As noted above, at the prebid conference held on February 17, 1994, an FDOT employee told all prospective bidders to return the entire bid package when making their submittals. This request that the entire bid package be returned was simply meant as a protection for the bidder to ensure that all the necessary documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications were submitted. Other than those documents referenced in Section 8.1 of the Specifications, FDOT had no interest in having the remaining portion of the ITB submitted with a proposal. Accurate's submittal contained every document required by Section 8.1 of the Specifications. Accurate's proposal did not contain pages 3 through 12, 14, 15 and 17 through 20 of the ITB, but did include pages 1 and 2, 13, 16, 21 and 22 along with a signed Form PUR 7068 and a signed acknowledgment of Addendum In other words, the submittal contained a signed and completed Bidder Acknowledgment, completed Bid Price Forms for Zones 1 and 2, a signed copy of Addendum #1, a completed copy of the Ordering Instructions, and a signed, but not notarized, statement regarding public entity crimes. 1/ In addition to the "REQUIRED DOCUMENTS," set forth in Section 8.1 of the Specifications and quoted in Findings of Fact 6 above, the ITB included Section 8.2, "PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES STATEMENT" which provides: Any person submitting a bid or proposal in response to this invitation should execute the enclosed form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(A), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES, including proper check(s) provided, and submit it with the bid/proposal or within 72 hours of the bid opening. Page 7 of the ITB provided in pertinent part: 10.0 BID PREFERENCE IDENTICAL TIE BIDS - Preference shall be given to businesses with drug-free workplace programs. Whenever two or more bids which are equal with respect to price, quality and service are received by the State or by any political subdivision for the procurement of commodities or contractual services, a bid received from a business that certifies that it had implemented a drug-free workplace program shall be given preference in the award process. . . . Accurate's proposal did not include a certification that it was a drug-free workplace in accordance with this provision. However, such a certification is only used by the Department as a tie-breaker. In other words, in the event of identical bids, any firm with a drug-free workplace would get preference. Since there were no tied bids in this case, certification was totally irrelevant. When the bids were opened, Mary Bailey, the contracts administrator for the Department, noticed that Accurate's submittal was thinner than the others and asked Accurate's representative, Richard Johnson, about the remaining pages. Mr. Johnson replied that the other pages were in his truck and offered to retrieve them. Ms. Bailey told him there was no need to do so. Section 10 of the General Conditions in the bid package provides as follows: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved...to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received... It does not appear that Accurate has obtained any competitive advantage as a result of its failure to include the entire ITB with its bid proposals. Even if the oral instructions at the pre-bid conference are deemed to have modified the ITB so that the entire bid package should have been submitted, Accurate's failure to include the entire ITB with its response should be considered a minor technicality, pursuant to Section 10 of the General Conditions cited above, that can and should be waived in evaluating the responsiveness of the bid. Similarly, the failure to have the Form PUR 7068 notarized may have rendered Accurate's bid proposals incomplete, but not necessarily nonresponsive. This oversight can be easily corrected without giving Accurate a competitive advantage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the bid submitted by Accurate to be responsive and dismissing the challenge filed by Hurst. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of June 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June 1994.
The Issue The issues are 1) Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) properly rejected all bids on Lease Bid No. 590:2133, and 2) Whether either Petitioner is entitled to award of Lease Bid No. 590:2133 as the lowest and best responsive bidder.
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1989, HRS issued an Invitation to Bid (ITB) on Lease Bid No. 590:2133 for 43,634 net square feet of office space in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. The bid package contained specifications, evaluation criteria, and numerical weight to be assigned to each criteria. The bid package indicated the area of emphasis placed on the facility by HRS which focused on client safety, public access, availability of public transportation, and parking. The emphasis on each area was indicated by the weighted points to be given in each area. On January 24, 1990, HRS received bids from both Wharton and Curtis. Both bids were responsive. Curtis submitted the apparent low bid and Wharton submitted the apparent second lowest bid. Curtis, as Trustee, is the owner of the property which is presently occupied by HRS in Ocala, Florida. The lease on these premises was awarded in 1980 and expires in 1990. Curtis purchased the leasehold in April of 1988 while HRS was a tenant and subject to the existing lease. Philip J. Procacci is the President of Procacci Development which is the general partner in Wharton Investment Group. The actual bids submitted were not offered into evidence by any party in this proceeding. Susanne Casey, the District Administrator of HRS District 3, is ultimately responsible for the leasing of all HRS facilities in the district, including facilities in Marion County. Casey appointed a bid evaluation committee to review and evaluate the responsive bids based on the criteria stated in the bid package. The committee was to make a recommendation regarding the lowest and best bidder. Before the bids were opened, the bid evaluation committee met and agreed upon objective parameters for each of the evaluation criteria. These parameters established standards against which each committee member could independently evaluate and award points on each bid. The evaluation criteria in the bid package assigned points in three major categories: associated fiscal costs, location, and facility. Associated fiscal coasts were further broken down into (a) rental rates for the basic lease term, (b) rental rates for optional renewal terms, and (c) associated moving costs. The maximum points available in each of these categories were fixed in the bid package and could not be altered by the committee. These criteria are standard in a lease procurement through out the state. State regulations require that all bids for lease space in the state evaluate rental rates using present value methodology. See Rule 13M-1.029, Florida Administrative Code. This means that the proposed rental rates in all bids are calculated to present value dollars for the purpose of comparison. The Department of General Services has a computer program, the sole function of which is to calculate the present value of the rental rates. The program has nothing to do with the assignment of points under the criteria, but is used as a tool to allow comparison of the bids. The present value of the Curtis bid was $662,464 lower than the present value of the Wharton bid. The rental rates were awarded points under criterion 1a of associated fiscal costs. The committee awarded the full 20 points to Curtis and awarded 5 points to Wharton. The committee members awarded these points in accordance with the standards and formula they had agreed on prior to the bid opening. The formula the committee used was not the more commonly used formula, but it was reasonable and rational and it was fairly applied to the bids in this case. There is no rule or policy of HRS or of the Department of General Services (DGS) that mandates that a particular formula be used in awarding points for the rental rate criterion 1a. There is a formula that HRS and DGS recommend as guidance of a methodology that is appropriate and reasonable, but the recommendation is not binding on the committee or on the District Administrator. There was another criterion of associated moving costs considered as part of the associated fiscal costs. Each committee member awarded 10 points to Wharton and 8 points to Curtis on this item. Wharton received 10 points because it sent a letter with its bid in which it offered to pay all moving costs incurred by HRS in a move to its building. Curtis received 8 points because HRS already occupied two of its buildings and would have limited moving costs in moving into the two additional buildings included in its bid. The bid specifications and bid package contained no indication that a bidder could offer to pay all moving costs as part of its bid. In fact, Wharton submitted its letter offering to pay all moving costs as a result of its discussion with one committee member, T.C. Little. Mr. Little is also the General Services Manager for HRS District 3 and is involved with all bids in the district. Mr. Little interpreted the bid specifications to permit such an offer even though the bid specifications were silent on the issue. At page 5 of the bid package, it is clearly stated that questions concerning the bid are to be directed to the project contact person. It further states: Any questions which might be prejudicial to other bidders will be answered in writing in the form of a clarification to the bid and will be sent to all prospective bidders. On that same page, the bid specifications address proposal of alternatives by stating: For evaluation purposes each bid submitted will be evaluated as to adherence to the specifications requested. If a bidder desires to propose alternatives to the specified specifications, he/she may do so by attaching a sheet to the bid submittal document titled Alternatives. However, these alternatives will not be presented to the bid evaluation committee for use in comparison of bids and can only be considered after an award of bid is made. The project contact person was Donald J. Cerlanek and any request for clarification should have been addressed to him and not to Mr. Little. Mr. Little's gratuitous advice and interpretation of the bid specifications made to Wharton and not to all bidders was incorrect, violated the terms of the bid specifications, and was improper. The bid specifications do not permit an offer to pay all moving costs to be considered in the award of points under the associated moving costs criteria. Such an offer can only be considered as an alternative proposal and cannot be considered by the bid evaluation committee in comparing the bids. Under the standards established by the committee, Wharton should have received 5 points on the associated moving costs criterion instead of 10 points. The committee members individually evaluated each bid and awarded points within the parameters they had established. Except for the incorrect award of points on the associated moving costs criteria, the scoring method and award of points by each committee member was rationally and reasonably related to the relative importance of each criterion as established in the bid package and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Each committee member came to the conclusion that the Curtis bid was the lowest and best based on the award of points in each member's independent evaluation. On February 13, 1990, they recommended in writing that Curtis be awarded the bid. On February 19, 1990, the District Administrator adopted the committee's recommendation and reported the recommendation to Steven Gertel, the assistant staff director for HRS Facilities Services in the Office of General Services. On March 7, 1990, Mr. Gertel sent a memo to the District Administrator. The memo said: Review of the bid evaluation committee's recommendation has disclosed that the committee used a non-standard method of evaluating present value of rental rate for the lease term. Please provide an explanation of this variation to accepted practice. In fact, the committee used the established DGS formula to calculate the present value of rental rates. However, the committee used its own formula to award points based on the present value of rental rates. There was nothing impermissible about the committee's actions or formula. Because of a fear of a bid protest, Ms. Casey, the District Administrator, sent a notice rejecting all bids on the project. No other reason was articulated for rejecting all bids. The fear of a bid protest is not a legally sufficient reason to reject all bids, particularly because it is not stated in the bid specifications and is based on speculation about a future event which may never occur. HRS did reserve the right to reject all bids in the bid package, but it may not do so for an improper purpose. Fear of a bid protest is not a proper purpose. Wharton alleged and attempted to show some level of collusion between Curtis and Mr. Cerlanek of HRS. While Mr. Curtis had several contacts with Mr. Cerlanek about the project, such contacts are not per se inappropriate because Mr. Cerlanek is the District 3 Lease Coordinator and is the proper person to discuss future projects with potential bidders. No competent, substantial evidence was presented to show that Mr. Cerlanek discussed anything that was not public record or anything that gave Mr. Curtis any advantage in the bid process. Mr. Cerlanek did not tell Mr. Curtis what would be in the bid package or what would be needed to insure award of the bid to Curtis.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order awarding the bid in Lease No. 590:5133 to Gail Curtis, as Trustee, as the lowest and best bidder. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 27th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 90-2459BID AND 90-2666BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Wharton 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(5) and 19(27). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1, 5, 11-17, 20, 29, 30, 38, 39, 45, 46, 51, and 57 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 6, 8-10, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 31-34, 37, 40-44, 48- 50, 52, and 55 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 7, 28, 56, 58, and 59 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 22, 23, 26, 35, 36, 38, 47, 53, and 54 are mere summaries of testimony and are not appropriately framed as proposed findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Curtis, as Trustee Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(11), 7&8(13), 9(14), and 15(25). Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, and 16-26 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13, 14, and 27-29 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: Part I paragraphs 2(1&2), 3(4), 4(8), 5(30), Part II paragraphs 2(1&2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(8), 6(9), 8(10), 19(25), and 20(26). Proposed findings of fact Part I paragraphs 1 and 6 and Part II paragraphs 1, 7, 9, 10, 12-18, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 11 is irrelevant. Copies furnished to: Robert A. Sweetapple Attorney at Law 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr. Attorney at Law Holland & Knight Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gloria Fletcher Attorney at Law 515 North Main Street, Ste. 300 Gainesville, FL 32607 Frances S. Childers District Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On March 1, 1984, Respondent gave notice to qualified contractors that it would receive sealed bids for State Project No. 72000-3541, referred to as Federal-Aid Project No. M 9041(10). This project involves the installation of a computerized traffic control system for the City of Jacksonville. In response to the opportunity to bid, the Department of Transportation received four bids. Petitioner, Winko-Matic Signal Company, was among the bidders. The other bidders were Georgia Electric Company, Traffic Control Devices, Inc., and Sperry Systems Management. The bids of Traffic Control Devices and Sperry Systems were rejected based upon an error in bid tabulations on the part of Traffic Control, a mistake on the quantities page, with the Sperry rejection being based upon a bid bond problem. Traffic Control had been the apparent low bidder with a bid of $1,964,115. Winko-Matic was the second apparent low bidder with a bid of $2,279,604.70. The Department of Transportation had estimated that the total cost of the Jacksonville project would be $ 2,024,680.61. Having discarded the bid of Traffic Control Devices, the Department of Transportation telegrammed Winko-Matic on April 4, 1984, advising Winko-Matic that it was the apparent low bidder for the Jacksonville project. Subsequently, the awards committee of the Department of Transportation met on April 18, 1984, and determined to reject all bids and re-advertise the job. In the course of this meeting the awards committee was told that there were erratic bids received on contract items, pointing to some perceived confusion among the contractors as to requirements of the contract. Discussion was also held on the possibility of establishing a pre-bid conference if the project was re advertised. The awards committee then voted to reject the bids on the basis that the apparent low bidder, Winko-Matic, had submitted a bid which-was 12.6 percent over the Department's estimate, instead of being within 7 percent of the Department of Transportation's pre-bid estimate, a point above which the Department of Transportation in its non-rule policy would call to question to the acceptability of the apparent low bid. In addition to deciding to reject all bids and re-advertise, it was determined that a pre-bid conference should be scheduled at least 30 days prior to the bid-letting date. Winko-Matic was advised that the Department of Transportation's decision to reject all bids by correspondence of May 4, 1984, in which it was indicated that all bids had been rejected based upon the fact that they were too high. In response to this notice of rejection, Winko-Matic, effective May 17, 1984, filed a written notice of protest. The case was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 20, 1984, and a final hearing date was established by Notice of Hearing of July 5, 1984. The hearing date in this cause was September 12, 1984. The Jacksonville project in question requires the utilization of what has been referred to "UTCS Enhanced" software. This software package is unique and has only been used in a limited number of locations within the country. Those locations are Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; Broward County, Florida; and Birmingham, Alabama. Another unique feature within the project design is the use of an associated coaxial computer sys gem. Given the unique nature of this project and the fact that the Department of Transportation had never advertised for bids related to UTCS software, Department of Transportation obtained assistance from a consulting firm, Harland, Bartholomew & Associates. In fulfilling its function Harland gave estimates to include an estimate related to the projected cost of the software, Item 681-102. The Harland estimate for the overall project was $2,143,130 including a $100,000 estimate for the software system. That estimate relating to the software was subsequently adjusted by the Department of Transportation to depict a cost of $13,780. The Department of Transportation estimate was based upon information within its computer related to a system unlike the enhanced software contemplated by the plans and specifications. In other words, the stored information in the Department of Transportation computer was not the same as contemplated by the plans and specifications in the Jacksonville project. Moreover, the initial estimate of Harland was based upon the idea of an extended software system, as opposed to an enhanced software system. Winko-Matic had bid $389,500 for the software in Item 681-102. That estimate was premised upon figures obtained from JHK and Associates, the group which Winko-Matic intended to use as its subcontractor for the enhanced software portion of the project. JHK developed the software and was responsible for systems integration of the Los Angeles, California, project, one of the locations in which UTCS enhanced software has been utilized. JHK premised its estimate for the software hare upon experience in Los Angeles and an evaluation of the tasks to be performed related to the enhanced software. This included general software development activities, hardware innovation, installation costs during the period of acceptance and testing, and the preparation of data base. The JHK bid price was $339,500. Another $50,000 was added to that price related to what the Petitioner describes as its management costs for that item. By June 20, 1984, when a further meeting was held by the awards committee on the subject of the Jacksonville project, it was concluded that the estimate made by the Department of Transportation of $13,780 was not correct, on the topic of the enhanced software. A more reasonable estimate, according to the information imparted in this session, would be $200,000 for enhanced software as called for in this project, with a $100,000 amount being a reasonable estimate had they chosen to use extended software. Adjusting the initial price related to the UTCS enhanced software to reflect a corrected estimate of the Department of Transportation in its original advertised bid, that estimate becomes $2,210,900.61 and its consultant Harland's estimate becomes $2,243,130. With this adjustment, the differential in the estimate made by the Department of Transportation and the Petitioner approaches 3 percent and not the 12.6 percent originally found. The 3 percent is below the threshold of 7 percent used as the policy for determining whether a bid might be rejected as being far beyond the acceptable limits set forth in the Department of Transportation's estimate. In the aforementioned June 20, 1984, awards committee meeting, the Department of Transportation continued to hold the opinion that all bids in the Jacksonville project should be rejected and the matter re-advertised. Although the problem pertaining to the estimate of the cost of the enhanced software package had been addressed, the committee continued to feel that the prices received in the bid letting were erratic Reference was also made to revisions or modifications to the project plan which would be offered if the matter were re- advertised. It was also pointed out that the Federal Highway Administration would concur in the Department's decision to reject all bids and would accept modifications. The awards committee again voted to reject the bids. The matter was again considered by the awards committee on August 31, 1984. On that occasion, it was pointed out that the revisions contemplated by the Department of Transportation, should the matter be re-advertised, would not affect in a substantial way the cost estimate for the project with the exception of Item 680-101, the system control equipment (CPU), which would promote a lower price for the project. The committee determined in the August, 1984, meeting to reject all bids and re-advertise. While the initial notice of rejection of May 4, 1984, had suggested the basis for rejection as being the fact that Petitioner's bid far exceeded the 7 percent allowance for price above the Department of Transportation's estimate of costs, the meetings of the awards committee and the suggestion of the Respondent in the course of the final hearing in this case indicated that there were other reasons for the decision to reject. Those Were: (a) an apparent lack of clarity among bidders regarding specifications for the Jacksonville job, (b) the desire of the Respondent to revise specifications on the Jacksonville project; and (c) a lack of sufficient competition in the bids. In connection with the first of the additional reasons Respondent suggests that variations within the bid responses related to particular line items within the specifications point out a lack of clarity in the project's specifications or confusion by bidders related to those specifications. Respondent did not bring forth any of the bidders who might speak to the matter of possible confusion or misunderstanding concerning some of the bid items. By contrast, the Petitioner's president; the president of JHK & Associates and James Robinson, Harland's project manager for the Jacksonville job, did not find the specifications in the original documents to be confusing. In addition, the testimony of those individuals established the fact that bid variations related to particular line items are not extraordinary and do not establish any apparent confusion by the bidders as to the requirements of those line items. In effect, what the differentials demonstrate are variations related to the manufacture or in-house capabilities of the bidders and an effort to allocate discretionary costs in various places as to line items. Moreover, they might indicate last- minute adjustments in the bid quote prior to the opening and a possible effort by a contractor to enter into a new job market. Finally, they demonstrate offsetting which is the allocation of item prices by a contractor to maximize profits. To do this, a contractor submits high bids on items representing quantities which the contractor feels will increase after the contract is awarded and submits low bids on items representing quantities which are not likely to change. In summary, while the Department of Transportation in its presentation expressed some concern about the variations in the pricing in the bid quotations offered by the respective bidders in this project, its suspicions on the question of the possible clarity of its specifications were not confirmed and are not convincing. On the topic of revisions which the Department of Transportation would offer if the matter were re-advertised, with one exception those matters appear to be items that could be attended through change orders or supplemental agreements. They are not matters which necessarily must be addressed through a rejection of all bids and a re-advertising of the project. The lone exception to this is the possibility that the Department of Transportation may not be able to protect its proprietary rights in the enhanced software which is being developed for the project, under the terms of the present bid documents. Given that uncertainty, the Respondent would wish to re-advertise the project and make certain that its proprietary interests are protected. Finally, Respondent has alluded to the fact that the Jacksonville project should be re-advertised in view of the lack of competition in the initial letting. Only four bidders expressed an interest in this project at the time of the first letting. Of those, two bidders were found to be responsive. While this is a low number of bidders, there does not appear to be any agency practice on the part of' the Department of Transportation to the effect that this number of bidders would not be accepted. Moreover, no indication has been given that should the matter be re-advertised a greater number of bidders would express an interest than was the case in the first letting. Consequently, this reason for bid rejection is not acceptable. If Respondent did not reject the bids and re-advertise the project, Winko-Matic would be the successful bidder in the Jacksonville project.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the bid of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., and Corporate Interiors, Inc., (Petitioners) is the lowest responsible bid which was received by the Pinellas County School Board (Respondent) for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building, or in the alternative, whether all bids should be rejected as urged by The Harter Group (Intervenor).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 27, 1990, the Respondent sought competitive bids for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building. In response thereto, Respondent timely received three bids, including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor, and one no bid. The bid opening occurred on April 17, 1990, and neither Petitioners nor Intervenor were determined to be the lowest responsible bidder. However, the Petitioners' bid was lower than that of the bidder to whom the Respondent proposes to award this contract. Petitioners' bid was $932,502.39, Intervenor's bid was highest at $1,101,509.90, and the bid of lowest responsible bidder, Haworth, Inc., was $1,072,286.50. The first reason given by Respondent for its determination that Petitioners' bid was not responsive to the bid specifications is that it did not include an amount for sales tax. Intervenor also did not include sales tax in its bid, but Haworth, Inc., which was determined by Respondent to be the lowest responsible bidder, did include sales tax. However, there was no dispute at hearing that the Respondent does not pay sales tax on transactions involving the acquisition of furnishings for the Pinellas County School System, and that Section 9.2.2 of the bid specifications erroneously stated that this contract would not be exempt from sales tax. The second reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it omitted a required page from the approved form which was to be used to list those items in the bid proposal that were not in strict compliance with the Respondent's specifications. Petitioners admit that the required page numbered 00310-7 was not included in their bid, but maintain that it was not necessary to include this exact page since all items in their bid do meet specifications, and since a statement to this effect was included elsewhere in the bid. The lowest responsible bidder, as determined by the Respondent, did include this required page with a statement thereon that "all items comply". Intervenor also included this page listing 11 items in its bid which differed from the specifications. The purpose of this required page is to allow the Respondent to have a uniform, clearly identifiable place in each bid proposal where it can look to determine if the items in that bid meet specifications, without having to check every page of each bid. The third reason given by Respondent for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it included numerous pages of unit costs which were not called for in the specifications, without any explanation as to their meaning or the purpose for which they were included in the bid. Section 4.1.1 of the bid specifications, found at page 00100-11, makes it clear that no bid form other than that which is set forth in the specifications will be accepted, and specifically states that bidders are not even to retype the form on their letterhead, but are to simply fill-in a copy made from the form in the specifications. The Petitioners admit that their bid includes additional, unexplained information that was not called for in the specifications. A final reason given by Respondent at hearing for rejecting Petitioners' bid was that it was accompanied by a bid bond, required by Section 4.2.4 of the specifications, in the name of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., while the public entity crime affidavit, required by Section 2.1.5, was subscribed to by Corporate Interiors, Inc. Petitioners' bid did not include a resolution or other evidence of authority that Corporate Interiors, Inc., had authority to submit a public entity crime affidavit on behalf of Kimball International Marketing, Inc., or that the affidavit submitted was valid as to Kimball. Thus, while Petitioners maintain that their bid was jointly filed on behalf of the manufacturer, Kimball, and the vendor, Corporate Interiors, their bid includes a bond from the manufacturer only, and a crime affidavit from the vendor only. Section 1.8 of the specifications, found at page 00100-2, specifies that the bidder is the person or entity that submits a bid. Petitioners urge that theirs is a joint bid, but they have failed to submit a joint bond or affidavit. Section 5.2.1 of the specifications allows the Respondent to reject any bid which fails to include a required security, or other required data. The bid which was determined by the Respondent to be the lowest responsible bid contains no technical flaws, errors or omissions, and the proposal meets all specifications for this project. The Respondent properly posted notice of its intent to award this contract to Haworth, Inc., the lowest responsible bidder. Under Section 5.3.1 of its bid instructions, the Respondent has the right to waive "any informality or irregularity in any Bid or Bids received and to accept the Bid or Bids which, in (its) judgment, is in (its) own best interest." Respondent chose not to waive any of the irregularities in the Petitioners' bid. This decision was made, in part, because of Respondent's previous experience with Petitioners in their installation of similar systems for Respondent at the Walter Pownall Service Centers in which there had been problems involving service during installation, coordination of the installation work, and verification that invoices received from Corporate Interiors did not exceed the bid base price, and that all items being paid had actually been received.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioners' and Intervenor's protests of its intent to award a contract for systems furniture (partitions) for the New District Administration Building to Haworth, Inc., as the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2863BID Petitioner and Intervenor filed letters, but no proposed findings of fact upon which rulings could be made. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. 3. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 4. Adopted in Finding 6. 5. Adopted in Findings 4-6. 6. Adopted in Finding 6. 7. Adopted in Findings 6, 8. 8. Adopted in Finding 1. 9. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. 10-12. Adopted in Finding 6. 13. Adopted in Finding 4. 14. Adopted in Finding 3. 15. Adopted in Finding 5. 16-17. Adopted in Finding 7. 18. Adopted in Finding 1. 19. Adopted in Finding 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen D. Zimmerman, President Corporate Interiors, Inc. 1090 Kapp Drive Clearwater, FL 34625 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618-4688 Sue Olinger 1284 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent P. O. Box 4688 Clearwater, FL 34618
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby note the following findings of fact: Notice and Invitation to Bid on State Project Number 72001-3448 (the project) was extended to various contractors by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, on August 1, 1985. Sealed bids on the project were opened August 28, 1985. The scope of the project involved cleaning and painting the structural steel of the Buckman Bridge over the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida. (State Bridge Numbers 720249 and 720343). The bids were opened and Petitioner was the apparent low bidder on the project with a bid amount of $193,000. The Department of Transportation, on October 2, 1985, rejected all bids "due to error in quantities in plans." According to the contract plans and specifications utilized by the Department of Transportation for the project, the beams, girders, bracing and trusses were composed of 2,540 tons of structural steel. The plans were in error and the tonnage of structural steel was less than 2,540 tons. Petitioner, upon visiting the job site as required, immediately recognized that there was less steel in the bridge than shown in the plans. In submitting and formulating his bid, the Petitioner considered the amount of work and materials which would actually be required to complete the project. 6 Prior to the bids being posted on the project, the Department of Transportation discovered that the amount of structural steel noted in the plans was grossly overestimated. On October 2, 1985, the Department of Transportation notified bidders in writing that all bids submitted on the project were rejected and that the plans would be revised and the project relet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the petition of Industrial Enterprise Sandblast and Painting, Inc., protesting the rejection of all bids on State Project No. 72001- 3448, be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December 1985. APPENDIX Respondent's Findings of Fact FINDING RULING Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 1. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 2. Accepted, but not included because subordinate. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 4. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraphs 3 and 6. Accepted; see Recommended Order paragraph 6. COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE THOMAS E. DRAWDY, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 A. J. SPALLA, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 562 HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 LARRY D. SCOTT, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, M.S. 58 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8064 INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE SANDBLAST & PAINTING, INC. P. O. BOX 1547 1502 FOX RUN DRIVE TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32486-1547
