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.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 29, 1981, the College solicited sealed bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Technical and Gymnasium Buildings located on its campus in Madison, Florida. In response, seven general contractors submitted bids. (P-1, P-2, P-3.) Bids were publicly opened on February 9, 1982. Griffin Construction, with a bid of $536,575, was the apparent low bidder; the second lowest bidder was Long Contractors, with a bid of $539,512. (Testimony of Griffin, Sims, Rutherford; P-3, P-4, P-5.) After the low bid was identified, Tom McClanahan, representing Long Contractors, asked that the subcontractor list accompanying the low bid be opened. Griffin Construction's subcontractor list was then opened. McClanahan asked if the license and charter numbers of the subcontractors were listed. 2/ Upon learning that these numbers were not included on Griffin Construction's subcontractor list, McClanahan protested. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin.) At its February 15, 1982, meeting, the College District Board of Trustees ("Board") rejected the low bid of Griffin Construction on the sole ground that the omission of subcontractor license and charter numbers constituted a failure to comply with the conditions of the bid documents. 3/ The Board then voted to award the contract to Long Contractors, the second lowest bidder, on the ground that it was the lowest bid conforming to the bid documents. In so doing, the Board followed the College president's recommendation--a recommendation based on his belief that the non-complying bid must be rejected, that it did not involve a matter of Board discretion. (Testimony of Sims, Rutherford, Griffin; Stipulation of Parties; P-41.) The bid specifications contain instructions to bidders requiring "each Bidder . . . [to] submit with his proposal a list of the subcontractors who will perform the work . . . as indicated by the `List of Subcontractors' form." (P-1, P-2.) The instructions further provide: The applicable subcontractor license registration or certification number must be noted on the bid opposite his name, and in the event that the subcontractor is a corporation, his State Corporate Charter number shall also be noted. If the subcontractor is an out of state firm, their Charter number with the Secretary of State to do business in the State of Florida should also be noted. The "Listing of Subcontractors" form provided with the specifications contains column headings for the names and addresses of the subcontractors but does not contain a separate heading for the requested license or corporate charter numbers. 4/ The form states that the subcontractor list "is an integral part of the bid." (P-1, P-2.) The bid instructions further require bidders to evaluate and determine the qualifications of their listed subcontractors. The bidder shall have determined to his own complete satisfaction that a listed subcontractor has been successfully engaged in this particular type of business for a reasonable length of time, has successfully completed installations comparable to that which is required by this agreement and is qualified both technically and financially to perform that pertinent phase of the work for which he is listed. (P-1, P-2.) The bid documents expressly reserve to the College the right "to reject any or all bids, and to waive informalities." (P-1 P-2.) No bidder correctly listed the required license and corporate charter numbers on its "Listing of Subcontractors" form. Griffin Construction. Griffin failed to include any license or corporate charter numbers. However, by subsequent letters dated February 9 and February 18, 1982, and at hearing, it supplied the required subcontractor license and charter numbers. Long Contractors. Long listed for its roofing subcontractor a sheet metal registration number, not the required roofing license number. [A sheet metal registration does not qualify a contractor for roofing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, Fla. Stat. (1981).] For its electrical subcontractor, Long omitted the prefix, "ER" from the listed number. For its plumbing subcontractor, Long listed a mechanical registration number instead of the required plumbing certification or registration number. [A mechanical registration does not qualify a contractor to perform plumbing work. See, 489.105, 489.113, supra.] Of the four areas requiring state licenses--roofing, heating and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing--Long listed correctly only the registration number for its heating and air conditioning subcontractor. Long incorrectly listed No. FO6962 as the corporate number of Gandy Enterprises, its painting subcontractor. This is the number of a related corporation, Industrial Coatings, Inc. Remaining Bidders. Of the five other general contractors submitting bids, two-- Richard Walker Construction Company and GRC Contracting, Inc.--omitted all subcontractor license and charter numbers. The other three bidders failed to completely list all the required numbers. (Testimony of Rutherford; P-11, P-12, P-13, P-14, P-15, P-16, P-17, P-34, P-37, R-1, R-5.) The project architect testified that the submittal of incorrect or incomplete subcontractor license and charter numbers was a deficiency which a bidder should be allowed to cure after bid opening. But the failure to submit any required "number" was a deficiency which, in his opinion, could not be similarly corrected. He failed, however, to supply a reasonable basis for drawing such a distinction. Therefore, his opinion on this question is given little weight. 5/ (Testimony of Rutherford.) Subcontractor license and charter numbers are readily obtainable and can be verified by contacting the pertinent state agency--the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, or the Florida Department of State. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford; P-32, P-33, P- 34, P-35, P-36, P-37.) The project architect, William Rutherford, routinely requires the listing of subcontractor license and charter numbers on bids for public construction projects. The main purpose it serves is that it would enable him to identify the listed contractor, since sometimes subcontractors have similar business names. Although if he was uncertain about the qualifications of a subcontractor, he would ordinarily question the general contractor. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Although Mr. Rutherford has customarily required the listing of subcontractor "numbers" on public projects, he has never made any use of those numbers in the past. (Testimony of Rutherford.) The general contractor who is awarded the contract is responsible to Mr. Rutherford and the College for construction of the project in accordance with the bid specifications. If, after bid opening, a listed subcontractor is unable to perform, Mr. Rutherford would ordinarily arrange for substitution of a new subcontractor acceptable to the general contractor and owner. (Testimony of Rutherford.) Griffin Construction's failure to list the license and charter numbers of its listed subcontractors, and its subsequent curing of that failure, did not affect the amount of its bid 6/ by giving it an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders. The bid omission did not allow Griffin Construction the opportunity to change any material element of its bid after bid opening. The inclusion or exclusion of subcontractor "numbers" at bid opening does not affect the ability of a contractors to obtain the required bond, the quality of bidding general contractors, the quality of listed subcontractors, the quality of work performed, or any material feature of the competitive bidding process. (Testimony of Griffin, Rutherford.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the construction contract in question be awarded to Vick Griffin Construction Company, the lowest responsible bidder. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1982.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent should award a contract in accordance with an invitation to bid to the Petitioner, to some other bidder, or reject all bids and reissue an invitation. Petitioner contends that it was the low bidder in response to the invitation; that its bid was responsive; and to the extent that it was not responsive, any defects were of a minor sort which should be waived. Petitioner contends that the Respondent has previously waived irregularities such as existed in the Petitioner's bid and should therefore waive them in this case. The Respondent contends that the Petitioner's bid was not responsive, that the irregularities in Petitioner's bid are not minor, that any mistakes the Respondent has made in past acquisitions should not be repeated, and that the contract should be awarded to another company.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent issued an invitation to bid for a project known as the "Animal Science/Dairy Science Building" at the University of Florida. The project was given No. BR-108 by the Respondent. Petitioner was the lowest bidder in response to the invitation. The next lowest bidder, Charles R. Perry Construction Company, submitted a bid approximately $37,000 higher than Petitioner's bid. Perry has not filed any formal protest nor intervened in this proceeding. Petitioner is a responsible contractor and has in the past entered into construction contracts with the Respondent. Petitioner's bid was rejected by the Respondent. The Petitioner protested the rejection of its bid in a timely manner. Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications provides in pertinent part, as follows: In order that the Owner may be assured that only qualified and competent sub- contractors will be employed on the project, each Bidder shall submit with his Proposal a list of the subcontractors who would perform the work for each Divi- sion of the Specifications as indicated by the "List of Subcontractors" form contained in these Specifications... only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. * * * No change shall be made in the list of subcontractors, before or after the award of a contract, unless agreed to in writing by the Owner. Section "B" of the invitation for bid provided space for the bidder to list the name and address of subcontractors for the roofing, masonry, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, meat processing equipment, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. In Section "B" of its bid, Petitioner listed two subcontractors for the plumbing, mechanical, and controls and instrumentation phases of the project. Listing two subcontractors does not comport with the bid specification requiring that only one subcontractor be listed for each phase. Petitioner listed two subcontractors because one of the subcontractors submitted a proposal to Petitioner only fifteen minutes prior to the time when the bid had to be submitted, and Petitioner was unsure of whether the last-minute proposal included all of the work that the Petitioner anticipated would be required. In addition, Petitioner felt that one of the subcontractors may not have been acceptable to the Respondent. The requirement that bidders list only one subcontractor for each phase of a project helps to discourage "bid shopping." Bid shopping is a practice whereby a contractor who receives a bid from a subcontractor approaches another subcontractor with that bid and encourages the other subcontractor to reduce its price. If the other subcontractor responds, this reduced price can be taken back to the original subcontractor. The original subcontractor is then confronted with the choices of either lowering its bid or losing the project. Bid shopping that occurs after a bid has been accepted by the owner does not benefit the owner. It benefits only the bidder, who is able to reduce its costs and therefore increase its profit. Requiring that one subcontractor be listed for each phase cannot serve to completely eliminate bid shopping. A contractor could still bid shop by listing itself as the subcontractor, then after winning the contract shop between several subcontractors. A contractor could also bid shop by changing subcontractors after the bid award. In either case, however, the contractor would need to secure the approval of the owner. The practice is thus discouraged. If a bidder lists two subcontractors for a phase of the project, that bidder would have an advantage over those who listed only one subcontractor. Listing two subcontractors enables the bidder to make a choice as to the best subcontract bid at a time later than the choice is made by bidders who list only one subcontractor. In addition, listing two subcontractors makes it easier for the bidder to engage in bid shopping, which would be more difficult for bidders who listed only one subcontractor. Paragraph "B-24" of the bid specifications for this project provides in pertinent part: The Contract will be awarded . . . to the lowest qualified bidder pro- vided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. * * * The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality in bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The listing of two subcontractors for phases of the project is not a mere informality in the bid. It is directly contrary to Paragraph "B-15" of the bid specifications. It would not be in the interest of the owner to accept a bid in which two subcontractors are listed for phases of the project. The integrity of the acquisition process would be damaged by allowing such a deviation because a bidder who listed two subcontractors would have gained an advantage over bidders who complied with the bid specifications. It is not in the best interest of the Respondent to waive the defect in the Petitioner's bid. On at least two prior occasions, the Respondent awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor per phase of the work. One of these projects was for a gymnasium at Florida Atlantic University (Project No. BR-603). Another was for a window replacement project at Florida State University (Project No. BR-342). In at least three other projects, the Respondent awarded contracts where the bidder failed to list the name of any subcontractor for one or more phases of the work. These were for the cancer center at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-569), the student housing facility at the University of South Florida (Project No. BR-576), and an expansion project at Florida A & M University (Project No. BR-343). The bid specifications for all of these projects were not offered into evidence; however, the Respondent had utilized the same specifications as required in this project at all pertinent times. Failing to list any subcontractor for a phase of a project constitutes approximately the same defect in a bid response as listing two subcontractors. It provides even greater opportunities for bid shopping and an advantage to the bidder over those who list subcontractors as required by the specifications. In several other projects, it appears that the Respondent has awarded contracts to bidders whose bids contained defects of the same magnitude, but a different sort than the listing of two subcontractors. It does not appear that the Respondent has awarded contracts where bidders have listed more than one subcontractor, no subcontractor, or otherwise violated bid specifications because of any policy or because of any expressed waiver of the defect. Rather, it appears that the Respondent has not adequately policed bids to determine responsiveness to the bid specifications. This is especially true with respect to the listing of subcontractors. It appears that no one on the Respondent's staff took the responsibility to consider whether one subcontractor was listed for each phase of a project as required in the specifications. The only policy that the Respondent established was a policy of being too lax in examining bids. The Petitioner did not list two subcontractors for various phases of this project because of any reliance on past conduct of the Respondent. Petitioner's agent overlooked the bid requirements in Preparing its bid response. In prior bids submitted by the Petitioner in response to bid invitations issued by Respondent, Petitioner listed only one subcontractor, as required. Generally, unless it is otherwise required, Petitioner prefers to list two subcontractors because of the flexibility it provides to the owner and to Petitioner. Petitioner was not aware that Respondent had previously awarded contracts to bidders who listed more than one subcontractor for a phase of the work when it submitted its bid in this instance.
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.
Findings Of Fact Both DOT and Weekley submitted proposed Recommended Orders. Their proposed findings of fact have generally been adopted here but are addressed in detail in Appendix A, attached and incorporated in this Recommended Order. On or before July 31, 1985, DOT received sealed bids from three bidders for State Project Nos. 86070-3492 and 93220-3403, involving landscaping of interchanges in Broward and Palm Beach counties. Marvin's Garden was the apparent low bidder, with a total of $389,112.19 shown on the face sheet of the bid blank form. Weekley was the next lowest bidder with a total of $419,899.56, and P. J. Constructors, Inc., was the highest bidder with a total of $458,805.90. After review of the bid documents for compliance with DOT bid procedures, a discrepancy was found in the Marvin's Garden bid and DOT notified the parties by letter dated August 20, 1985, that Weekley was the apparent low bidder on the project. The discrepancy was found on page 001 of the bid blank form submitted by Marvin's Garden. For item 570-11, "Water for Plant Establishment," under the column, unit price written in words, Marvin's Garden showed "fourteen thousand two hundred eighty two dollars and sixty six cents." The column, unit price in figures, showed "14,282.66," and the final column, headed "amounts" showed "14,282.16." The bid item was supposed to show the unit price for a thousand gallons of water (which price was to be written in both words and figures) and a total, or extension price for 3,743.125 thousand gallons of water. When the unit price on Marvin's Garden's bid was multiplied by 3,743.125 (number of units), the resulting total price for that bid item was $53,461,781.71. This figure was entered on the form in red ink and was initialled by Raymond Patrick Haverty, the DOT reviewer. Marvin's Garden's total bid for the project was then adjusted to $53,836,611.04, a figure far in excess of either Weekley's or P. J. Constructors' bids. Marvin Gross is the individual responsible for preparing and submitting bids for his corporation. He has been doing bid work for DOT for approximately 20 years and is thoroughly familiar with the bid procedures, forms and standard specifications. He attributes the irregularity on his submission to his "tunnel vision." Unit prices are significant because the quantity designated by DOT is merely an approximate, best guess by the Department engineers. For item 570-II, unpredictable weather conditions will ultimately dictate exactly how much water will be necessary to successfully complete the landscape project. That exact quantity times the unit price will be the basis of payment to the contractor. DOT found no violations of bid requirements in the bids of Weekley and P. J. Constructors, Inc., and none have been raised in this proceeding.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, a final order should be issued declaring Weekley the lowest responsible bidder on project Nos. 86070-3492 and 93220-3403, and the contract awarded accordingly. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 2nd day of December 1985. APPENDIX In accordance with Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, the following are recommended rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent and Intervenor in this case. Respondent's Paragraph: Corresponding R. O. Paragraph or basis for rejection: The corporate status and the addresses of the bidders are not material. See Paragraph 1, R.O. See Paragraph 2, R.O. and Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Paragraph 6, R.O. See Paragraph 2, R.O. Intervenor's Paragraph: Corresponding R.O. Paragraph or basis for rejection: See Paragraphs 1 and 2, R.O. Facts which relate to the composition of bid packages are not material. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.O. See Conclusion of law 2, R.O. See Paragraph 3, R.0. See Conclusion of law 5, R.O., relating to the specifications of the department. The remainder of the paragraph proposed is immaterial. See Paragraph 5, R.O. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Marvin Gross, President Marvin's Garden and Landscape Services, Inc. 37 North McIntosh Sarasota, Florida 33582 Mel L. Wilson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry R. Detwiler, Jr., Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Allstate Construction's (Allstate) bid was delivered in time. Whether Florida State University (FSU) had the authority to waive the lateness of Allstate's bid if it was late. Whether the failure by Allstate to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 was a bidding irregularity. Whether Allstate's failure to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 could be waived by FSU.
Findings Of Fact Florida State University requested bids for repairs to the roof and walls of Thagard Student Health Center on July 2, 1992. Thereafter, two addenda were issued. The first addendum was issued on July 27, 1992, and the second on July 28, 1992. Item #1 of Specifications in Addendum No. 1, which is attached, changed the date the bids were to be presented to August 6, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 124-D of Mendenhall Maintenance Building at FSU. Item #1 to Specifications in Addendum No. 2, which is attached, changed the specifications of ringlets and counterflashings published in Item #4 to Specifications in Addendum No. 1; and Item #2 in Addendum No. 2 changed the specifications of the materials in the cants published in the original specifications. On August 6, 1992, representatives of Harrell, Southeast, and FSU were present in Room 124-D, Mendenhall Maintenance Building prior to 2:00 p.m. Harrell and Southeast had already presented their bids to Sallie Dixon, FSU's representative. One of the persons present had called upon Ms. Dixon to call time and open the bids, but she had not done so when Dot Mathews and Joe O'Neil entered the room. Mr. O'Neil announced to those present that Ms. Mathews was late because he had misdirected her to another part of the building when Ms. Mathews's had entered the office he was in, Room 124, and had asked directions. Ms. Mathews immediately handed Allstate's bid to Ms. Dixon, and Ms. Dixon received it. Immediately, Ms. Dixon opened, tabulated, and posted the bids. Allstate had the lowest responsible bid. Allstate's bid did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2. FSU's rules on bidding provide that the official time will be that of the clock in the reception area of the Purchasing Department; however, the opening was held in Mendenhall Maintenance Building because of repairs to the Purchasing Department, and the university's officials were uncertain whether the reception area and clock existed at the time of the opening. It was the clear impression of all present, except Ms. Mathews, that the bid presented by Ms. Mathews was after 2:00 p.m. The estimates of the time varied, but none placed the time beyond 2:04 p.m. FSU generally sent an acknowledgment form with an addendum which required the bidders to acknowledge receipt of the addendum; however, in this instance, the addendum was sent by the supervising engineer, and an acknowledgment form was not sent with the addendum. The specifications did not require acknowledgment of addenda. The essence of the substantial amount of testimony received on the impact of the changes was (1) that the change in thickness of materials had a negligible impact, and (2) the real change in costs was the result of the requirement that the paint finish be by the manufacturer. The requirement that the materials be painted by the manufacturer was part of Addendum No.1. Further, the bidders are deemed manufacturers, and the finish that they put on the manufactured items is "by the manufacturer". Although testimony was received that Petitioner would have manufactured the items and then had them coated thereby increasing their total costs, an alternative method of manufacture was described by Allstate's representative in which the painted raw materials are retouched after being cut and welded into the finished structures. Petitioner's choice of the first method was explained by its representative to be its effort to comply with the bid requirement that the winning contractor guarantee the finish for twenty years. Intervenor's choice was to use the second method. To the extent that one method may have been more expensive that the other, there was no prohibition of the Petitioner to adopt the less expensive method; and, therefore, there was no economic advantage to Allstate. In the absence of an economic advantage to Allstate, Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 was a minor irregularity. FSU waived the lateness of Allstate's bid and Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2, and awarded the bid to Allstate.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed, and the bid be awarded to Allstate Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-5465BID Florida State University and Allstate Construction, Inc. submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Florida State University's Proposed Findings: Para 1-4 Adopted. Para 5-7 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 8 Adopted. Para 9-11 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 12-24 Adopted. Para 25 Not necessary/irrelevant. Allstate Construction's Proposed Findings: Para 1,2 Adopted. Para 3 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 4-8 Adopted. Para 9 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 10-15 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendell Parker Mike Harrell Harrell Roofing, Inc. P.O. Box 20421 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Sonja Mathews Florida State University 540 W. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4038 Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr. 3375-A Capital Circle, N.E. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jeff Miller Route 16, Box 1307 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Dale W. Lick, President Florida State University 211 Westcott Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-1037 Gerold B. Jaski, General Counsel Florida State University 540 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department or HRS) drafted and published an Invitation to Bid (ITB) DCPHU-93-02, inviting bids for laboratory services for the ten medical clinics located in Duval County, Florida. ITB DCPHU-93-02 provided that prospective bidders could submit written questions prior to the bidders' conference and make verbal inquiries at the bidders' conference regarding the terms of the ITB. The ITB provided that "no change, modifications or additions to the bids submitted will be accepted by the Department after the deadline for submitting bids has passed." The ITB provided that any prospective bidder could file a written protest of the provisions of the ITB as outlined in the Item 5 of the General Conditions. See Joint Exhibit 1, Page 13. The ITB provided that the vendor was responsible to develop the bid as clearly and succinctly as possible to avoid misinterpretations of the information presented, and that the bids would be reviewed and evaluated solely on the basis of the information contained therein. The ITB provided that the contract would be awarded to the bidder who satisfied the requirements of the evaluation criteria in Section E and who provided the lowest overall valued bid. The ITB specifically invited the attention of the prospective bidders to Section E of the ITB which contained fatal criteria, i.e., requirements which if the prospective bidders failed to meet would result in the rejection of their bid. Contained in Section E among the various fatal criteria was the specific requirement that bids were to include proof of registration with the Department of State to do business in the State of Florida. Section E, "Bid Evaluation Criteria," provided, "listed below are the minimum requirements (Fatal Criteria) that all bids must satisfy," and that "a bid given a 'no' response to one or more of these requirements will be removed automatically from further consideration." See Joint Exhibit Page 14. The Petitioner did not challenge bid specifications or designation of "proof of registration with the Department of State to do within business in the State of Florida" within 72 hours of receiving the ITB. No bidders provided written questions concerning the meaning of "proof of registration with the Department of State to do business within the State of Florida." Representatives of the Petitioner attended the bidders' conference on August 11, 1993. Although representatives of the Petitioner asked certain questions at the bidders' conference, they did not question the meaning of the term, "proof of registration with the Department of State to do business within the State of Florida." Shortly before the bid opening on August 18, 1993, a representative of the Department emphasized to a representative of the Petitioner the need to fully comply with the Fatal Criteria contained in the ITB. The Petitioner submitted its bid to the Department ten minutes prior to the bid opening scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on August 18, 1993. The bid opening was conducted in public with representatives of the various prospective bidders in attendance. Among those attending were three representatives of the Petitioner. The Department's representative opened four responses which appeared to be, and were, "no bids." The representative then opened SmithKline's bid and reviewed the Intervenor's submittal to determine if it complied with the Fatal Criteria. Upon review, it was determined that SmithKline complied with the Fatal Criteria. SmithKline's bid contained a certification from the Department of State of the State of Florida certifying that SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc., was authorized to transact business in the State of Florida and that it had paid all fees and penalties due the State of Florida through December 31, 1993, filing its most recent annual report on May 1, 1993, and that its status was active. This certificate was dated the 13th day of August 1993 under the seal of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida. The Department's representative next opened the proposal of the Petitioner and evaluated it to determine whether it complied with the Fatal Criteria. This review of the Petitioner's proposal revealed that the Petitioner had not included in its submittal any specific document or paper showing that the Petitioner was registered with the Department of State to do business in the State of Florida. The Petitioner had not filed a certificate of the Secretary of State or a copy of its annual report required to be filed with the Department of State. The Department rejected the Petitioner's bid for failure to comply with the Fatal Criteria concerning proof of registration with the Department of State to do business in the State of Florida. Because of its rejection, the Department did not consider whether the Petitioner's bid complied with any of the remaining Fatal Criteria and did not consider any amount of the Petitioner's bid in considering which of the proposals was the lowest bid. At 4:30 p.m. on August 18, 1993, the Petitioner provided the Department a 1975 certificate from the Secretary of State indicating that the Petitioner was authorized to do business in the State of Florida and a copy of an annual report the Petitioner had submitted to the Secretary of State on March 10, 1993. These were filed too late to cure the fatal defect. The Department also determined that three other bidders, including Consolidated/St. Vincent's failed to comply with Fatal Criteria. Subsequent to its disqualification of Consolidated/St. Vincent's bid, said bidder brought to the Department's attention of the that its proposal included a copy of a corporate report filed with the Secretary of State and dated August 3, 1993. The Department determined that this was sufficient proof that the bidder was registered to do business in the State of Florida with the Secretary of State. On August 25, 1993, the Department awarded to the contract to SmithKline Beecham, Intervenor. On August 28, 1993, the Petitioner formally protested this award. The Petitioner did include in its proposal the following: a sworn statement of public entity crimes; a clinical laboratory certificate of licensure from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the State of Florida; a Federal Health Care and Finance Administration number issued pursuant to Federal law; and a College of American Pathology number.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS: that the Department dismiss the Petition of National Health Laboratories, Inc., and award the contract to the Intervenor, SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 17th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5552BID The Petitioner filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The Intervenor filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The Respondent adopted the findings of the Intervenor. The following states which of the proposed findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why. Intervenor's Recommended Order Proposed Findings Paragraph 1 Adopted in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 Adopted in paragraphs 2 - 9. Paragraph 3 Adopted in paragraph 10. Paragraph 4 Adopted in paragraph 11. Paragraph 5 Adopted in paragraph 12. Paragraph 6 Rejected, argument. Paragraph 7 Adopted in paragraph 13. Paragraph 8 Adopted in paragraph 14. Paragraph 9 Adopted in paragraphs 15, 16 and 20. Paragraph 10 Adopted in paragraph 19. Paragraph 11 Adopted in paragraph 20 and 21. Paragraph 12 Adopted in paragraph 22. Paragraph 13 Adopted in paragraph 23. Paragraph 14-25 Arguments and ultimate findings contained in conclusions of law. Petitioner's Recommended Order Proposed Findings Paragraph 1 Adopted in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2, 3 Rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 4 Adopted in paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 Adopted in paragraph 8. Paragraphs 6-13 Rejected, irrelevant. All argument based upon attack on criteria. Paragraph 14 Adopted in paragraph 13. Paragraph 15, 16 Rejected, irrelevant. Paragraph 17, 18 Adopted in paragraph 13. Paragraphs 19-31 Rejected. See comments to paragraph 6, et seq. above. Also see paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18. Paragraph 32 Adopted in paragraph 23 Paragraph 33-45 See comments to paragraph 19 above. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Panza, Esquire 3081 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Scott D. Leemis, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories Donald E. Hemke, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department of Juvenile Justice's (Respondent) decision to reject all bids is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent and should be rejected.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook own a building located at 205 Gus Hipp Boulevard, Rockledge, Florida. The address for Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook is 1950 Murrell Road, Rockledge, Florida. Petitioner Alan Taylor is an agent for Petitioners Robert and Sara Cook, and assisted the Cooks in the preparation and submittal of their Response to the Department's Request for Proposals for Lease Number: 800:0176-COCOA. Respondent, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, is the state agency that issued the Request for Proposals for Lease Number: 800:0176-COCOA. Intervenor, 11 Riverside Corp., is the bidder to whom the Respondent issued an award letter for the Lease prior to the Respondent's decision to reject all bids. On or about January 12, 1998, the Respondent advertised Request for Proposals ("RFP") for Lease No. 800:0176-COCOA. This was the second RFP issued by the Respondent for the Cocoa Lease. The Respondent did not receive any bids in response to the first RFP. Draft versions of both RFPs were prepared by Respondent's staff. There were only very "minor changes" in the contents of the first and second RFPs, such as revisions to the issuing and advertising dates. The Respondent received proposals from three entities: Robert and Sara Cook, 11 Riverside Corp., and James E. and Jacie Stivers. All three proposals were timely submitted. Respondent's General Services Manager, Fran Lyles, reviewed the three proposals and completed a responsiveness checklist for each proposal. When Ms. Lyles provided the three responsiveness checklists to Ms. Sandy Veal, the checklists for the proposals submitted by the Cooks and 11 Riverside Corp. did not contain any notations that said proposals were non- responsive. Ms. Lyles also informed Ms. Veal that the proposals submitted by the Cooks and 11 Riverside Corp. were responsive. On or about February 19, 1998, Sandy Veal traveled to Cocoa to perform site visits for the two responsive properties. On February 23, 1998, the Respondent issued a written letter of intent to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp. The letter was prepared by Ms. Veal and signed by Ms. Lyles. The Petitioners timely filed a written Notice of Protest with the Respondent on March 2, 1998, in which the Petitioners challenged the Respondent's February 23, 1988, decision to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp. In subsequent correspondent and telephone calls to the Respondent, Petitioners' agent provided a detailed analysis regarding the basis for the Petitioners' Notice of Protest. The primary basis was that the other two proposals were not responsive, and that, as the remaining responsive bidder, the Respondent should award the Lease to the Petitioners. Prior to the deadline for the filing of the Petitioners' Formal Written Bid Protest of the Respondent's February 23, 1988, decision to award the Cocoa Lease to 11 Riverside Corp., the Respondent informed the Petitioners that the Respondent had decided to reject all three proposals that the Respondent had received for the Cocoa Lease. On March 12, 1998, the Respondent provided written notification to the Petitioners that the Respondent had rejected all proposals and would "re issue [sic] at a later date." This date coincided with the deadline for the Petitioners to file their Formal Petition in support of their Notice of Protest pursuant to Florida law. On March 17, 1998, the Petitioners timely filed a second written Notice of Protest with the Respondent, in which the Petitioners challenged the Respondent's March 12 decision. No entity other than the Petitioners timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest. The Respondent's contention that General Services Manager, Fran Lyles, did not review the RFP prior to its issuance is not credible. Ms. Lyles' testimony that she informed Ms. Veal that all three proposals were not responsive prior to Ms. Veal's trip to Cocoa for a site visit is also not credible. Ms. Lyles signed the award letter to 11 Riverside Corp., even though she had allegedly informed Ms. Veal that all three proposals were non-responsive. Ms. Lyles' explanation that she was very busy and simply didn't ask how an award could be made to a bidder that she had determined was non-responsive is also not credible. Ms. Lyles altered the responsiveness determination checklists after the Petitioners filed their Notice of Protest of the Respondent's award to 11 Riverside Corp. Words were added and white-out was used to cover up Ms. Lyles' initial responsiveness determination which was made prior to the filing of the Petitioner's first Notice of Intent. It appears that such alterations were made by Ms. Lyles in an attempt to shift the responsibility for errors made in the bidding process. The sole basis for the Respondent's contention that the proposals submitted by the Petitioners is non-responsive is that the site plan allegedly failed to show parking spaces. The evidence established that the site plan adequately showed the parking spaces, and that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was responsive. The Respondent erroneously determined that the proposal submitted by the Petitioners was non-responsive. The proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. failed to include the public entity crime statement as required by the Respondent's RFP, and also failed to include proof of zoning. The floor plan included in the proposals submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. failed to include the calculations as required by the Respondent's RFP. The proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. also failed to include the documentation necessary to establish bidder control of the property as required by the Respondent's RFP. Any one of the aforementioned flaws in the proposal submitted by 11 Riverside Corp. rendered the proposal non- responsive. The building included in the proposal submitted by James E. and Jacie Stivers failed to provide the square footage calculations and failed to provide a scaled floor plan with square footage calculations, as required by the Respondent's RFP. The proposal submitted by the Stivers consisted of two separate facilities. However, the proposal submitted by the Stivers only included the items required by the Respondent's RFP for one of the two separate facilities. The proposal submitted by the Stivers failed to include a letter of authority from the owners of both facilities as required by the Respondent's RFP. Any one of the aforementioned flaws in the proposal submitted by the Stivers rendered the proposal non-responsive. It is not arbitrary for Respondent to reject all bids if there is only one responsive bidder. The state has discretion to award, or not award, in the event of a single responsive bidder, so long as the basis for the rejection is not improper. Whether such rejection is in the best interests of the state may be based on several criteria to be taken into account by the Respondent. One of the criteria is the absence of competition for state business and the lack of offerings. Rejection of all bids can be premised on an omission from the RFP or change in the Respondent's needs that would affect the ability of the Respondent to perform the duties prescribed by the Respondent. The Respondent provided evidence of the importance of correct specifications in the RFP. The Respondent made a decision before January 1, 1998, to develop new specifications for use in lease RFPs. The new specifications were used in the "Bradenton" RFP (issued after the Cocoa lease). The new specifications in the Bradenton RFP include a three percent cap on increases in the lease rate. This specification was material because it is an important part of the Respondent's budget evaluation. It was the Respondent's intent to use this new specification in the Cocoa RFP. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring proposer to provide copies of licenses of contractors. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification in the part has caused delays in occupancy of the leased space by the Respondent. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring the proposer to provide a construction schedule. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification was deemed by the Respondent to impede the Respondent's ability to assess liquidated damages. The Respondent identified a lease in Sarasota that was negatively affected by the absence of this specification. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification requiring proposer to pay all renovation costs and that there be no outstanding liens on the property. The Respondent intended to use that specification in the Cocoa RFP. The absence of this specification has resulted in liens imposed on office space the Respondent was procuring. Another specification omitted from the Cocoa RFP, that was in the Bradenton RFP, was the specification clarifying whether the proposed space had to be in a single building. The absence of this specification was a concern to the Respondent and has created problems for other state agencies. The Department did not reject all proposals with the intent of avoiding a protest. The terms of the RFP do not specify when or how the Respondent is to notify proposers of the basis for the rejection of all bids. The evidence is insufficient to show that the Respondent's rejecting all proposals was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest or fraudulent.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by Petitioners be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Theriaque, Esquire 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Powell & Mack 803 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
The Issue Whether Respondent's action to reject all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205, relating to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, as alleged in the Amended Petition.
Findings Of Fact On March 4, 2013, the ITB was issued by Respondent for work related to the removal and replacement of the public address system at Countryside High School in Clearwater, Florida. According to the Special Conditions portions of the ITB, the "scope" of the project is to "[p]rovide labor and materials to remove and replace the auditorium sound system as per plans and specifications by Keane Acoustics, Inc." The ITB was assigned bid number 13-803-205 by Respondent. Bids for the contract were to be submitted to Respondent by 3:00 p.m., April 11, 2013. Bids for the project were timely received from two companies. The first company, Becker Communications, Inc., d/b/a BCI Integrated Solutions (BCI), submitted a bid in the amount of $118,143.27. Petitioner submitted a bid in the amount of $108,000.00. There is a section of the ITB titled "special conditions." The special conditions provide in part that "[t]his is an ALL or NONE bid [and] [t]he entire contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications." On April 22, 2013, Respondent posted a notice advising of its intent to award the contract to BCI. Although Petitioner submitted the lowest bid, Respondent determined that Petitioner's bid was non-responsive because the bid failed to include "proof of 5 years [of] experience with this type of work" as required by the special conditions of the ITB. Petitioner interpreted this provision as requiring five years of experience as a certain type of general contractor, which Petitioner had, whereas Respondent intended for the ITB to convey that five years of experience related to the removal and installation of audio equipment was the desired type of experience. Petitioner's failure to respond to the ITB in the manner contemplated by Respondent was a technical, nonmaterial irregularity.1/ Numbered paragraph six of the General Terms & Conditions of the ITB provides in part that Respondent "expressly reserves the right to reject any bid proposal if it determines that the . . . experience of the bidder, compared to work proposed, justifies such rejection." On April 24, 2013, Petitioner provided to Respondent a notice advising of its intent to protest the award of the contract to BCI. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner filed its formal protest challenging Respondent's intended action of awarding the contract to BCI. Petitioner's formal protest enumerated several grounds. Of particular concern to Respondent were Petitioner's assertions that the ITB was "inconsistent with Florida law since bidders [were] not required to submit a List of Subcontractors by the time of opening bid"2/ and that provisions of the ITB were ambiguous with respect to the type of experience required to qualify for bidding.3/ Prior to receiving Petitioner's protest, Respondent was unaware of the fact that its bid specifications governing the disclosure of subcontractors did not comply with Florida law. Upon consideration of Petitioner's grounds for protest, Respondent determined that the ITB, as alleged by Petitioner, failed to comply with section 255.0515, Florida Statutes (2012),4/ and that there was ambiguity in the language regarding the experience requirements for bidders.5/ Respondent refers to the problems with the ITB as "procedural errors." These procedural errors will be referred to herein as "irregularities" as this term is more in keeping with the nomenclature of this area of jurisprudence. Given the ITB's irregularities, Respondent decided to reject all bids. In explaining Respondent's rationale for rejecting all bids, Michael Hewett, Respondent's Director of Maintenance,6/ testified that "the [irregularities] were such that [they] potentially could give an unfair advantage to one bidder over another." As for the issue related to the requirements of section 255.0515, Mr. Hewett explained that neither of the two bidders submitted a listing of subcontractors. It would have been competitively disadvantageous to BCI if Petitioner were able to successfully argue that BCI should be disqualified for failing to provide a listing of subcontractors when Petitioner also failed to provide such listing. During the same approximate time that the ITB in the present case was issued, Respondent issued an ITB for nearly identical work to be performed at one of its other facilities (Palm Harbor). In all material respects, the Palm Harbor ITB was identical to the one at issue herein. Unlike the present case, BCI was the sole bidder for the Palm Harbor project and this distinguishing fact reasonably explains why Respondent did not reject BCI's bid for the Palm Harbor Project even though the ITB therein was plagued with the same irregularities found in the present case.7/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Pinellas County School Board enter a final order finding that the rejection of all bids submitted in response to ITB 13-803-205 was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and dismissing Tamco Electric, Inc.'s instant protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 16th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact On June 7, 1988, the School Board of Broward County, Florida, sent an invitation to several insurance companies to submit bids on student accident insurance, Bid No. 89-1105, by 2:00 p.m. on June 20, 1988. The invitation required the bidding vendor to complete a bid form, attach a specimen policy to the bid form, and return this information to the School Board by the specified date. Joseph Herman Hughes, Jr., received a copy of the Invitation to Bid as the Petitioner's agent. Petitioner through its agent Hughes hand-delivered a bid form and a specimen policy to the Department of Purchasing for the School Board on June 20, 1988, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. When Hughes arrived in Fort Lauderdale on June 20, 1988, he was informed by the Department of Purchasing that the bid opening date had been extended to June 28, 1988. On June 20, 1988, Hughes received a copy of an addendum dated June 14, 1988, which revised page 8 of 14 pages to Bid No. 89- 1105 and page 9 of 14 pages to Bid No. 89-1105. Reliable timely submitted its bid on June 28, 1988. The bids were opened by the Department of Purchasing and Petitioner's bid of $210,820 per year for the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years was the lowest bid that was submitted. The bid specifications stated that a recommendation by the Director of the Department of Risk Management would be posted subsequently. On July 8, 1988, the recommendation of Risk Management was posted. The recommendation letter dated July 6, 1988, stated that the bid for student accident insurance should be awarded to Davis-Gillingham Associates, Inc., which bid $313,514 for the first year and $334,772 for the second year. The recommendation letter also stated that the bid from Reliable had been rejected because Part IV of the Reliable specimen policy included an additional exclusion which altered the specifications of Bid No. 89-110S. Reliable timely filed a protest to the recommendation and, after considering the protest, The School Board rejected it. Hughes was aware of Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions on Page 2 of the Invitation to Bid, which reads as follows: INTERPRETATIONS: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications should be submitted in writing and received by the Department of Purchasing no later than three (3) working days prior to the bid opening. Hughes had questions concerning the interpretation of the conditions and specifications of the bid, but did not follow that provision. Further, he was familiar with Paragraph 14 appearing on Page 4 of 14 entitled "INFORMATION," which reads as follows: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mrs. Sharon Swan, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Department, (305) 765- 6086 who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mrs. Swan nor any employee of the School Board of Broward County is authorized to interpret any portion of the Bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. It is clear that Hughes had from approximately the 9th or 10th of June to the 28th of June to make any written inquiries to Mrs. Swan concerning either an interpretation or information, as provided for on Page 2 in Paragraph 8 of the General Conditions and Page 4 of 14 pages of the Special Conditions, but never did so. The provision entitled "Coverages" subsection "Medical and Hospital Expense Benefits" on Page 8 of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: If the insured, within thirty days following the date of accident, because of injury caused accidently and independently of all other causes, shall require treatment by a licensed physician, the Company will pay, on the basis specified in Paragraphs A through K as follows, the expenses incurred within fifty-two (52) weeks after date of accident for ... Hughes wrote, in the exclusion portion of the specimen policy required to be attached to the bids submitted, Reliable's Paragraph J (1): "Any injury not treated within 30 days by a licensed physician ... after date of accident." The exclusion Hughes wrote specifically means that if a person is not treated within thirty days of the date of the accident there will be no coverage. The wording in the bid specifications does not provide that treatment must be rendered within thirty days; rather, the specification is that the treatment be required within thirty days. The exclusionary provision provided for in Reliable's specimen policy constitutes a significant restriction in coverage from the coverage described in the bid specifications. Therefore, the wording contained in J-1 of the exclusions of the specimen policy submitted by Reliable materially altered the specifications required by the School Board's Invitation to Bid number 89-1105 for student accident insurance. Reliable's bid was properly rejected from consideration in the award of the bid. Paragraph 7 of page 3 of 14 pages, Special Conditions, Bid No. 89- 1105, states as follows: All bids shall be for the benefits as specified in this Bid Document. In the event of any conflict between the terms of these specifications and terms of the Policy issued on a bid submitted under these specifications, it is understood and agreed to by the bidder and the insurance company that the policy is amended to conform with these specifications, unless specifically waived in writing by the School Board of Broward County, Florida. The clear intent of the wording in Paragraph 7 of the Special Conditions provides that if the policy that is issued after the bid is awarded does not conform to the bid, then the effect of Paragraph 7 of the Special Conditions is to automatically reform the policy to be read as though it did comply with the bid. However, all bids must be for the benefits (coverage) specified in the Invitation to Bid. Paragraph 7 of the Special Conditions found on Page 3 of the Invitation to Bid applies, if at all, only after the award of the bid and does not serve to cure defects in bid submissions. Reliable's policy does not conflict with the bid specifications; rather, its bid materially alters the bid specifications. Paragraph 1 of page 3 of 14 pages, Special Conditions, Bid No. 89- 1105, states as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida, desires bids on Student Accident Insurance as specified herein. This aid is to, establish a two (2) year term contract from August 29, 1988 through August 30, 1990 or the day preceding the opening day of school for students in the school year 1990-91. Prices quoted shall remain firm for the two year contract period. Requiring policies to be firm or definite for multiple contract periods is common in the industry. To require prices to remain firm for a 2- year contract period means that the premium for year one and the premium for year two must each remain fixed at the amounts bid for those respective years. The fact that there are different premiums for the two different years does not require a separate policy. The submission by Davis-Gillingham Associates, Inc., was in compliance with that bid specification of the Invitation to Bid as the premium for each coverage year is not required to be identical. Rather, the prices quoted for the two coverage years may not be altered during the contract period.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the bid protest of The Reliable Life Insurance Company and awarding Bid No. 89-1105 to Davis-Gillingham Associates, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of October, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3842BID Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-6, 11, 13-15, 25, 27, 29 and 30 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 8, 16-19, and 22 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issue under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 9, 10 and 20 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Petitioners proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 and 31 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents's proposed findings of fact numbered 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Leary, Superintendent School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 K. Michael Swann, Esquire William M. Rishoi, Esquire 280 West Canton Avenue, Suite 240 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Arthur Hanby, Director School Board of Broward County Purchasing Department 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
