The Issue The Issue in this case is whether the subject bid protest should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On January 22, 1991, Respondent issued Specifications for Replacement of Air Conditioning, Apopka School, Apopka, Florida. The specifications were contained in a spiral-bound book, which contained bidding and contract requirements and technical descriptions of mechanical systems and electrical systems. A set of drawings dated January 22, 1991, accompanied the spiral-bound book. Collectively, these documents constitute the invitation to bid (ITB). 1/ The ITB announced that Respondent would receive bids for the replacement of air conditioning and related systems until February 11, 1991, which evidently was later extended to February 19. The ITB scheduled a pre-bid conference on January 31, 1991. Section A-3.6 of the ITB provides: For clarity of description and as a of comparison, certain equipment, materials, etc., have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base his Proposal on the particular system, equipment or material specified. After the contract is let, other equipment, materials, etc., as manufactured by other manufacturers may be accepted only if, in the opinion of the Engineer, same is equivalent in quality and workmanship and will perform satisfactorily in its intended purpose. Section A-3.8 of the ITB states: Except as provided in Paragraph A3.(3, above each bidder represents that his bid is based upon the materials and equipment described in the [ITB]. Prior approval of substitution of other materials and equipment will be considered if written request is submitted to the Engineer for approval at least twelve days prior to the date for receipt of bids. If the Engineer approves any such proposed substitution, such approval will be set forth in an Addendum and will be forwarded to all bidders . . .. If any bidder is unable to procure written approval of any substitution from the Engineer prior to the opening of bids, he shall base his bid on the Exact items specified; if said bidder wishes to bid substitutes, he must then do so as alternates to the base bid, and so note. Each such alternate submitted shall include a complete description of the proposed substitute, the material or equipment for which it is to be substituted, drawings, cut sheets, performance or test data other data or information necessary for a complete evaluation. If additional information is required by the engineer for a complete evaluation, in his sole judgment, the Contractor shall submit such additional information as required within five (5) days of such notification, or the Alternate will not be considered. Alternates requested on the Bid Proposal Form which are approved for construction will be incorporated into the contract with the successful bidder. Alternates offered by the Bidder may be accepted and incorporated into the contract with the successful bidder. Any Substitutions which are felt by the Bidder to offer significant additional value and advantage to the Owner are encouraged to be submitted as Alternates with the Bid Proposals. Section A-14.1 contains the bid form. The first blanks are reserved for the Base Bid. Alternate #1 is for the installation of a variable air volume system, which permits localized control of air flow and temperature. Alternate #2 is for reciprocating chillers. The remaining alternates are irrelevant to this case. The bid form states that Respondent may "award such alternates that in its judgment will be for the best interest of [Respondent]." Section 1.01 of the General Requirements, which are part of the ITB, describe the work of the contract as Installing "nominal 200 ton air cooled reciprocating chillers" and related equipment. Section 1.03 A. of the Basic Mechanical Requirements, which are part of the ITB, states that the "plans and specifications are a general description of the work to be performed." Sections 2.01 under "Pumps" and "Motor," which are parts of the ITB, list several "acceptable manufactuiers" for pumps and motors. Elsewhere the ITB also lists varibus acceptable manufacturers for different types of equipment. Sometimes, as in the case of motors, the specifications describing the particular item of equipment expressly allow substitutions upon "prior approval of required submittal data by Engineer." Sometimes, as in the case of pumps, the specifications describing the particular item of eguipment are silent as to substitutes. Section 2.01 of Air Cooled Water Chillers, which is part of the ITB, describes "acceptable manufacturers" as follows: Base Bid: Bohn Heat Transfer/Wickes Manufacturing Co., air cooled screw chilled. Alternate Bid: Carrier Corp, air cooled reciprocating chiller. Other Alternates: Only as approved by Engineer. Section 2.02 B. requires that the contractor provide "three (3) nominal 200 ton air cooled water chillers" meeting certain technical specifications not relevant to this case. Section 2.03 A. sets forth requirements for reciprocating chillers, and Section 2.03 B. sets forth requirements for screw chillers. On page M-8 of the drawings included in the ITB, the "air cooled chiller schedule" notes "Bohn" as the manufacturer and provides a model number for the Bohn chiller. The schedule states that the cooling capacity of the chiller is 194.7 tons. The cooling capacity stated in the schedule was intended to describe the cooling capacity of the Bohn model air chiller noted in the schedule. The capacity of a chiller depends upon various factors, including ambient air temperature. Under certain operating conditions, the Bohn chiller noted IA the schedule operates at a 200 ton capacity, and no evidence suggests that this model chiller was not a nominal 200 ton chiller. General Note 13 on page M-7 of the drawings states: This contractor shall base his proposal upon the equipment as scheduled or specified, using the manufacturers and model numbers as called for in the specification and scheduled on the drawings. (Add alternate design is separate). If more than one manufacturer of equipment is specified, any one of the manufacturers of equipment may be used in this contractor's proposal. If this contractor wishes to use equipment not specified he must, at the time of bidding, submit separately on letterhead stationery of the bidder, the equipment he would substitute and the cost to be added or deducted from his proposal. On February 11, 1991, Respondent issued Addendum #2 to the ITB. 2/ Among other things, Addendum #2 adds to Section 2.01 A. of Air Cooled Water Chillers: "ADD Trane Co. Model No. RTAA-200 as an approved Base Bid unit for the air cooled screw chillers. Petitioner picked up the ITB on February 18, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor submitted timely bids by the deadline of February 19. Each bidder was qualified and each bid was responsive. 3/ Petitioner's base bid was $1,539,000. Alternate #1, which was the variable air volume system, added $120,307. Alternate #2, which was the reciprocating chiller, subtracted $41,424. Next to Alternate #2 on the form, Petitioner wrote in, "Carrier." With Alternate #1 only, Petitioner's bid was $1,659,307. Alternate #1 and 2 were $1,617,883. With Alternate #2 only, Petitioner's bid was $1,497,576. Intervenor's base bid was $1,547,300. Alternate #1 added $109,000. Alternate #2 subtracted $25,000. With Alternate #1 only, Intervenor's bid was $1,656,300. Alternate - 1 and 2 were $1,631,300. With Alternate #2 only, Intervenor's bid was $1,522,300. Following review of the bids, Respondent's Engineer sent a letter dated February 25, 1991, to Respondent's director of construction. The letter recommends the acceptance of Alternate #1 because the cost is within Respondent's budget and the benefit of increased comfort is worth the cost. The Engineer's letter also recommends that Alternate #2 (as well as Alternate #3 regarding a certain type of dampers) be rejected. The letter explains: "Discussions with [Respondent's] personnel in the days prior to bid time indicate that the use of these chillers has liabilities attached (principally noise and maintenance requirements) in excess of the savings in first cost. The Engineer's letter concludes that Respondent should award the contract to Intervenor because of its apparent low bid of $1,656,300 on the Base Bid with Alternate #1. The Engineer notes that the award would result in the installation of an "essentially identical system" as that installed in another high school in the district, which would save costs in training and parts inventory. Following Respondent's decision to award the contract to Intervenor, Petitioner timely filed a written protest and formal written protest concerning Respondent's intended decision to award the contract to Intervenor. Although the record is not entirely clear, it does not appear that Petitioner filed, within three days of receipt of the ITB, a written protest of the specifications. A chiller cools water used for air conditioning. An important part of the chiller is the compressor. The reciprocating compressor operates with pistons in a back-and- forth movement. The screw compressor operates with a screw that churns continually in one direction. Reciprocating compressors, which are the older technology, contain more components, including motors, than the screw compressors, which have been available for abort ten years. The life expectancy of the screw compressor is about three to four years longer than that of the reciprocating compressor. Evidently, little data are yet available comparing the life cycle costs of the reciprocating and screw air chillers. Given the mechanical actions and numbers of parts of the compressors, as well as Respondent's experience with, screw compressors, Respondent's projection of lower costs with the screw chiller is not unreasonable. Respondent included the reciprocating chiller alternate in the ITB because of concerns that the project would cost more than Respondent had available to spend. The same motivation prompted the inclusion of Alternate #1 for the variable air volume system. Once the bids were received, Respondent determined that it could afford the enhancements of a screw chiller and variable air volume system and consequently selected the lowest bid for this package.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Orange County School Board enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Lake Plumbing, Inc. ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 5th day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Florida A&M University's intended action to reject all bids and re-advertise the project to construct "Utilities Improvement-Central Chilled Water Plant, Phase V", known as BR-389, is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Neel Mechanical Contracting, Inc., is a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in Florida and licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Its business is air conditioning, and it specializes in larger projects such as the one at issue herein. Robert C. Sullivan is the President of Neel Mechanical. Thomas Gregory Lang is a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical and the chief estimator for Neel Mechanical; Mr. Lang is the person primarily responsible for preparing Neel Mechanical's bid proposal for Project BR-389. The Florida Board of Regents is a corporate body consisting of the Commissioner of Education and thirteen citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by three members of the Cabinet; it is subject to the general supervision and control of the Department of Education. Sections 240.203(2), 240.205, and 240.207(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Board of Regents is a member of the State University System, is charged generally with overseeing the state universities, and has the authority to approve and execute contracts for "construction for use by a university when the contractual obligation exceeds $1 million." Sections 240.209 and 240.205(6), Florida Statutes (1999). 4/ Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University ("FAMU") is a public university located in Tallahassee, Florida, and is one of ten universities in Florida's State University System. Section 240.2011, Florida Statutes (1999). The university president is the chief administrative officer of the university and is responsible for its operation and administration. Section 240.227, Florida Statutes (1999). At the times material to this proceeding, Frederick S. Humphries was president of FAMU, and Samuel J. Houston was the Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. Mr. Houston has primary responsibility for supervising the bid process and the staff that prepared the bid documents and evaluated the bids for Project BR-389. Mr. Houston acts in this capacity on behalf of President Humphries and the Board of Regents. Mr. Houston also is ultimately responsible for the administration of Project BR-389. Bayou Mechanical, Inc. ("Bayou Mechanical") is a mechanical contractor which submitted a bid on Project BR-389. Call for Bids In Volume 25, Number 13, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, dated April 2, 1999, FAMU, on behalf of the Board of Regents, issued a Call for Bids on Project BR-389, which involves construction of a chilled water plant on the FAMU campus. The Call for Bids provided that all bidders must have a valid Florida license to do the work at the time of bid opening and a minimum of five years experience with similar projects. Project BR-389 involves a construction contract and is the fifth phase of the construction of an underground chilled water system on the FAMU campus. The project consists of constructing a portion of the system and connecting it to the existing system. The Call for Bids notified prospective bidders that sealed bids would be received at FAMU on May 4, 1999, until 2:00 p.m., after which time the bids would be opened and the bid tabulations posted. The Call for Bids further provided: "Bids must be submitted in full and in accordance with the requirements of the drawings and Project Manual." The Call for Bids advised that these documents were available at the offices of the Architect/Engineer for the project, Bosek, Gibson & Associates, Inc. ("Bosek, Gibson"), in Tallahassee, Florida. In Addendum #2 to the Project Manual, dated April 30, 1999, the date for submission of bids was changed from May 4, 1999, to May 11, 1999. The Project Manual contains Instructions to Bidders, consisting of pages 6 of 106 through 22 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 23 of 106 through 106 of 106 and dated October 16, 1989; Special Conditions of the Contract, consisting of pages I-1 through I-10 and dated October 16, 1989; Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996; Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5 and identified as the February 1999 Revision; Exhibit L, Supplementary Conditions to the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, consisting of pages 2 through 16; and the Technical Specifications, which are separately identified and numbered. As noted in the Call for Bids, drawings are also included in the bid documents. Neel Mechanical, Bayou Mechanical, and Council Contracting submitted bids for Project BR-389 on May 11, 1999, the date on which the bids were opened and the price proposals were read. According to the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form that was posted from May 14 through 19, 1999, Neel Mechanical was the apparent low bidder on the base bid and on the two alternates 5/; Neel Mechanical's base bid and its bid on alternates were within FAMU's budget for the project. Bayou Mechanical submitted the second lowest bid on the base bid and the alternates; Bayou Mechanical was within the budget on the base bid but over budget on the alternates. No recommended award or intent to award was indicated on the Bid/Proposal Tabulation form. Shortly after the bids were opened, several issues were raised with respect to the bid process. First, the FAMU staff discovered that Neel Mechanical had failed to affix its corporate seal to the signature page of the bid Proposal Form and to the Bid Bond that was part of the bid submission. Second, York International Company ("York") sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, a letter advising FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid. This letter raised the third issue: Of the two manufacturers identified in the project specifications, York and The Trane Company ("Trane"), only Trane manufactured a chiller that could meet the project specifications. Fourth, Mark A. Daughtery, a project manager for Bayou Mechanical, sent a letter dated May 14, 1999, to Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson advising him that Bayou Mechanical intended to file a formal protest on Project BR-389 and identifying two issues of concern to Bayou Mechanical: Neel Mechanical's failure to affix its corporate seal to its bid submission and "the Chiller being sole sourced to Trane Company." Each of these issues is discussed in detail below. Corporate Seal The Instructions to Bidders contained in the Project Manual provide: B-16 Preparation and Submission of Bids Each Proposal shall be submitted on the form contained in the Project Manual and bid prices shall be indicated thereon in proper spaces, for the entire Work and for all Alternates. (See B-8) In the event of a discrepancy in the bid amount on the Proposal between the numeric and written quotes, the written amount will govern. Each Proposal must give the full business address of the Bidder and state whether it is an individual, corporation or partnership. Proposals by a corporation must be signed with the legal name and seal of the corporation followed by the name of the state of its incorporation and the manual signature and designation of an officer, agent or other person authorized to bind the corporation. (Emphasis added.) When it was submitted on May 11, 1999, Neel Mechanical's bid did not include the impression of its corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form signature page or on the Bid Bond submitted as part of the proposal. After the bid opening, an employee of Neel Mechanical received a telephone call from Henry Swift, FAMU's Project Manager for Project BR-389, in which he advised Neel Mechanical that its bid had not been sealed. This conversation was followed by a request from Mr. Swift, sent via facsimile transmittal to Neel Mechanical on May 13, 1999, requesting a "Letter of Clarification which confirms your status as a corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, registered with the Secretary of State, etc. Finally, please be sure to sign and seal your letter with your corporate seal." A letter to Mr. Swift, dated May 14, 1999, was signed and sealed by Robert C. Sullivan, President of Neel Mechanical. The letter was received in FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction on May 19, 1999. Shortly after Mr. Sullivan sent the May 14, 1999, letter, Neel Mechanical received another telephone call from Mr. Swift in which he advised Neel Mechanical that the seal needed to be physically affixed to the bid Proposal Form. Peter Lang, a project manager employed by Neel Mechanical, had business in Tallahassee, so Mr. Sullivan asked that he take the seal to Mr. Swift's office and affix it to the bid Proposal Form. When Peter Lang arrived at Mr. Swift's office, someone brought out the file and gave him the bid Proposal Form, and he affixed Neel Mechanical's corporate seal to the signature page of the form. Neel Mechanical's corporate seal was not affixed to the Bid Bond, although the seal of the surety company was on the Bid Bond when the bid was submitted. The Bid Bond was part of Neel Mechanical’s bid submission. FAMU verified on May 13, 1999, that Neel Mechanical was authorized to do business in Florida and held the requisite Florida license to perform the work required by the project. Centrifugal chiller specifications and York's letter of "intent to protest" Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications included in the Project Manual contains the specifications for the Centrifugal Chillers - Water Cooled to be installed as part of Project BR-389. Those specifications provide in pertinent part: PART 2 - PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS Available Manufacturers: Subject to compliance with requirements, provide centrifugal chillers from one of the following: Trane Co., The York Int'l. UNIT DESCRIPTION: * * * Refrigerant: Chiller shall be provided with low pressure refrigerant HCFC-123. The size of the chiller specified for Project BR-389 was 2200 tons. 6/ Lane Jackins is the owner of Applied Mechanical Equipment and is a manufacturer's representative for York. He reviewed the technical specifications for the chiller contained in Part II of Section 15685-1 of the Technical Specifications for Project BR-389 and determined that York could not furnish a chiller that met the specifications. York does not manufacture a chiller of 2200 tons that uses R123 refrigerant, although it uses R123 refrigerant in smaller machines up to 750 tons. The equipment manufactured by York in the 2,000-ton range uses R134A refrigerant, which operates at different pressures than R123. The York equipment using R134A refrigerant is of an entirely different design than that using R123 refrigerant. In addition, York does not manufacture a chiller with the voltage required by the project specifications. Three or four days before the bids were to be submitted, either Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Lang spoke with Mr. Jackins about York's providing Neel Mechanical with a price for the chiller. Mr. Jackins responded that York would not submit a price for the equipment because York did not manufacture a chiller that would meet the technical specifications included in the bid documents. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: B-12 Basis for Bidding - Trade Names For clarity of description and as a standard of comparison, certain equipment and materials have been specified by trade names or manufacturers. To insure a uniform basis for bidding, the Bidder shall base the Proposal on the particular systems, equipment or materials specified and approved substitutes as provided in Paragraph 3.19, Substitutes, of the General Conditions. After bids are received, no equipment or materials will be approved as a substitute for the specified product. Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions provides: Substitutions Substitutions for a specified system, product or material may be requested of the Architect/Engineer, and the Architect/Engineer's written approval must be issued as an addendum before substitutions will be allowed. All requests for substitutions must be submitted prior to the opening of bids, and approvals shall be granted no less than seven (7) days prior to the bid date. Substitutions requested after that date will receive no consideration. Substitutions are changes in materials, equipment, methods, or sequences of construction, design, structural systems, mechanical, electrical, air conditioning controls, or other requirements of the Drawings or Specifications. (Emphasis in original.) In the portion dealing with "SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS," Section 15010 of the Technical Requirements, "MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS," provides as follows: By submitting a bid for equipment or material other than the "Design Basis Equipment" (i.e., that which is shown on the Contract Drawings), the Contractor: Represents that he has personally investigated the proposed substitute product and determined that it is equal or superior in all respects to that specified and complies with all the requirements set forth in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions; Certifies that the cost data presented is complete and includes all related costs under this Contract but excludes costs under separate contracts, and excludes the Engineer's redesign costs, and waives all claims for additional costs related to the substitution which subsequently become apparent; Will coordinate the installation of the accepted substitute, making such changes as may be required for the work to be complete in all respects; and, Certifies that the proposed equipment meets the requirements of the Contract Documents. Neither York nor any prospective bidder on Project BR-389 requested within the time limits specified in Paragraph 3.19 of the General Conditions that a York product be substituted for the chiller specified for Project BR-389. Mr. Lang contacted Craig Allen at Bosek, Gibson a day or two before bids were to be submitted and told Mr. Allen that York was not able to provide a chiller that met the project specifications. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen responded that he "was totally surprised that they [York] didn't have a machine that was going to meet this spec." 7/ Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on pricing information it received from Trane, which manufactures a chiller that meets the project specifications. An additional reason Mr. Lang based Neel Mechanical's bid on the Trane equipment was his belief that, all things being equal, FAMU preferred to have Trane equipment installed in Project BR-389 because other chillers installed at FAMU were manufactured by Trane. Mr. Lang believed that the specifications for the chiller had been deliberately drawn to require use of Trane equipment. In a letter dated May 11, 1999, the day the bids for Project BR-389 were submitted and opened, Mr. Jackins notified FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction that York intended to protest the bid on Project BR-389. Mr. Jackins stated in the letter: The chiller as specified is a flat specification. There is only one manufacturer that will meet the criteria as spelled out in the contract documents. This is not in the best interest of the University System of Florida or the State of Florida. An official protest outlining all the proprietary items will be forthcoming. The letter was sent via facsimile on May 11, 1999, prior to the time the bids were opened. Mr. Jackins believed that the "flat specification" was not in the best interest of the university because it precluded competitive pricing for the chiller. Mr. Sullivan learned on May 11 or May 12, 1999, that York intended to file a bid protest. Believing that Neel Mechanical would be awarded the contract as the apparent low bidder, Mr. Sullivan met with Mr. Jackins and several employees of Neel Mechanical, including Greg Lang, at which time Mr. Sullivan proposed an alternative to York's filing a bid protest. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Jackins that, in his opinion, the situation could best be handled through a meeting between Neel Mechanical, Mr. Jackins, Mr. Houston, and the project engineers. According to Mr. Sullivan's plan, Mr. Jackins could present York's pricing, and FAMU, with the engineers’ assistance, could decide if they wanted to switch from the equipment specified in the bid documents to York equipment. If FAMU agreed to accept the York equipment, then, if it were awarded the contract, Neel Mechanical would purchase the York equipment rather than the Trane equipment Neel Mechanical had included in its proposal. After some discussion, Mr. Jackins agreed with Mr. Sullivan's proposed solution. Post-bid activity from the perspective of Neel Mechanical Immediately after the bids were opened, Craig Allen, an employee of Bosek, Gibson telephoned Mr. Lang and asked if Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Allen stated that "this is a standard practice of mine on bid day to call the apparent low bidder and just make sure that they haven't found some colossal error in their math or whatever that made them low." 8/ Mr. Lang told Mr. Allen that Neel Mechanical was still happy with its bid. After this conversation, Mr. Lang waited for the letter from FAMU awarding the contract to Neel Mechanical. He was not concerned that the award was not made immediately because, in his experience, some time always passed between bid opening and the time the winning bidder received the contract. However, in anticipation of the award of the contract, Neel Mechanical proceeded to talk with subcontractors, to start scheduling the project, and to line up equipment that it would need to purchase for work on the project. Neel Mechanical employees also made several visits to the site of the project. At some point after the bids were opened, Mr. Sullivan heard that the procurement officials at FAMU were discussing with FAMU's legal department the issues of Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal to its bid and the ramifications of York’s threatened bid protest. Mr. Sullivan responded by telephoning the office of FAMU's general counsel. He spoke with Faye Boyce about these issues and told her that he considered his failure to affix the corporate seal to Neel Mechanical's bid to be insignificant. He also advised her that he had worked out an arrangement with the representative of York whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would talk with the engineers about the York chiller so a decision could be made whether they wanted to use the York equipment or stay with the Trane equipment which met the project specifications. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Ms. Boyce, Mr. Sullivan received the impression that she had looked into the issues he had raised in their previous telephone conversation. Mr. Sullivan could not recall Ms. Boyce's exact words, but had the impression from their conversation that the contract award to Neel Mechanical had been approved and that confirmation would be sent out shortly. At some point after Mr. Sullivan's conversation with Ms. Boyce, Greg Lang telephoned Henry Swift to find out the status of the contract award. Mr. Swift told Mr. Lang that, in Mr. Lang's words, "the problem had been reviewed and found to be insignificant, and . . . that the letter of intent to award had already been made." 9/ According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift told him that FAMU would notify the bidders of the intent to award the contract to Neel Mechanical. On the basis of this conversation, Mr. Lang believed that Neel Mechanical would receive a letter "just any day." When Neel Mechanical did not receive a letter, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Swift again. According to Mr. Lang, Mr. Swift stated that he did not know why the matter was being held up. After this second conversation with Mr. Swift, Mr. Lang telephoned Mr. Houston several times but did not receive a return call. Mr. Lang then wrote a letter to Mr. Houston, dated July 9, 1999, in which he inquired about the status of the contract award: It has now been almost two months since you received bids for this project, and as the low bidder we have still not received notification of your intent to award. We have had several telephone conversations with the attorney representing the regents in this matter, and we were lead [sic] to believe that we would have received information before this time. Please review this matter and call us. If there are outstanding issues which concern you, we would like to know about them and work with you to get them resolved. Post-bid activity from the perspective of FAMU Mr. Houston and members of his staff considered the omission of the corporate seal to be a minor deficiency in Neel Mechanical's bid proposal. Nonetheless, even though Neel Mechanical had been allowed to seal the bid Proposal Form, Mr. Houston asked FAMU's Office of General Counsel to conduct research and determine if the deficiency was one that could be waived. Mr. Houston was not involved in drawing up the technical specifications for Project BR-389; rather, he relied on the project engineers to be familiar with the products to be used in the project. Mr. Houston advised the project engineers that he wanted a competitive bid, and, because the chiller was a major component of the project, he instructed the engineers to prepare specifications that could be met by equipment produced by at least two manufacturers. In a letter dated May 18, 1999, Craig Allen, the engineer at Bosek, Gibson who prepared the specifications for Project BR-389, notified Mr. Houston that he was not aware until the "notice of protest" was received from York that York could not provide a chiller of the required capacity which used R123 refrigerant. Mr. Allen advised Mr. Houston that Mr. Jackins, the York representative, had indicated that he wanted to meet with Mr. Allen to discuss York's chiller selections for the project. A recommendation that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical was signed on June 8, 1999, by Phyllis Nottage, the Assistant Director of FAMU's Office of Facilities Planning and Construction; on June 10, 1999, by Mr. Houston; on June 14, 1999, by Louis Murray, an Associate Vice President of FAMU; and on June 14, 1999, by Robert Carroll, a Vice President of FAMU with supervisory authority over the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction. The recommendation was contained in a document entitled "Award of Construction Contract," which provided as follows: On May 11, 1999, bids were received for the above-referenced project within the approved budget for the Base Bid and Alternates One (1) through (2), in the total amount of $3,996,400. The requirements for the Minority Business Enterprise Plan as set forth in the project specifications have been satisfied by the Contractor. The consulting Architect/Engineer and the University Facilities Planning and Construction Office recommend the award of this contract to Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc. President Humphries signed the Award of Construction Contract on June 17, 1999. The preparation and signing of the Award of Contract form and the preparation of the Letter of Intended Decision were part of the bid review process, but Mr. Houston considered them preliminary, without effect until the final decision on the contract award was made and the bidders were formally advised of FAMU's intended decision with respect to the award of the contract. On June 21, 1999, Mr. Houston received a telephone call from Kenneth Ogletree, Director of the Board of Regents’ Office of Facilities Planning, 10/ in which Mr. Houston was advised that the Board of Regents had received an inquiry from a legislator in reference to Project BR-389 and requesting that Mr. Houston prepare a response to the legislator's inquiry. Mr. Ogletree sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Carey Huff, President of Bayou Mechanical, to Durell Peaden, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and a State Representative from District In the letter, Mr. Huff complained that Neel Mechanical, although apparent low bidder for Project BR-389, had failed to seal the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond and that, therefore, Neel Mechanical's bid was non-responsive. Mr. Carey requested that Representative Peaden contact FAMU so that Bayou Mechanical would be awarded the contract for the project as lowest responsive bidder. Mr. Carey stated in his May 28, 1999, letter to Representative Peaden that the college had refused to allow Bayou Mechanical to examine Neel Mechanical's bid but that Mr. Houston had informed them that Neel Mechanical had failed to seal its bid properly. 11/ Mr. Ogletree also sent Mr. Houston, via facsimile on June 21, 1999, a copy of a letter from Representative Peaden to Dr. Adam W. Herbert, Chancellor of the State University System. In his letter, Representative Peaden asked that Dr. Herbert look into the matter and "see that all equity was followed in the bid process." In response to the Board of Regents' request that he respond to Representative Peaden's inquiry, Mr. Houston prepared a letter dated June 22, 1999. In this letter, which was directed to Mr. Ogletree, Mr. Houston stated that FAMU wished to award the contract for Project BR-389 to Neel Mechanical as the low bidder on the project. Mr. Houston stated that FAMU considered Neel Mechanical's failure to affix the corporate seal on the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond to be a minor discrepancy. Mr. Houston further stated that FAMU's Office of General Counsel agreed with the conclusion regarding the corporate seal issue and recommended that the contract be awarded to Neel Mechanical. Finally, Mr. Houston advised Mr. Ogletree that President Humphries had signed the "Award of Construction Contract" form and that Mr. Houston's office was preparing "Letters of Intended Decision" to be sent to the bidders. The final decision on the contract award had not been made on June 10, 1999, when Mr. Houston signed the recommendation that the contract for Project BR-389 be awarded to Neel Mechanical, nor had it been made on June 22, 1999, when Mr. Houston wrote his letter to Mr. Ogletree. Rather, on June 22, 1999, the issues raised with respect to the bid process for Project BR-389 were still being reviewed by Mr. Houston and his staff and by FAMU's Office of General Counsel. The decision to reject all bids on Project BR-389 was made on June 24, 1999. On that date, Mr. Houston met with Vice President Murray, FAMU's attorney, and the Assistant Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction, and the issues relating to the bidding process for Project BR-389 were reviewed. Mr. Houston identified these issues as Neel Mechanical's failure to seal its bid Proposal Form and its Bid Bond; potential protests from York and from Bayou Mechanical; and the problem relating to the technical specifications for the chiller. Of these issues, Mr. Houston considered the most serious the fact that, of the two manufacturers listed in the bid specifications, only Trane could provide the chiller for Project BR-389. The chiller was a major part of the project, and Mr. Houston wanted at least two sources for the chiller in order to encourage competition so that FAMU would get the lowest possible price for the project. Mr. Houston was also concerned that the specifications for the chiller created a de facto "sole source" bid and that the bid solicitation would, therefore, be illegal because FAMU didn't satisfy the statutory requirements necessary for it to specify that the chiller be purchased from a sole source. 12/ FAMU's attorney advised the participants at the June 24, 1999, meeting that the legal department had found no precedent within the State University System for waiving the requirement in the bid documents that the bid Proposal Form and the Bid Bond be sealed with the bidder's corporate seal. The participants at the meeting considered all of the outstanding issues and decided that it would be in the best interests of FAMU to reject all bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. After the decision to reject all bids was made, Mr. Houston marked an "X" through the Award of Construction Contract form signed by President Humphries, and he prepared letters notifying the bidders of the intent to reject all bids for Project BR-389. Neel Mechanical's bid protest In a letter to Neel Mechanical dated July 6, 1999, Mr. Houston stated: Bids on the above referenced project were opened May 11, 1999. However, we regret to inform you that all Bids have been rejected as in the best interest of the University. This project is presently being re-advertised in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The University apologizes for the time it has taken to reach this decision. We trust that you will cooperate with our course of action and look forward to receiving a proposal from you at the next opening. Thanks for your continued interest in the State University System's Construction Program. The envelope containing Mr. Houston's July 6, 1999, letter was post-marked July 9, 1999, and the letter was received by Neel Mechanical on Tuesday, July 13, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual provide: Rejection of Bids The Owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids when in the opinion of the Owner such rejection is in the best interest of the Owner. Paragraph B-1 of the Instructions to Bidders provides that the Board of Regents is the owner of the project. On July 13, 1999, after Neel Mechanical received the letter from Mr. Houston notifying it that all bids on Project BR- 389 had been rejected, Mr. Sullivan and Greg Lang went to Mr. Houston's office to urge him to rescind the decision and award the contract to Neel Mechanical. Mr. Sullivan told Mr. Houston that they felt that the issue regarding the corporate seal was insignificant. At this time, Mr. Sullivan also told Mr. Houston that he and York had reached an agreement whereby York would withdraw its protest and Neel Mechanical would present the York product to the University and let the University decide if it wanted to go with the Trane chiller or switch to a York product. Mr. Sullivan thought that Mr. Houston was sympathetic to Neel Mechanical but that the decision had been made by the administration and the legal department. Mr. Sullivan also got the impression that the decision to reject all bids was based on the corporate seal issue. On July 13, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Notice of Intent to Protest Bid to Samuel J. Houston, Director of the Office of Facilities Planning and Construction at Florida A&M University and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. There is no dispute that the Notice of Intent to Protest Bid was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 13, 1999. On July 23, 1999, Neel Mechanical hand-delivered its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings to Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32307 and to FAMU's Office of General Counsel. Also on July 23, 1999, a copy of the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was sent by United States Mail to the Board of Regents, Office of General Counsel, 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1454, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950. There is no dispute that the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings was actually received in Mr. Houston's office on July 23, 1999. The Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual dated October 16, 1989, provide: Bid Protest To be considered, a bid protest must be received by the Director, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1601 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, as provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. Failure to file a notice of protest in this manner shall constitute a waiver of the Bidder's right to proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. * * * B-26 Special Conditions Bidders shall be thoroughly familiar with the Special Conditions and their requirements. (Emphasis added.) Supplement J to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 11 and dated February 13, 1996, provides in pertinent part: (This supplement revises portions of the Project Manual for State University System projects dated October 16, 1989, and supersedes any other previously issued supplements related to the referenced topics.) Revise the Instructions to Bidders Section of the Project Manual as Follows: * * * Revise Paragraph B-22, Bid Protest, to read as follows: B-22 Bid Protest Any person who is affected adversely by the Board of Regents decision or intended decision shall file with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and State legal holidays, after receipt of the bidding documents if the protest is directed toward the bidding conditions or after the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision on contract award or bid rejection if the protest is directed toward contract award or bid rejection. Thereafter, a formal written protest by petition in compliance with Section 120.53(5), and Section 120.57, F.S., must be filed with the Associate Vice Chancellor, Capital Programs, Florida Board of Regents, 1602 Florida Education Center, 325 West Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1950, within ten (10) days after the date the notice of protest was filed. Failure to file a timely notice of protest of [sic] failure to file a timely formal written protest petition shall constitute a waiver of protest proceedings. Any protest filed prior to receipt of the notice of the Board of Regents decision or intended decision will be considered abandoned unless renewed within the time limit provided for protests. (Emphasis added.) Supplement K to the Project Manual, consisting of pages 1 through 5, provides in pertinent part: SUPPLEMENT TO PROJECT MANUAL ISSUED BY FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING PARAGRAPH B-26, SPECIAL CONDITIONS (February 1999 Revision) B-26 SPECIAL CONDITIONS - This supplement modifies paragraph B-26 by adding and clarifying bidding requirements and instructions. * * * PROTEST PROCEDURES: This paragraph supersedes the paragraph (No. B-22) under the general terms and conditions whereby the notice of intended protests or written formal protests including bonding requirements from bidders must be submitted to: Mr. Sam Houston, Director, Florida A&M University, Facilities Planning Department, Plant Operations Facility, Building A, Room 100, 2400 Wahnish Way, Tallahassee, FL 32307. A bid tabulation with the recommended award(s) will be posted at the address indicated in Paragraph B-26, sub- paragraph 6 (Posting of Bid Tabulation). Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the award or intended award which is filed before the bid tabulation posting is null and void. To be considered, a notice of protest or formal written protest must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to the specifications issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Any notice of protest or formal written protest to any amendment issued by the University must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (Emphasis added.) The instructions regarding the filing of bid protests in Supplement K supersede the instructions in Supplement J, which is dated February 13, 1996, and in the Instructions to Bidders in the Project Manual, which are dated October 16, 1989. Summary The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is sufficient to establish that it timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest and its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings by hand-delivering the documents to Mr. Houston, at his office on the FAMU campus. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that FAMU acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in deciding that it was in the best interest of FAMU to reject all of the bids submitted on May 11, 1999, for Project BR-389. First, FAMU's concerns that, by inadvertently including a technical specification that could be met by only one manufacturer, it had limited competition with respect to the chiller to be used in Project BR-389 and had inadvertently put out an illegal "sole source" specification were legitimate concerns. Mr. Houston instructed the engineer who prepared the technical specifications that he wanted the specifications drawn so that at least two manufacturers could provide the product, and the engineer prepared specifications relating to the "available manufacturers" which clearly contemplated that a chiller meeting the technical specifications could be provided by both York and Trane. FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered as one factor underlying the decision to reject all bids the lack of precedent in the State University System for waiving the requirement that the bid Proposal Form and Bid Bond carry the corporate seal of a corporate bidder. The evidence submitted by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the corporate seal issue was ultimately the only or even the major factor on which FAMU's decision to reject all bids was based. Mr. Houston identified the possibility that bid protests would be filed by York and by Bayou Mechanical as factors which FAMU considered in deciding to reject all bids. Nonetheless, the evidence taken as a whole permits the inference that the focus of the concern about the potential bid protests was not on avoiding the protests but on the validity of the issues raised by York and Bayou Mechanical. Accordingly, FAMU did not act arbitrarily when it considered these potential bid protests as one factor contributing to the decision to reject all bids. The evidence presented by Neel Mechanical is not sufficient to establish that the "Award of Contract" form executed by President Humphries on June 17, 1999, or Mr. Houston’s June 22, 1999, letter to Mr. Ogletree bound FAMU to award the contract to Neel Mechanical or that the subsequent decision to reject all bids defeated the purpose of the competitive bidding process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University enter a final order dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed by Neel Mechanical Contractors, Inc., and denying Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Neel Mechanical's Motion for Assessment of Attorney's Fees, insofar as it is based on the provisions of Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment action with regard to Petitioner Billy J. Ford.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ford is an African-American living in Panama City, Florida. He was born on December 22, 1967. Hanson Pipe is a company that manufactures pre-cast concrete pipe and other structures. It has its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Some of these pipes and structures manufactured by Hanson Pipes are fabricated for purchase by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). Hanson Pipe's Panama City Plant is in the company's eastern region. Hanson Pipe has a total of 61 plants and has 3,500 employees in its eastern region. The plant in Panama City at which Mr. Ford worked during times pertinent, which eventually became a Hanson Pipe facility, was acquired from WPC of Florida, Inc. (WPC) by Hanson Pipe, on July 17, 2004. The principal of WPC was George Wright (Mr. Wright). The plant manager, during times pertinent, was Michael Bascetta, a white person. His assistant was Renwick Chisolm, an African-American. Mr. Ford's first job with WPC was operating a forklift. He would receive printed directions and would load products onto trucks in accordance with those directions. Mr. Wright eventually promoted Mr. Ford to yard foreman. As such, he supervised four people and checked newly manufactured structures and turned in paperwork at the end of the work day. Subsequently he was promoted to Quality Control Technician. As Quality Control Technician (QC Technician), Mr. Ford would ensure that designated standards were met, including standards required by DOT. However, the stamp denoting acceptability would have to be applied by Gracie Dowdy or Terry Pittinger because they were certified quality control technicians, and Mr. Ford was not. When Hanson Pipe took over the WPC's Panama City plant, procedures remained largely unchanged, although some employees noticed that Hanson Pipe was more "strict." One procedure that was changed was the quality control procedure. Hanson Pipe recognized that only American Concrete Institute certified persons could sign off on product quality when the product was destined for DOT use and believed that the method used by WPC did not conform to DOT requirements. Hanson Pipe understood that the failure to comply with state-mandated procedures could result in DOT's District Materials Office withdrawing the plant from the list of qualified plants. This would result in the refusal of DOT to purchase their product. DOT publishes a Materials Manual that sets forth requirements for contractors selling materials to it. Section 6.3.7.2(D) of the DOT Materials Manual requires plants such as the Hanson Pipe plant in Panama City to have enough quality control technicians to "maintain adequate inspection and testing during the production of structures for Department projects." DOT requires that these technicians be certified as American Concrete Institute (ACI) Field Testing Technician, Grade I. DOT requires that all product bought by them have an approval stamp affixed by the ACI-certified technician who inspects the product. In order to adequately comply with this requirement, Hanson Pipe, through plant manager Bascetta, informed Mr. Ford that he would have to pass the ACI examination so that he could become certified. Although Mr. Bascetta was the person who informed Mr. Ford of this, the decision was made by Dana Butterfield, the Quality Control Manager for 20 Hanson Pipe facilities. Mr. Butterfield's office is in Green Cove Springs, Florida. There was no evidence adduced that indicated Mr. Butterfield was aware of Mr. Ford's race. Mr. Ford was given books to help him prepare for the examination and time to study them. Hanson Pipe paid for Mr. Ford's travel to Orlando to take the test, his testing fees, and his hotel expenses. He took the test September 11, 2004, but did not pass it. Hanson pipe paid Mr. Ford's expenses to take the test a second time on November 6, 2004, but he failed it again. When Mr. Butterfield learned on December 6, 2004, that Mr. Ford had failed the test yet again, he told Mr. Bascetta that Mr. Ford was no longer qualified to be quality control technician. Mr. Bascetta, not wishing to discharge Mr. Ford, offered him a position as a forklift driver at a salary of $10.56 per hour. Mr. Ford accepted this reduction from his former $13 per hour. Mr. Bascetta designated Montie Foster, a white employee, as quality control technician. He was informed that he would have to take and pass the ACI certification examination as a condition of holding that position. Mr. Foster took the examination twice, failed it twice, and resigned. Justin Perky was thereafter hired. He took the examination and passed it. He therefore was able to continue in the position of quality control technician. Mr. Ford believed his demotion represented a form of discrimination and harassment, and his attitude began to deteriorate as is demonstrated by the events related hereinafter. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Ford called Webber Ferguson, Hanson Pipes's Employee Relations Manager, on the telephone. Mr. Ferguson works in Hanson Pipe's Charlotte, North Carolina office. Mr. Ferguson provides employee relation support for 61 Hanson Pipe plants in the eastern United States. Mr. Ford complained about his demotion and asserted that Mr. Bascetta was mistreating him. He also alleged that he was a victim of discrimination. In response, Mr. Ferguson went to the plant and conducted an investigation. He interviewed Mr. Hanson, Mr. Bascetta, and some of the minority employees. He found no evidence of discrimination. He did not generate a written report because there was insufficient evidence adduced indicating discrimination or mistreatment of employees. Mr. Ford had some unexcused absences and on January 10, 2005, was "written up" for failure to appear for work on a Saturday as he had agreed to do. He responded to this by threatening to call Hanson Pipe's Human Resources Department. On March 21, 2005, Roy Myers was terminated from his job with Hanson Pipe. Mr. Myers bore the working title, "yard foreman," but he was paid the same as Mr. Ford. There was no job description for "yard foreman," and in fact, no job description for any position in Hanson Pipe. Mr. Ford wanted to be the "yard foreman," but Mr. Bascetta did not need a position like that and therefore did not move Mr. Ford into what was a nonexistent position. Mr. Ford believes this was a manifestation of prejudice. On April 27, 2005, Mr. Ford requested a training topic outline he had signed earlier in the day. By the time Mr. Bascetta took the time to obtain it, he was informed that Mr. Ford had departed the plant. On April 29, 2005, Mr. Bascetta was informed by several employees that Mr. Ford had turned in his uniforms. He did not inform management that he was terminating his employment and indicated to someone that he would return Monday, May 2, 2005. In fact, he never returned. On May 2, 2005, he called the plant office to announce that he had quit. No evidence was adduced that would indicate that Mr. Bascetta is prejudiced toward African-Americans. To the contrary, Mr. Ford said, "I couldn't really say" that Mr. Bascetta was prejudiced. Mr. Ford and other employees would have breakfast with Mr. Bascetta from time to time. Mr. Ford was invited to Mr. Bascetta 's home for a barbeque on one occasion. In the fall of 2005, Mr. Bascetta left Hanson Pipe and opened his own pre-cast concrete operation in Freeport, Florida. He employed Mr. Chisolm as his plant manager. It is unlikely that Mr. Bascetta would seek out and hire an African-American as his plant manager, if he were prejudiced.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Mr. Billy J. Ford's Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Amended Employment Complaint of Discrimination be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Billy J. Ford 4028 Charles Circle Pace, Florida 32571 Ganesh Chatani, Esquire Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry Girley Qualified Representative 1350 Vickers Lake Drive Ocoee, Florida 34761 Kevin D. Zwetsch, Esquire Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A. Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33602 Heather N. Jarrell, Esquire Fowler White Boggs Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The College realized that it needed a new telecommunication system about three years ago, when it began to renovate some of its buildings. On June 8, 1992, the College issued an Invitation To Bid, No. 3656, to eight vendors to replace its fifteen-year-old AT&T Dimension Private Branch Exchange (PBX) System and install a voice and data communications network among the College's four campuses. The bids were to be opened at 2:30 p.m. on July 29, 1992. The College believed replacement of the existing PBX system would result in lower operating costs, permit the system to serve more functions and permit the system to expand as the College's needs grew. Two vendors, NEC and AT & T, submitted bids. The College already has gone through two prior bids for the new PBX system, which did not result in contracts with any of the bidders. AT&T had submitted a bid in response to each of those attempts to let a contract for replacement of the College's communications system. The process of developing the bid specifications was initiated by the College's Vice President for Business Affairs, Dr. Clinton Hamilton, who asked those who would be using the communications system (the Registrar, the Learning Resources Department, the Provost, and others) to explain their needs so they could be incorporated in the new system. He also asked College employees familiar with information systems and telecommunication systems to help draft the bid documents to incorporate the functions the users desired. The College received assistance from a committee made up of representatives of the State's Department of General Services, Division of Communications; the State Department of Education; Miami Dade Community College; Nova University; and the School Board of Broward County. These groups reviewed the proposed bid specifications before each of the College's three attempts to let a contract and advised the College on them. The College made a careful effort to craft its specifications to ensure it would purchase the most appropriate communications system for its needs. The College currently has separate and independent voice and data communications systems. For data, each of the College's locations (South campus, Central campus, North campus and the College's administrative center in Fort Lauderdale) use more than one data circuit (AT&T Exhibit 5; Bid page D-1). For example, the eight controllers at the South campus are connected to the Fort Lauderdale Center by a pair of data circuits. The 15 controllers at the Central campus are linked to the Fort Lauderdale Center by four data circuits. If the controllers associated with one data circuit should go down for some reason, those connected to the other data circuits at campus will continue to operate, and the campus will only suffer "partial paralysis." The bid at issue seeks a single "voice and data T-1 network" to link each of the campuses to Fort Lauderdale Center in a unified system, which eliminates the need for separate voice and data systems. The new system is designed so that controllers at each campus will communicate with the mainframe computer at Fort Lauderdale Center through T-1 trunk lines, the same lines connecting the voice telephone system at each campus. Each campus will have its own PBX system, and the T-1 lines will allow users at each campus to place telephone calls to extensions at all campuses internally, i.e., without leaving the College's own network. They can also use the local Southern Bell network to place calls if all internal lines are in use, just as the Southern Bell network is used to place calls to numbers outside the College's campuses. Connection of the voice system (the PBX equipment) and data terminals at each of the College's three campuses to the Fort Lauderdale Center requires the use of multiplexors, devices which improve efficiency in networks by concentrating and combining signals and switching them over connecting links (i.e., the T-1 circuits) to other locations or devices. The bid solicitation document requires a multiplexor known as a "40- Series" multiplexor at each campus to perform the concentrating and combining role. The bid solicitation document also specifies a single multiplexor of a more complex type, a "45-Series" multiplexor, at the Fort Lauderdale Center. This multiplexor performs the switching function to redirect signals from one location to another. The bid solicitation document instructs bidders to supply a Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a type of software to operate the hardware components. Comsphere is manufactured by a wholly owned subsidiary of AT & T, known as "AT&T Paradyne." This software manages the entire network, and allows remote troubleshooting of any problems on the network, Comsphere's system can automatically dial out to the AT&T Paradyne Center in Largo, Florida, so that a technician can investigate and often solve problems without the need to send anyone to a campus to perform maintenance. On July 7, 1992, the College held a bidders conference to explain the bid documents and their requirements, in order to insure that the bids the College received would be accurate and complete. During that conference, the vendors were told: (1) any price corrections must be initialed or the bid would be disqualified; (2) all pages of the bid documents which contain signature lines had to be signed; (3) bidders could not modify the general conditions or special conditions of the bid documents; and (4) any questions about the specifications would be answered only by written addendum. The same instructions can be found in text of the bid solicitation document (AT&T Exhibit 4). The College issued Addendum One to its bid documents on July 9, 1992, Addendum Two on July 14, 1992, and Addendum Three July 22, 1992. Addendum Two is the source of the dispute here. As is the College's practice, all bids were opened publicly after the hour for the receipt of bids had passed on July 29, 1992. Each bid submission had two parts. The first was a bid summary sheet containing a required format for the vendor's price. The second part of the submissions were bound volumes explaining how the vendor would satisfy each of the specific requirements in the bid specifications. During the bid opening, a College employee opened the sealed envelopes containing the vendor's bid summary sheet, and read aloud the prices found on each bidder's summary sheet. Page 13, paragraph 19.6 of the Bid Specifications told bidders that the bid summary sheets must recite the total bid price for the entire system, which had to include any upgrades to the standard features of the vendor's equipment so that the equipment provided would meet the College's specifications. When the bids were opened, representatives of AT & T, AT&T Paradyne, and NEC were present. As the bid summary sheets were opened and the prices announced, no one from AT&T objected to the prices read out or contended there was an error in AT&T'S pricing. The College's Director of Purchasing, Janet Rickenbacker, and the senior buyer handling the acquisition, Susan Kuzenka, then reviewed the extensive responses to the specifications submitted by the two bidders. They determined that NEC was the low responsive bidder. The amount AT&T bid based on the bid summary sheet found in its sealed bid was $1,558,836.57, NEC's bid was $1,549,895.15. 1/ After the bid opening, Mr. Zinn of AT&T had two conversations with Ms. Kuzenka about the AT&T bid. These conversations focused on the conflict in the entry for system maintenance on the bid summary sheet for AT&T which had been opened and read aloud on July 22, 1992, and the backup data for the system maintenance figure found in a section of AT&T'S bid response documents. On the bid summary page, AT&T had listed its "four-year maintenance totals M[onday] through F[riday] 8 a.m. through 5 p.m." as $755,536.16. But on page 53 of its bound bid response, AT&T listed the "total maintenance" cost as $530,204.00. This lesser figure is consistent with other maintenance price information found on page 61 of the AT&T bound bid documents, which set out total monthly maintenance costs for Monday through Friday maintenance from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for all four college locations as $11,045.92 per month. If this monthly figure is multiplied by the maintenance term (48 months) the sum is the $530,204.00 shown on page 53. During his first conversation, however, Mr. Zinn told Ms. Kuzenka that the higher figure of $755,536.16 was correct, because AT&T had neglected to add in the maintenance for the AT&T Paradyne multiplexor in the entries in the bound bid documents at pages 53 and 61. During a second conversation, Mr. Zinn reversed his position and indicated that he had added the maintenance for the multiplexor twice, which resulted in an erroneously high figure of $755,536.16 on the bid summary sheet, and that the $530,204 figure on page 53 was correct. One week after the bid opening, on August 5, 1992, AT&T sent a fax letter to Ms. Kuzenka, which confirmed Mr. Zinn's second conversation, and stated that the correct maintenance price was the $530,204.00 found on page 53 of the AT&T bid, rather than the $755,536.16 figure found on its bid summary sheet. Ms. Kuzenka had not asked anyone from AT&T to submit this price change to its bid, and it was not accepted by the College, under its standard policy that price changes will not be accepted once a sealed bid has been received and opened. The College has consistently adhered to this practice through the entire term of Ms. Kuzenka's employment. While a lower maintenance price can be found in one portion of the voluminous response of AT&T to the Bid Specifications, the figure on the bid summary sheet controls. See the "Special Instructions" found at page 5 of the bid solicitation documents (AT&T Exhibit 4). A bidder should not be permitted to look for ambiguities in the supporting documentation to contradict clear entries of price components found on its bid summary sheet. Use of the bid summary sheet permits the College to rely on a specific portion of the bid submission, which will be comparable from bidder to bidder, and to avoid wading through voluminous and perhaps internally inconsistent submissions to try to determine exactly what the bidder's price is. The "Special Instructions" state: "Bidder must use bid pages provided by the College and submit bid in the order issued; failure to do so will result in rejection of your bid" (AT&T'S Exhibit 4). Over and above the maintenance price differential, the College staff found the submission by AT&T to be materially non-responsive to the Invitation to Bid. Ms. Kuzenka found five problems with the AT&T submission, which led her to conclude that the response submitted by AT&T failed to meet the bid specifications: (1) AT&T qualified or modified the terms and conditions of the specifications; (2) price corrections were not initialed by AT & T; (3) the maintenance contract was partially assigned to another vendor; (4) the bid was not signed by AT&T on all pages which have required signature lines; and (5) AT&T failed to provide a qualification statement. Modification of terms and conditions The College's bid document stated in paragraph 54.1 that the terms and conditions of the bid and purchase order constitute the contract and "no other terms and conditions apply" (Tr. 157). The maintenance agreement, titled "Product Agreement," which is appended to the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan is a standard AT&T form (College Exhibit 6). It contains a provision in paragraph 20G., which states "THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LOCAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY" (emphasis in original). The general conditions of the bid required that the contract be governed by Florida law (Tr. 152). AT&T argues that the standard product agreement it attached to its bid response had not been signed by a representative of AT & T, and that the College had the right to accept or reject the terms of the Service Offerings and Support Plans and the attachments to it. This is true, but the inclusion in its bid response of the New Jersey choice of law provision certainly creates an ambiguity over the applicable law, if AT&T'S bid were accepted. This ambiguity would be completely avoided had it not been proposed by AT & T, in contravention of the bid's general conditions. Paragraph 2 of the Product Agreement states "Terms and conditions on any non-AT&T order form shall not apply." Fairly read, AT&T was attempting to have its duties under its standard Product Agreement governed by the laws of New Jersey, not the laws of Florida. As a matter of sovereignty, Florida agencies do not subject themselves to foreign law. The College acted within its legitimate range of discretion when it rejected the choice of law provision as inconsistent with its bid documents. The same problem is caused by similar language in paragraph 12F of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The AT&T Product Agreement also has an integration clause, Paragraph 20H, stating that it constitutes the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes any other oral or written agreements. This provision also attempts to modify the terms and conditions of the bid specifications to give the terms of AT &T's Service Offerings and Support Plan priority over the specifications. The College was entitled to reject this as inconsistent with the bid specifications. The same problem is presented by similar language in paragraph 12G of the AT&T Service Agreement (College Exhibit 5). The Service Offerings and Support Plan also contained a provision allowing AT&T to assign the agreement, which violates the anti-assignment provisions of paragraph 56.1 of the bid specifications. AT&T'S bid response stated that the College would be required to pay the cost for installing any additional cable. The bid specifications required vendors to inspect existing facilities at the College during a pre-bid walk- through, so that bidders could determine whatever cabling would be needed, and incorporate all necessary cable in their bid price. AT&T'S attempt to make the College liable for any cabling over and above that estimated by AT&T when submitting its bid is inconsistent with the bid specifications. The AT&T submission includeds a statement that the College was obligated to pay for the cost of a site survey to be performed by the project manager before the execution of the contract. Yet a site survey had already been performed, and the bidder's price was to have been inclusive of a total system, with no additional cost to the College for items such as surveys. Finally, the AT&T Service Offerings and Support Plan required the College to provide, at the College's expense, a secured and protected area for storage of tools and equipment near the equipment room, which was not part of the bid specifications. At the walk-through, AT&T should have determined whatever its security needs were and included those costs in its bid price. In essence, AT&T submitted preprinted forms without tailoring them to the carefully crafted requirements of the College's bid specifications. It cannot now disavow the contents of its forms which violate or fail to conform to these specifications. The time to review the company's standard forms was before they were submitted in its bid response, not afterward. Price correction There is a price correction on page 48 of the AT&T bid which is not initialed. The bid specifications require that "all corrections, manual or written or white-out must be initialed by the person signing the bid" (Bid Specifications, page 63, paragraph C). This was not done. The specifications stated "Failure to initial price corrections will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 2). Assignment provisions There was also confusion in the AT&T bid arising from the attachment of two proposed maintenance agreements, one from AT&T itself, another from AT&T Paradyne. The two maintenance contracts are not identical. 2/ College personnel believed that one contract was for part of the equipment, while the other contract was for another block of equipment. The College had been concerned about the difficulty in having to deal with different companies; it had drawn its specifications so that the bidder would be the single entity responsible to the College for maintenance. The submission of a proposed maintenance contract from an entity other than the bidder was inconsistent with the bid specifications. Signature Not all pages with signature lines had been signed by AT&T'S representative. These included page D1, which had a bearing on the equipment allowance being provided for the existing system traded in by the College. While AT&T regards these failures as trivial, the College went to pains to require bidders to sign pages with signature lines. Page 5 of the Bid Specifications stated: "Failure to sign all pages with a signature line will result in the rejection of your bid" (AT&T Exhibit 4, page 5, numbered paragraph 3). It is not arbitrary for the College to insist that these requirements be followed or to enforce the penalty stated in the specifications. Qualifications statement The special conditions for the bid required that vendors submit a qualifications statement listing similar work done for others (Tr. 168; Bid Specifications Section 25.1 at page 25). The College intended to consult those listed to determine whether they were satisfied with the equipment the vendor installed and the service it provided. AT&T did not provide that list, but rather provided an annual report which contains no customer references. This was not responsive to the bid. The College had experience with AT&T'S fifteen- year-old Dimension system, but not with the new equipment AT&T bid. The failure to submit the qualifications statement deprived the College of the opportunity to check with entities which had purchased the equipment AT&T had bid, something it had been careful to require of bidders. Deciding how to treat these inadequacies is a matter of discretion. Staff recommended rejection of the AT&T bid for genuine instances of noncompliance with specific requirements of the bid specifications the College had carefully crafted. This action cannot be characterized as arbitrary. The College's decision The College's purchasing department recommended to Dr. Hamilton that the bid be awarded to NEC as the low responsive bidder. A bid tabulation was posted on August 7, 1992, awarding the contract to NEC and rejecting AT&T'S bid. The protest AT&T filed a Notice of Protest, and later a Formal Written Protest on August 18, 1992, which dealt with a number of technical aspects, but did not claim that NEC's rival submission failed to conform to the bid specifications. Dr. Hamilton advised the College's president that, to be fair to both bidders, an outside consultant should be retained to evaluate the issues raised by AT&T in its Formal Written Protest. This was done, and the College retained Technology Associates for $8,600 to report to the College on the issues raised by AT & T. Technology Associates found that AT&T did not meet the emergency 911 requirements outlined in the College's bid documents. Southern Bell requires that when 911 calls are made from the College, the telephone system be capable of identifying to the police dispatcher which campus, which room and which extension number originated the emergency 911 call. The consultant also found that NEC's system met this requirement. AT&T did not attempt to refute this determination at the final hearing. The consultant found that AT&T'S proposed system was "over designed," in that it included elements not required by the bid documents. AT&T argues that Addendum Two, issued on July 14, 1992, 14 days before the bid opening, was so ambiguous with respect to necessary redundancy that the two bidders were bidding on fundamentally different systems, so that the matter should be bid for a fourth time. The portion of the addendum at issue states: The College requires two additional T-1 lines; not one as previously stated, to be added to diagram D-2 to ensure redundancy. A T-1 line is to connect North Campus with Central Campus and an additional T-1 line is to connect Central Campus with South Campus. (Tr. 85) Addendum Two explains that these lines are required to "ensure the ability to redirect calls if required, enabling the system to be fully redundant" (Tr. 86- 87, emphasis added). The addendum directed only the addition of two T-1 lines. This can be done, as NEC proposed, by connecting additional T-1 lines, one from the PBX at the North Campus to the PBX at the Central Campus and the other from the PBX at the Central Campus to the PBX at the South Campus. AT&T chose to feed each of the PBX installations at the North Campus, Central Campus and South Campus first into its own additional 45-Series multiplexor (the complex multiplexor, see Finding 10 above) so that a 45-Series multiplexor will handle T-1 connections from North Campus to a 45-Series multiplexor at Fort Lauderdale center, and to a 45-Series multiplexor at Central Campus. The PBX at Central Campus, because it has its own 45-Series multiplexor, then can be connected by T-1 lines to the 45- Series multiplexors at North Campus, South Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center. The PBX at South Campus, through its 45-Series multiplexor, then can connect to the 45-Series multiplexors at Central Campus and Fort Lauderdale Center (this configuration is shown on the final page of AT&T Exhibit 5). This is a more complex way to provide the T-1 connections between North and Central Campus and Central and South Campus than the addendum required, and uses four 45-Series multiplexors rather then one. AT&T argues its more complex solution was necessary so that both voice and data systems would be redundant, thus meeting the requirement in the addendum that the system be "fully redundant." The problem with the approach taken by AT&T is that it fails to follow the language of Addendum Two. There is no reference to alternative routing or redundancy for data, the redundancy is required to redirect calls, i.e., PBX or voice components. See the final quotation in Finding 40, above. Redundancy for data transmissions, something the AT&T solution provides, was not required. AT&T'S solution is overdesigned. This is not a pivotal issue, however, because for the reasons stated in the foregoing findings, the submission by AT&T was properly rejected by College staff as non-responsive to the terms of the Invitation to Bid. NEC is the low responsive bidder. Software certification AT&T argues in pages 16 through 20 of its proposed recommended order that the bid of NEC fails to conform to the requirements of the Invitation to Bid. AT&T had not raised the issue of whether the bid of NEC was responsive in its Formal Written Protest, and the attempt to do so at the beginning of the final hearing was rejected. As a result, this is not an issue which should have been addressed in the proposed recommended order. Nonetheless, it may be easily disposed of. The bid documents require that each bidder provide the College with a certification that the bidder: [O]wns, leases or controls the software it offers in response to this bid. If the bidder does not own the software, their certificate must include the source from which the software shall be obtained, and that the bidder has a right to sell or lease this software (Bid Specifications at 26, AT&T Exhibit 4.) The bidder also must certify that it is "eligible to maintain and support the software." (Id.) In its certification, NEC stated: NEC is the manufacturer of the NEAX2400 IMS that has been proposed to Broward Community College. As the manufacturer, we developed all software utilized on the NEAX2400. NEC owns all the rights to the software and has over 600 software engineers in Dallas dedicated to maintain and support the software. (AT&T Exhibit 4, final page) AT&T objects that this certification goes only to NEC's hardware, and does not constitute a certification that NEC has the rights to convey to the College the software necessary to operate the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, which is a product of AT&T Paradyne. When reviewing the submissions of both bidders, the College staff found that their software certifications were equivalent. Both companies certified that they had the right to sell the software to operate the system each offered to the College. The College is entitled to rely on the certification given to it by NEC. If NEC is wrong, and does not have the right to provide the necessary software because AT&T or AT&T Paradyne will refuse to permit it to use that software, NEC may be liable in damages for failure to meet its contractual obligations to the College. NEC did not offer at the hearing evidence on why it believes it is entitled to use the software for the Comsphere 6800 Network Management System, because AT&T's attempt to raise this issue had been rejected when AT&T's motion to amend its Formal Written Protest of August 18, 1992 was denied.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Trustees of Broward Community College awarding Bid No. 3656, the rebid of the College-wide PBX system, to NEC for a bid price of $1,549,895.15. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of March 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March 1993.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department should award the contract for State Project numbered DOH 95209100 to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact State Project numbered DOH 95209100 commenced with an invitation to bid on a construction project which involved the restoration and adaptive use of the Gato Cigar Factory in Key West, Florida. The construction would rehabilitate that existing historic structure and construct internal office and clinic spaces for both Monroe County and the Department of Health. Since both agencies would use the building, the project was divided between them. Monroe County and the Department issued separate invitations to bid for their portions of the structure, and each will enter into its own contract with the winning bidder or bidders. It was not required that a bidder submit a bid for both the Monroe County and the Department portions of the work. Any bidder could bid on one or the other or both. Although the invitations to bid and the contracts to result therefrom were not interrelated, some of the construction work was interrelated as some of the systems being installed under one contract would directly affect the other contract. For example, both the air conditioning system and the roofing system, although being performed under one entity's contract, would be applicable to both projects. The Department's invitation to bid required bidders to submit a base price, plus specific prices on particular items. Alternate numbered 1 added to the base price the cost of a second air conditioning chiller. The base price plus alternate numbered 1, taken together, included all work to be performed under the Department's scope of work. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were deductions from the work included in the base price. Alternates numbered 2 through 5 were included in the Department's invitation to bid to cover the possibility that all bids might come in over budget. In that event the Department could select Alternates numbered 2 through 5, sequentially, until sufficient items had been deducted from the Department's scope of work to result in bids under the amount budgeted by the Department for the project. Section 01030 of the bid specifications is entitled "Alternates." Section 1.2E of Part 1 provides, in part, as follows: Include as part of each Alternate, miscellaneous devices, accessory objects and similar items incidental to or required for a complete installation whether or not mentioned as part of the Alternate. Each Alternate Bid must interface with the work being constructed under a separate contract with Monroe County. Each Alternate Bid item is also applicable to the Monroe County work. An alternate which is deducted from one project will be added to the other. If bidding both projects, the Deductive Alternate price for one project must match the Add Alternate price for the other project. The prospective bidders were also given this information in the pre-bid meetings. The Department received a number of bids for less than the amount budgeted for its portion of the work. Accordingly, the Department was able to select Alternate numbered l, which taken together with the base bid, covered the entire scope of work allocated to the Department. The lowest bids through Petitioner's bid were as follows: Bidder Total Bid D. L. Porter Construction, Inc. $1,418,744. McTeague Construction Co., Inc. $1,454,500. Lodge Construction, Inc. $1,501,500. Rovel Construction, Inc. $1,559,000. Neither McTeague Construction Co., Inc., nor Lodge Construction, Inc., participated in this proceeding to challenge the Department's intended bid award. For the lowest bidder, Intervenor Porter, discrepancies occurred in its first, third, and fifth alternative prices of $3,500, $375, and $l,497, respectively. For the second lowest bidder, McTeague, a discrepancy of $9,000 occurred in its first alternate price. For the third lowest bidder, Lodge, a discrepancy of $3,165 occurred in its fifth alternate price. For the fourth lowest bidder, Petitioner Rovel, there were no discrepancies in any of its alternate prices. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for the Department was $38,500. Porter's bid on Alternate numbered 1 for Monroe County was $35,000. Porter's estimating staff overlooked the instruction that the two numbers should match. The reason for the difference between the two Alternate numbered 1 amounts is that the bidders were instructed to prepare the two bids as two separate contracts. Alternate numbered 1 required moving one of two chillers from the Monroe County project to the Department's project. Porter could not assume that it could use the crane from the contractor on Monroe County's portion of the project to install this chiller in the Department's portion of the project. Therefore, the cost of a crane had to be added to the Department's project, but the cost of the crane could not be deducted on the Monroe County bid. Porter was the fourth highest bidder on the Monroe County project. Monroe County has not yet awarded its contract. If the Monroe County project is awarded based upon the bids submitted, Porter will not be awarded the Monroe County project. The Department's bid tabulation and notice of intended award were prepared without any reference to the bid opening for the Monroe County project and before the contents of the Monroe County bids were known by the Department. The deviation in price between Porter's Alternate numbered 1 bids did not give Porter an advantage over the other bidders, several of whom made the same error. It was a minor deviation, not a material one. The price submitted on the Department's bid reflected the actual cost of performing that portion of the work. Petitioner's bid listed Florida Keys Electric, Inc., as its electrical subcontractor, its fire alarm subcontractor, and its lightening protection subcontractor. That company is not certified by the State of Florida, but it is registered. The bid specifications provide in section B-14, in part, as follows: Any bidder who lists a subcontractor not certified and/or registered by the State to perform the work of his trade if, such certification or registration is required for the trade by Florida Laws, will be rejected as non-responsive. 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 16010, Part 1, section 1.9, subsection A., of the technical specifications which form a part of the bid specifications involves supervision of the construction and provides, in part, that "At least one member of the Electrical Contracting Firm shall hold a State Master Certificate of Competency." Florida Keys Electric, Inc., would use Delor J. Ellis as its qualifying agent. Although Ellis is certified by the State, at the time of the bid submittal and through the date of the final hearing in this cause, Ellis' license was in an inactive status, and no application to activate his license was pending with the State of Florida. Fire alarm work and lightening protection work require a specialty license in the State of Florida. Florida Keys Electric, Inc., is not licensed to perform either type of work. When Florida Keys Electric, Inc., contracts to perform such work, it does so through its own subcontractor. Although the requirement for certification and/or registration contained in the bid specifications is not consistent with the requirement for State certification contained in the technical specifications portion of the bid specifications, Petitioner did not comply with either provision. Accordingly, Petitioner's bid is not responsive to the bid specifications. Porter, which submitted the lowest bid, is responsive to the bid specifications and is, therefore, the lowest responsive bidder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner's bid to be non-responsive, dismissing Petitioner's bid protest, and awarding to D. L. Porter Construction, Inc., the contract for the restoration of the Gato Cigar Factory. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Robert A. Hingston, Esquire Welbaum, Guernsey, Hingston, Greenleaf & Gregory, L.L.P. 901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Penthouse Suite Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michael E. Cover, Esquire Morton R. Laitner, Esquire Department of Health Miami-Dade County Health Department 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 William G. Christopher, Esquire Brown Clark, A Professional Association 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue Whether Respondent should be disciplined for violating Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CB C033338, and doing business under the name of Mark V. Ansley Building Contractors. On April 17, 1987, Respondent entered into a Construction Agreement with Mr. Kersey. The Agreement called for Respondent to build a house containing two bedrooms, one and one- half baths and a one-car garage in exchange for $31,860. Under the Agreement, construction was to begin on April 21, 1988. However, due to a problem with the lot on which the house was going to be built, there were delays. Mr. Kersey then decided to build the house on a lot across the street from the original lot. The lot was cleared on May 1, 1987, by Mr. Morris Snell. The septic tank permit was issued on June 17, 1987. The construction permit was issued on June 22, 1987. Construction of the residence began a week later and the slab was poured the second week of July, 1987. After the slab was poured, Mr. Kersey determined that the foundation was approximately 890 square feet instead of the 944 contracted for. After some negotiations between Mr. Kersey and Respondent, they agreed that Respondent would add a Florida room to make up the difference in square footage. The foundation for the Florida room was built four inches lower than the main house. There were problems with the roof trusses and with the framing which were corrected by Respondent. The company which manufactured the roof trusses sent the wrong trusses to the house. Mr. Kersey, who was present at the house when the trusses were being installed, noticed they were the wrong ones and stopped work on the house. After Respondent was informed, he notified the truss company and the correct trusses were delivered approximately ten days later and installed. The initial framing of the house was deficient and did not pass inspection. Respondent fired the persons who had done the framing, fixed the problems, and the framing passed inspection. Also, the persons framing the house left out a closet in one room of the house, but upon being informed, this was corrected. By this time, Mr. Kersey had made two payments to Respondent pursuant to their agreement. The first payment was for $3,100 and the second for $4,000. After the house was framed, Respondent expected to be out of town for two to three weeks. Respondent told Mr. Kersey that he was having problems collecting money from other jobs and that he would be unable to meet the construction schedule unless he had the money to pay for the necessary supplies right on the spot rather than waiting until Mr. Kersey returned. Mr. Kersey gave Respondent $15,000 in advance to allow Respondent to continue working on the house while he was gone. At this same time, July 18, 1987, Respondent and Mr. Kersey agreed that the house should be completed by September 15, 1988. Mr. Kersey returned from his trip in about 10 days and noticed that nothing had been done on the house. Mr. Kersey was unable to contact Respondent for two weeks, even though he wrote Respondent a letter and left messages with Respondent's secretary and on a telephone answering machine. During this period of time, Mr. Kersey hired an attorney. On August 1, 1987, Mr. Kersey finally spoke with Respondent about the lack of progress on the house. The Respondent told Mr. Kersey that it had rained almost constantly for 10 days and needed materials could not be delivered to the house. Respondent continued to do work on the house. Respondent contracted with a company to deliver and install windows. The window company in turn hired a subcontractor to install the windows. The subcontractor installed the windows improperly and eight of the sixteen windows had to be replaced by someone other than Respondent. Mr. Kersey agreed with Respondent that he would pay $1300, in addition to the contract price of the house, for the installation of a septic tank and drain field at the original location for the house. Respondent obtained the septic tank permit and arranged to have Mr. Carver of Carver's Septic Tank install the septic tank at the new location. Mr. Carver's estimate for the job was $1,810 and he agreed to do the job on the assurance by Mr. Kersey that he would pay for the job. Mr. Carver placed the septic tank and drain field at a location different from that which had been requested by Mr. Kersey and different from that shown on the survey map on file with the permit application at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In preparing the ground for the septic tank, Mr. Carver dug up the roots of an existing oak tree to a depth of from three to six feet around three-fourths of the tree's circumference. Also, the septic tank was located in close proximity to a three- inch free-flowing artesian well. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services initially gave its approval for the septic tank to be covered up. But after Mr. Kersey met with the Department's staff, the department disapproved the septic tank because it was located too close to the well. Mr. Carver did not finish work on the septic tank because he was not paid for the work he had done. In order to obtain approval for the septic tank, Mr. Kersey had to "abandon" the artesian well. This was accomplished by pouring 12 sacks of concrete into the well and pipe to seal it off. This job cost Mr. Kersey $840.00. Mr. Kersey also hired another company to complete the septic tank and drain field, and had to pay $700 to move the drain field. Sometime in August and September, Mr. Kersey began receiving information that some of the suppliers and subcontractors for the house had not been paid by Respondent and that liens would be placed on the property if they were not paid. Eventually, three companies filed claims of lien against the property. Sometime in September or October, Mr. Kersey posted signs on the house which stated that no further work was to be done on the house. When Respondent contacted Mr. Kersey, he was referred to Mr. Kersey's attorney. Respondent indicated to the attorney that he wanted to complete the job, and he was allowed to continue working on the job. During the next two weeks Respondent had the drywall and cabinets installed, put in the driveway, and painted. However, at a subsequent meeting with Mr. Kersey and his attorney, Mr. Kersey was not satisfied with the way the house was being built and stated he did not want Respondent on the job any more. Respondent did no more work on the house. On November 13, 1987, Mr. Kersey and Respondent met for the purpose of determining which subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid. At that time Respondent indicated that five subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid and that they were owed a total of $12,199. However, there were other subcontractors who had not been paid. In May, 1988, Mr. Kersey hired another contractor to complete the house. Mr. Kersey initially agreed to pay $9,400 for the work of this contractor, but ended up paying $14,000 because the contractor had to do work which was not included in the initial contract. Part of the work done by this contractor consisted of fixing or replacing a six-foot sliding glass door, three interior doors, and one exterior door which had been installed under Respondent's supervision. As mentioned in Findings of Fact 26, supra, three liens were placed on the property by materials suppliers. The three liens were perfected by Davis Windows, the company with which Respondent contracted for the purchase and installation of the windows for $1,888.22; Holmes Lumber Company, a company which provided building materials and supplies, for $4,032.08; and Gator Door for $1,152.93. Mr. Kersey is contesting the lien placed by Davis Windows. He has paid the amount due Holmes Lumber. He has not paid Gator Door. In addition to the companies which filed liens, the company that installed the cabinets was not paid at the time the cabinets were installed. Respondent paid for the cabinets on April 6, 1988. Also, Respondent paid Davis Windows $1,000, in March, 1988 and paid Gator Door $500 sometime in 1988. Finally, Respondent sent $1,500 to Holmes Lumber, ostensibly for Mr. Kersey's account, but the $1,500 was credited to another of Respondent's accounts which was in arrears. Respondent has entered into an agreement with Mr. Kersey to repay the amounts he may be owed due to Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,750 fine on Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 6th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2746 The Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1. True, but not a finding of fact. 2., 3. Accepted generally. RO1. The evidence is unclear as to whether Mr. Ansley's business is incorporated. 4. Accepted. RO2. However, when the 120 days began to run cannot be determined. The original contract had to be amended from the beginning, since no construction took place on the original lot. 5. Subordinate to facts found. See RO3. 6. Accepted. RO 5., 6. 7. Rejected as irrelevant. Also, the evidence presented does not establish that Respondent is responsible for Mr. Kersey paying $1,220 to Mr. Snell. 8. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. The evidence is contradictory as to when construction would begin. The septic tank and construction permits were not issued until June. 9. Rejected as irrelevant. 10. Rejected as irrelevant. 11. Accepted generally. RO2. 12. Accepted. RO8. Accepted. RO14-l5. Accepted. RO16-18. 15, 16. Accepted. RO20. 17, 18. Accepted as modified in RO 21-25. Second and third sentences of 17 are rejected as not supported by competent evidence. See also discussion of this issue in Conclusions of Law section of this RO. 19. Accepted. RO 27-28. 20., 21., 22. Accepted. RO 26., 30., 33. 23. Accepted generally. RO 29, 31. 24., 25., 27., 28., 29. Rejected as not findings of fact. Also, the opinions of Mr. Adams were based, in part, on evidence which was not presented at the hearing. Additionally, it is unclear that Respondent was charged with some of the violations alleged by Mr. Adams. 26., 30-34. Rejected as irrelevant and a recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark V. Ansley 7004 Luke Street Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's decision to reject the galvanized pipe replacement bid of Petitioner as non- responsive was erroneous, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Expertech Network Installation, Inc., is a division of Bell Canada. Petitioner is a construction and engineering division of the parent company. It was set up to expand the parent's operations into the United States about nine years ago. Petitioner has steadily replaced its Canadian employees with U.S. employees over those years. The City is a governmental entity established under the laws of the State of Florida. By contract with the DOAH, the City has agreed to utilize Administrative Law Judges to hear, inter alia, bid protests involving the City. On May 7, 2007, the City issued Invitation to Bid No. ITB-PW060607-88. The Invitation to Bid sought bids for replacement of approximately 38,000 linear feet of two-inch galvanized pipe and associated appurtenances with 38,000 feet of four and six-inch DR18 PVC piping and associated appurtenances. The replacement would include approximately 385 service connections with Sch-80 PVC piping, all within the area known as Section 4 of the City. In addition, the scope of work included relocation of approximately 460 linear feet of eight-inch PVC water main pipe and associated appurtenances with 600 linear feet of eight-inch DR18 PVC piping and appurtenances along State Road 78. A total specification package and complete set of drawings for the aforementioned work was prepared by the City's consulting engineer, TetraTech-HAI (hereinafter "Ttech"). The specifications and drawings by Ttech were made a part of the Invitation to Bid. A pre-bid conference was held on May 16, 2007. At that conference, several issues were discussed, resulting in issuance of an Addendum to the Invitation to Bid. The Addendum was issued the same day as the conference and included the following paragraph: Will the City allow directional drilling on the galvanized pipe replacement project? No. All references to directional drillingon the galvanized pipe replacement projectare to be modified to jack & bore. All water main piping proposed to cross driveways shall be installed via jack & bore or open cut methods. Water main piping proposed to cross roadways, including long side services, shall be installed by jack & bore methods. Directional drilling is acceptable for the roadway crossings on the SR 78 Water Main Replacement portions only. Please see the enclosed revised Measurement and Payment section of the specifications (01025) and revised bid schedule. (Emphasis in original document.) The Addendum also extended the due dates for bids by one week, to June 13, 2007. No protest was filed with the City with respect to the terms, conditions or specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid and the Addendum. On Wednesday, June 13, 2007, the City opened the bids. Petitioner's bid was the low bid for the project. Its bid included a price of $1,816,224, as compared to the second lowest bidder, Guymann (whose bid came in at $1,987,561).1 The bids were then reviewed by Ttech for conformity to the Invitation to Bid. On July 31, 2007, Ttech notified the City that it was recommending approval of the Guymann bid despite Petitioner being the low bidder. The justification for that recommendation was as follows: The lowest apparent bidder on the project was Expertech Network Installation, Inc. (Expertech) with a total bid of $1,816,224.00. [Ttech] reviewed Expertech's bid package and found that the required list of at least five completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project was not included in the package. [Ttech] contacted Expertech concerning the incomplete bid package and requested that Expertech provided the required list of at least five projects completed by Expertech of similar type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project. The list provided by Expertech did not include any completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement. On August 7, 2007, the City issued its Notice of Intent to Award, stating that the procurement division of the City would recommend award of the bid to Guymann as the most responsive, responsible bidder meeting the terms, conditions, and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest; its Formal Written Protest was timely filed on August 24, 2007, along with the required bond. There are three methods of drilling utilized for laying pipe in the ground: directional drilling, open cut drilling, and jack & bore drilling. A brief discussion of each is necessary in order to understand the dispute in this matter. Directional drilling is done utilizing a machine that is guided underground using steel rods. A person above ground with a sounding device directs the steel rods from one point to another. Directional boring is used when trenching or excavating is not practical. Directional boring minimizes environmental disruption. Jack & bore drilling (or auger drilling) is similar to directional drilling in that it has an entrance pit, and then the pipe is manually jacked along the desired path while simultaneously excavating the soil. It is often used in projects that have to go under existing roads or driveways. Open cut drilling is the old, traditional method of digging a trench in the ground and laying the pipe in the open cut. The Invitation to Bid, at page 10 of 53, included a request for each bidder to provide evidence of its experience with similar projects. Paragraph 5 asked for a list "of the last five projects of this type your organization has completed."2 Paragraph 6 asked for a list "of projects of this type that your organization is currently engaged in." The lists of projects were to be completed as set forth in a table attached to the Invitation to Bid. The table is recreated below: PROJECT YOUR CONTRACTOR REQUIRED ACTUAL NAME, TITLE CONTRACT OR SUB COMPLETION COMPLETION ADDRESS & AMOUNT DATE DATE & LOCATION PHONE # In its Bid, Petitioner provided a document entitled "Bidders Qualifications" in response to paragraph 5. The document was not on the table provided and was not entirely responsive to the information requested (i.e., it did not indicate whether Petitioner was contractor or subcontractor; there were no completion dates, and there were no contact persons). Nonetheless, the list contained eight completed projects. Those projects included two water main projects; the other six completed projects were telecommunication projects. While both types of projects would include drilling, there are distinct differences between the two. For example, water and wastewater projects require pressure testing, bacterial testing, and permitting that telecommunication projects do not. Petitioner's list also included projects that involved directional drilling. Since directional drilling was specifically prohibited in the galvanized pipe replacement project, those projects would not be deemed substantially similar in type.3 During the initial review of the bids, Ttech had specifically asked Petitioner to provide the required list of five completed projects of a similar type. In response, Petitioner submitted a list of four projects, which were listed as "Currently in Progress." Again, the projects were submitted on a form other than the table provided in the Invitation to Bid. When Ttech followed up with the project contacts, it found that there had been no open cut drilling on two of them; the other two had not yet begun. However, by the date of final hearing the projects were substantially complete. After Petitioner had submitted its list of projects, a meeting was called at the City. Petitioner was represented at the meeting along with City personnel and a representative from Ttech. Notes from that meeting, though inconclusive, seem to indicate that the requirement for five completed jobs of a similar nature was discussed. It is unclear whether Petitioner's representative was still at the meeting when this was discussed. However, it does not appear that anyone from the City or Ttech sent Petitioner a written request to provide evidence of additional work performed. Nor is there any evidence that the City or Ttech had an obligation to do so. At any rate, Petitioner did not submit any evidence of similar projects other than those discussed above. There were notes made by attendees of the meeting. None of the notes submitted into evidence was conclusive as to all issues that were discussed at that time. However, in notes relating to a telephone conversation five days later, Ttech's representative noted discussing with Petitioner the need to provide evidence of five similar projects, which means that at the time of the June 9, 2007, meeting, Ttech was still attempting to get the required list of projects from Petitioner. The projects submitted by Petitioner include directional drill excavation projects, which involved at least some open cuts (i.e., to make tie-ins at each end of the directional drill section). None of those projects was substantially similar in type to the proposed project, but did include some open cut work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the City of Cape Coral upholding its rejection of Petitioner's bid for the galvanized pipe replacement project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2007.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of respondent, Department of Transportation (Department), to award the subject bid to intervenor, The Walsh Group, Ltd., Inc. and Subsidiaries d/b/a Archer-Western Contractors, Ltd. (Archer-Western), comported with the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The bid process In June 1995, the Department of Transportation (Department) issued an invitation to bid (ITB), State Project Number 93280-3504, Contract Number E- 4866, for the repair and rehabilitation of the Royal Park Bridge, a two span, four leaf bascule bridge, which spans the Intercoastal Waterway and connects the town of Palm Beach to West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Prospective bidders were contacted through a bid solicitation notice, which was sent to prequalified contractors, and interested firms ordered bid packages, which included plans and specifications. The subject project was experimental, and was an effort to identify the most cost-effective means of repainting bridges that contained, inter alia, lead-based paint, a hazardous material, while minimizing exposure of workers and the public as well as the environment (the Intercoastal Waterway), to the hazardous materials. The technical specifications or capabilities of the equipment to be used to abrade and prepare the bridge surfaces for repainting, keeping in mind the objective of the project, were developed by the Department's consultant, Kenneth C. Clear, and are noted in section 560, subsection 1.01.1, of the specifications, discussed infra. At the time, Mr. Clear was aware of one system, the "Cavi-Tech" or "Cavi-Blast" method, a proprietary system devised by Cavi-Tech, Inc., that could comply with the technical specifications, but did not know of any other company that had a similar process. Consequently, in drafting the technical requirements at issue in this bid challenge, discussed more fully infra, he identified the "Cavi-Blast" system of Cavi-Tech, Inc., as capable of satisfying the technical requirements, and further provided, at the bidder's election, for the use of alternative equipment if it could be shown to meet the surface preparations standards described in the ITB. Pertinent to this case, Section 560 of the specifications, entitled Repainting Exposed Steel, at page 560-1 of the ITB, specified the following technical requirements for surface preparation equipment: Surface Preparation Equipment Surfaces shall be abraded and prepared for recoating using an energy enhanced water jet generated by equipment capable of sustained operation at pressures in excess of 17,000 psi. Nozzles shall operate using resonation and cavitation technology. Production rates shall be at least 600 square feet per machine and production shift in the case of full coating removal (CB-4 per section 1.2), and 1,500 square feet per machine and production shift for sweep- off blasts which remove all oil, grease, dirt, loose paint, loose rust, rust scale and loose mill scale, and profile the remaining paint (CB-1 per section 1.2). The equipment shall include closed-loop water handling and filtration systems capable of repeated reuse of blast water and on-site treatment of the water upon completion such that it is rendered non-hazardous. Abrasives, steel shot and/or chemical strippers shall NOT be used. The surface preparation equipment shall be capable of achieving the surface preparation standards described in section 1.2, and document ation of its successful use on at lest 10 similar bridge or industrial structures totaling at least 250,000 square feet shall be submitted with the bid. Additionally, detailed project documentation and air monitoring historical data from at least 5 projects in which paint containing a lead primer was completely removed without the use of negative pressure enclosures, shall be submitted with the bid. These data shall show conclusively that, on each of the projects, the lead exposure to individuals WITHOUT breathing apparatus located 5-feet and further from the water jet nozzle was less than the OSHA action level (i.e. the air qualified as non-hazardous, breathable air in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations 29 CFR 1926.62 "Lead") when the equipment was operated at full capacity for at least 8-hours. The Cavi-Tech, Inc., Inc. (2108 Moon Station Drive, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144; phone Number 404-424-4015; fax Number : 404-424-4009) "Cavi-Blast" system meets the above requirements. The ITB package did not require, apart from any implications that may be drawn from the foregoing provisions, that the bidder specify the type of surface preparation equipment it proposed to use, and no form was included with the bid package on which such election could be denoted. The bid package did include, however, a standard proposal to be executed by the bidder, which bound the bidder "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract, and if awarded the Contractor [Bidder] to execute the contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given." The ITB further required a proposal guarantee, payable to the Department, of not less than five percent of the total actual bid, "which guarantee is to be forfeited as liquidated damages if . . . the Proposal is accepted [and] the Bidder . . . fail[s] to execute the attached Contract under the conditions of this proposal. " On August 17, 1995, after the pre-bid conference, the Department issued Addendum Number 1 to the ITB, which included the following clarification as to the painting specifications for the project: Surface preparation equipment requirements are specified in Section 1.01 of the painting specifications. Cavi-Tech, Inc. is indicated as a company having equipment and experience meeting the requirements of this specification section. Other companies meeting the requirements of Section 1.01 can bid on this project. In response to the ITB, the Department received five bids for the project. The lowest bid was submitted by Archer-Western, $2,868,816.35, and the second lowest bid was submitted by Coastal, $2,930,461.68. The three other firms that bid on the project were PCL Civil Contracts, Inc. (PLC), with a bid of $2,943,370.20, Gilbert Southern Corp. (Gilbert), with a bid of $2,967,928.10, and M & J Construction Co. of Pinellas County (M & J), with a bid of $3,274,867.17. The bid price proposal submitted by each bidder contained various items which were tallied to derive the total amount bid. Item Number A560 1 was for painting structural steel, and Archer-Western listed a price of $425,300, Coastal a price of $500,000, PCL a price of $350,000, Gilbert a price of $450,000, and M & J a price of $575,348.45. Pertinent to this case, while Archer-Western did secure a quotation from Cavi-Tech, Inc., for Cavi-Blast and coating services, as well as historical data regarding its use, it did not include such documentation with its bid. Consequently, the bid submitted by Archer-Western, as well as the bid of PCL, contained no information in response to subsection 1.01.3, regarding surface preparation equipment. Contrasted with those bids, Coastal, in what it perceived as the appropriate response to subsection 1.01.3, included information from Cavi-Tech, Inc., on the Cavi-Blast system. Gilbert and M & J likewise included documentation on the Cavi-Blast system. The Department, following its evaluation, deemed the five bids responsive, and on October 4, 1995, posted notice of its intent to award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested the proposed award (DOAH Case No. 95-5702BID). On October 9, 1995, the Department notified all bidders that it was rescinding its notice of intended award and proposed to reject all bids. Coastal timely protested such decision (DOAH Case No. 95-5703BID).3 Finally, on October 24, 1995, the Department, following reconsideration of its position, resolved to rescind its rejection of all bids and, consistent with its initial decision, award the contract to Archer-Western. Coastal timely protested such award (DOAH Case No. 95-5701BID). The bid protest Here, Coastal contends that Archer-Western's proposal (bid) was not responsive to the ITB because it did not include documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3 of the ITB. By such failure, Coastal suggests Archer-Western failed to commit to using the Cavi-Blast system or identify an alternative system it would use and, therefore, its bid was at material variance from the ITB. That variance, Coastal avers, accorded Archer-Western the opportunity to reevaluate its bid, after bid opening, and then decide whether to adhere to is bid or refuse to abide its bid without penalty due to its non-responsiveness. Contrasted with Coastal's perception of subsection 1.01.3, the Department views that subsection, when read in pari materia with subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4, as only requiring documentations when the bidder proposes to use surface preparation equipment other than the Cavi-Blast system. Indeed, the Department observes, it would be superfluous to include documentation demonstrating that the Cavi-Blast system was capable of achieving the surface preparation standards when subsection 1.01.4 specifically states that the Cavi- Blast system meets requirements. Accordingly, where, as here, the bidder does not provide any documentation in response to subsection 1.01.3, the Department contends it may be fairly implied, based on the bidder's agreement in the proposal "to perform all necessary work, as provided for in the contract," that it has proposed to use, and is bound to use, the Cavi-Blast system. Consequently, the Archer-Western bid was, in the Department's opinion, responsive to the ITB. Reading the provisions of subsections 1.01.1 through 1.01.4 in para materia, it must be concluded that the Department's conclusion in this case is supported by logic, and that its decision to award the contract to Archer- Western did not depart from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Coastal's protests and, more particularly, its protest of the award of the subject bid to Archer- Western. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February 1996.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the School Board of Broward County properly awarded Bid 92-143T for the procurement of propane gas for the school system for three years.
Findings Of Fact In August, 1991, the School Board of Broward County issued ITB's to various potential suppliers to supply it with liquid propane gas, (LP gas), for the next three years, under ITB number 92-143T. The current supplier under the contract let in 1989 is the Petitioner herein, Synergy. Synergy was one of the potential suppliers to receive a copy of the Board's new ITB. Paragraph 12 of the Special Bid Conditions required any protest of the specifications or conditions of the ITB to be filed within 72 hours of its receipt. Paragraph 15 of the Special Conditions allowed prospective bidders to address questions concerning the ITB to the Board's purchasing department. That agency's activity was limited to referring the inquirer to bid provisions which they could read and interpret for themselves. No Board employee was authorized to interpret any portion of the ITB or to release any information regarding requirements other than was contained in the written bid document. That Special Condition also notified prospective bidders that any official interpretations of the bid documents or its requirements, if necessary, would be communicated to the bidders in writing. The ITB was mailed on August 19, 1991 and bid opening was noticed therein to be at 2:00 pm on October 2, 1991 at the Board's purchasing department. The ITB was mailed to Synergy's Hollywood, Florida office and was, from there sent to the head office in New York. Mr. Garey, the responsible individual in Synergy's marketing department believes he received it on or about August 25, 1991. The general and special conditions and specifications of this ITB were, for the most part and as pertinent here, identical to those set forth in the 1989 ITB except that the current bid calls for delivery of the gas to the Board at specified locations which was not required in the prior contract. Shortly after receiving the ITB, Joel Garey, a long time employee of Synergy, who has prepared thousands of bids for government procurements, because gas prices were widely fluctuating, began to collect data on the price of LP gas preparatory to formulating Synergy's bid. Shortly before the bid was due, based on the latest available price information, Mr. Garey prepared Synergy's bid for the signature of Jeffrey Vogel, Synergy's vice president. The first bid prepared by Mr. Garey contained an error on the bid summary sheets. When, on October 1, 1991, one day before the bid was due, he noted what to him was an inconsistency in the bid specifications which, at paragraph 13, called for the bidder to deliver "full 100# tanks [of LP gas]," and to price invoice tickets, "with the conversion rate of 22 gallons per cylinder shown." The Board also wanted the filling of several 40# tanks for which delivery tickets and invoices, "will be in gallons based on the standard of 4.24 pounds per gallon." The parties agree that the accepted weight of a gallon of liquid propane gas weighs 4.24 pounds. Extrapolating from that point, Mr. Garey reasoned that if the Board wanted its tanks "filled to capacity", the 100# tanks would take 23.5 gallons of LP gas, (100 divided by 4.24), and the 40# tanks would take 9.43 gallons, (40 divided by 4.24). As a result, and being somewhat confused, Mr. Garey telephonically contacted the Board's contact point, Mr. Toman, who referred him to Mr. Combs, another Board official. Mr. Combs, notwithstanding the weight of 4.24 lbs/gal for LP gas listed in the Board's specifications, would not accept that figure from Mr. Garey without independent proof. Mr. Combs gave Mr. Garey his fax number so the proof could be sent when available and, in the meantime, said to fill the tanks to capacity. When he hung up from talking with Mr. Combs, Mr. Garey called his local manager and determined that under the 1989 contract which Synergy had with the Board, it had been filling the Board's tanks to capacity. When he called Mr. Tomans back at 4:00 PM that same day, Garey was told that Tomans had not heard from Combs about the problem, but that Garey should submit his bid timely or be out. Tomans also wanted to know why the issue had not been raised during the existing contract. Mr. Garey had no answer to that question. Based on the information he then had, Mr. Garey changed Synergy's bid and submitted one based on full tanks rather than the 22 and 6 gallons, respectively, mentioned in the bid specifications. Coincidentally, the bid as submitted was still in error in that Item C of the bid specs misstated the price per gallon delivered and this error was reflected in Items D, E, and G, and, ultimately, the total. This error was corrected, however, and did not play in the Board's decision to reject the Petitioner's bid. In arriving at Petitioner's bid based upon the "totally full" basis, Mr. Garey computed using the 23.5 and 9.43 gallon capacity cost divided by the 22 and 6 gallon conversion figures dictated by the Board. Mr. Garey was subsequently advised that Synergy was not the successful bidder. He also determined, from a telephone conversation with Mr. Tomans on October 3, 1991, that had the Petitioner's bid price not been raised to accommodate the larger volume, it's bid price would have been lower than that submitted by the successful bidder, Peoples Gas. During that conversation, Mr. Tomans advised Mr. Garey that ordinarily a bidder had 72 hours from receipt of the ITB to protest the specifications, but since there was some merit to Petitioner's contentions of an inconsistency regarding volume, he, Tomans, felt there should be an exception. However, Special Condition 15 specifically cautions prospective bidders it could not rely on any information given orally by Respondent and must submit any questions as to the bid consistent with the terms of General Condition 7. Mr. Garey admits he was remiss in not reading the fine print of paragraph 7 of the ITB and the protest provisions but on the afternoon of October 1, 1991, when he discovered the discrepancy, he immediately called the school board. If at that time they had told him he was too late to protest the specifications, this would have satisfied him and he would not have filed an appeal or protest. Instead, he was told that due to the merit of his argument he could protest, and he did so. His letter of protest was accepted even though not timely and the matter was brought to a hearing before the school board which ruled against Synergy on grounds other than time. He contends that the executive summary prepared for the school bard misled it into rejecting his protest. Mr. Garey also asserts that the bids were so close, if the margin had been greater than the discrepancy in the number of gallons to go into the cylinders he would have accepted the loss. Here, however, the total discrepancy is accounted for by the 3,770 gallons difference out of over 300,000 gallons. Mr. Arthur Hanby is the Director of Purchasing for the Broward County School Board and is familiar with this procurement and Synergy's bid. The provision in the ITB which provides for questioning of specifications was designed to comply with the requirements of Florida Statutes and the school board's policy. It is put in to equalize the opportunity for all prospective bidders to protest on an equal basis. It has been used by others in the past and when invoked, the bid solicitation process has been suspended until resolution of the matter in question. Mr. Hanby was also employed by the school board when the prior contract for propane was let with essentially the same specifications as are in issue here. The conversion rate was changed this year to more accurately reflect the market place. Even then no challenge was filed to the bid specifications. No written inquiry was received as to how to interpret them either, and at no time since Synergy, the winner then, has had the contract has it shown any confusion at to what it was to provide. Penny Good, General Manager for Peoples Gas, and the individual who prepared that company's bid read the bid solicitation thoroughly before preparing her company's bid. She was also employed with Peoples Gas when the prior contract was bid but had nothing to do with the bid at that time. She claims to have had no confusion as to what the school board wanted on this solicitation. She asked no questions of the school board because it was clear to her and she was satisfied the board wanted 22 gallons in a 100 # tank and 6 gallons in a 40 # tank, less than a tank filled to capacity. As she understands the business, there is no such thing as a "legal limit" on a tank. Admitting that an empty 100# tank would hold 23.5 gallons, which, practically, would be the maximum amount it could hold, it is easy to put less than 22 gallons in a 100# tank and less than 6 gallons in a 40 # tank. Under the terms of the agreement, tanks would not be filled on site. Empty tanks would be picked up and replaced with other tanks filled with either 22 gallons or 6 gallons as pertinent. From a review of all the evidence, it is clear that Synergy and Peoples Gas were not bidding the same thing. The quantity's to be provided were different and this accounts for the difference in bid price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's protest of the Board's award of Bid No. 92-143T to Peoples Gas Company, and denying Peoples Gas Company's request for an award of costs and attorney's fees. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of January, 1992. 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 24th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-7494-BID The following constitutes my specific rulings on all Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this proceeding under Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but more a comment on the state of the evidence. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact. & 13. Accepted. & 15. Rejected as not Findings of Fact but more Conclusions of Law. Accepted but Synergy's bid is not responsive to the Bid specifications. Rejected. Not a Finding of Fact. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. 5. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 20. Not Findings of Fact pertinent to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joel Garey Marketing Department Synergy Gas Corporation 23102 Sandalfoot Plaza Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33428 Joel Garey Synergy Gas Corporation 175 Price Parkway Farmingdale, N.Y. 11735 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Suite 201 Victoria Park Centre 1401 East Broward Blvd. Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Arthur S. Hamby, Jr. Director Purchasing and Warehousing Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312-7535 James L. Brady Director Business Affairs Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312-7535 Peoples Gas Company 2700 Southwest Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esquire Mishan, Sloto, Hoffman & Greenberg Suite 2350 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendnet School Board of Broward County 1320 Southwest Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312-7535 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reason alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent acknowledges the accuracy of the allegations in the first seven paragraphs of the administrative complaint, including the allegation that he holds a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR C027268. He has been licensed in Florida continuously since October of 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On August 14, 1986, respondent Stratton, doing business as Stratton Construction Company, executed a written contract with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street in Jacksonville, Florida. He had actually begun work nine days earlier. The contract contemplated installation of a pier under an unsupported sill end, replacement of 17 windows and two doors, hanging a screen door and a storm door, shortening and capping the chimney, adding a roof over the front stoop, reshingling the entire roof, painting the outside of the house, and putting hose bibbs in the front and the rear of the house. In addition, the contract called for extensive work inside the house, replacement of sheetrock, installation of insulation, congoleum, carpeting, paneling, cabinets, new kitchen and bedroom appliances, a new central heating system, and numerous other improvements and repairs. The contract price totalled $18,600, including $2,071 for a utility room. ("Remove back porch and drop flooring to allow enough height to construct 8 foot by 8 foot utility room ... inside walls unfinished ...") Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Exclusive of plumbing, electrical, heating, and the utility room, the value of the repairs and renovations exceeded $200.00. As "Stratton Const." respondent contracted with Williams Plumbing Co., Inc. (Williams) on September 8, 1986, to re-pipe, install a working machine drain and furnish a water closet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Respondent or Williams on his behalf obtained a plumbing permit from the City of Jacksonville, No. 25997, at or about the time Williams began work, but Williams "left town" (T.43) before the project was inspected by the City. On October 2, 1986, respondent contracted with Wayne Conn Plumbing (Conn) to do additional plumbing work. In order to obtain a plumbing permit for the additional work, respondent cancelled the first permit. (T.34) The same day he signed the contract with Conn, respondent obtained a second plumbing permit, No. 28215. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Conn finished the plumbing work, and it passed inspection by the City. Earlier, on September 5, 1986, respondent or a subcontractor obtained a City permit authorizing electrical work at 5017 Pearl Street. On October 8, 1986, respondent or a subcontractor obtained a mechanical permit for the house's new heating system. In due course, the work authorized by these permits passed City inspections. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before he began work on the Cobb's house, Mr. Stratton had only built new homes in Florida. He was unaware of any requirement to obtain a permit to effect repairs to the interior of a house other than those he did in fact obtain. He was aware, however, of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room, involving, as it did, alterations to the foundation. Nevertheless, he only applied for this permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed, and after he had become embroiled in a dispute with the Cobbs. Jacksonville's Building Code, Part 4, makes it unlawful to begin work to contract, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish a building or structure, or a part thereof ... without having first filed an application with and obtained a permit therefor from the Building official, except that, for general maintenance or repairs, not involving replacement of components specifically requiring permits, which do not change the occupancy or affect the electrical, plumbing or mechanical systems, the value of which does not exceed two hundred dollars ... no permit shall be required ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 5. In beginning work without a permit to remove the back porch or to replace it with a utility room or to effect general repairs the value of which exceeded two hundred dollars, respondent violated applicable provisions of a local building code. The evidence suggested that the requirement that contractors obtain permits to effect general repairs with a value in excess of two hundred dollars is more honored in the breach than in the observance. In fact, respondent testified that somebody told him no permit is needed "if you don't change the size of the building," (T.46) i.e., alter the foundation. The Building Code also calls for mandatory inspections of foundations and framing as they are completed, but a building inspector testified that inspection of pre-formed concrete piers like those on which the utility room stands would have been foregone. Because the addition stood on (new) piers and because its interior walls remained unfinished, it was possible for the City to inspect both the foundation and the framing, even after the work was finished. John Carlton Sturdevant, a field inspector for Jacksonville's Building and Zoning Department, saw nothing wrong with the framing, nor was there evidence of any problem with the foundation.
