The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, School Board of Broward County, Florida (Respondent or Board) may require bidders to comply with specifications and conditions for a bid solicitation that pertains to audiovisual, photographic equipment and related supplies, and computer peripherals as set forth in, and identified as, Invitation to Bid No. 27-040N. The Petitioner, Audio Visual Solutions Corporation (Petitioner), timely filed a challenge to the bid specifications and conditions for the subject acquisition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a corporation that deals, resells and provides audio, video, and conferencing equipment to various entities throughout the state. The Petitioner represents a number of trade names in the electronics industry and serves educational and governmental markets in the State of Florida. The Petitioner holds contracts to provide electronic equipment to the Respondent at the present time. As part of its ongoing operation, the Petitioner routinely responds to bid invitations and solicitations such as the one at issue. The Petitioner’s standing to challenge the specifications in the instant matter is not disputed. In the instant matter, the Petitioner received the ITB for the Respondent’s bid No. 27-040N and began a detailed review of the general, special, and other specifications set forth in the ITB. The Petitioner determined it would evaluate the overhead expenses required, labor and documentation, invoicing, delivery, and other specifics that would play a part in pricing the products for response to the ITB. At all times material to the allegations of this protest, the Respondent was the entity charged with the responsibility of acquiring goods and services to support the operation of the public schools in Broward County, Florida. Respondent was the appropriate entity with whom the protest should have been filed as it was the procuring entity for ITB No. 27-040N. The Respondent bears the ultimate burden for all procurement necessary to operate the public schools for Broward County, Florida. The review process used by the Petitioner in this case is the same process it has utilized in the past when it has successfully obtained contracts with the Respondent. The bid evaluation Petitioner performs is necessary to determine whether the ITB is within the scope of its operations. On or about April 24, 2006, the Petitioner forwarded a Notice of Intent to Protest regarding certain Special Conditions of the subject ITB. The Petitioner filed its notice within 72 hours of receipt of the ITB. On May 4, 2006, as the wording for the disputed Special Conditions remained unresolved, the Petitioner filed a Formal Written Protest to contest the conditions and specifications of ITB No. 27-040N. The Respondent has not disputed the timeliness of the instant protest. Throughout the pre-hearing process, the parties met and continued efforts to resolve the disputed points. As set forth in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, disputes regarding Special Conditions 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were resolved during the School Board Bid Protest Meeting or immediately prior to the formal hearing. The findings and resolutions set forth regarding the challenge to each of those Special Conditions are set forth in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation and are adopted here by reference. At hearing, left unresolved were the Petitioner’s challenges to Special Conditions 3, 18, 20, and 27 of ITB No. 27-040N. In the ITB at issue, “SBBC” refers to the Respondent. The Petitioner challenged Special Condition 3 for several reasons. That provision stated: AWARD-For Bid Items 1 through 38: In order to meet the needs of the school system and SBBC, each ITEM shall be awarded to one primary and up to two alternate responsive and responsible bidders meeting specifications, terms and conditions. The lowest awardee in an item or group shall be considered the primary vendor and should receive the largest volume of work. SBBC reserves the right to procure goods from the second and third lowest bidders if: a) the lowest bidder cannot comply with delivery requirements or specifications; b) the lowest bidder is not in compliance with delivery requirements or specifications on current or previous orders; c) in cases of emergency; d) it is in the best interest of SBBC to do so regardless of reason. For Bid Item 39: In order to meet the needs of SBBC, awards will be made to all bidders who submit a catalog and offer a discount or net pricing from the most current vendors catalog/price sheet. These bidders shall then be in a favorable position to compete for the Board’s business, and those who offer lowest net prices for those items, that comply with the specifications and otherwise meet requirements, should obtain the largest volume of business. After award of this bid, any bidder receiving an award who violates any specification, term or condition of this bid can be found in default of its contract, have its contract canceled, be subject to the payment of liquidated damages, and be removed from the bid list and not be eligible to do business with this School Board for two years, as described in General Conditions 22, 23 and 53. (Emphasis in original). At hearing, the Respondent agreed that the words “regardless of reason” in the first section of Special Condition 3 would be deleted. The other concerns regarding this provision were not resolved. Thus, for the items to be procured the remaining terms of this provision would be applicable. The ITB sought responses for various items of equipment by unit price. For example, Item 1 of the ITB identified the equipment sought as “Multi-Media Projector: UltraPortable Low-End.” The bid summary sheet provided that an approved model for the item would be an Epson E3. Further, the quantity listed was for 2000. A bidder would be expected to provide the unit price, the total price (presumably applying that unit price to the volume sought), and then disclosing what percentage the unit price has been discounted off the manufacturer’s list price. For each of the 38 items identified by the ITB, a bidder would be required to provide all of the requested information. As to Item 38, the bidder was required to include quotes for multiple components of the item. The Petitioner maintains that Special Condition 3 does not conform to the Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, Petitioner believes that an award to multiple bidders violates Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-1.012. The Petitioner also believes that Special Condition 3 violates a policy of the Broward County Purchasing Policy rules. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Respondent’s policy set forth in Purchasing Policy 3320 requires a single award. Essentially, the Petitioner contends that multiple awardees are not acceptable as the Respondent is required, by law, to award the contract to the lowest and best responsible and responsive bidder. When multiple awards are made the Respondent is not selecting the lowest and best. Therefore, for each item identified the Respondent should select the lowest and best responsible and responsive bid. Similarly, as it relates to Special Condition 3, Item No. 39, an award will be made to all bidders who submit a catalog and offer a discount on pricing from the most current vendor’s catalog/pricing sheet. Again, if all bidders are accepted, no one bidder will be identified as the lowest and best responsive and responsible bidder. Additionally, since some vendors use the same catalog, the lowest (or greatest percentage discount) bidder is not well served since all bidders will know the percentages (once the bid is opened). Disclosing the percentage will not assure that the Respondent will receive the item at the lowest possible price since the Respondent is not obligated to use the catalog of the lowest priced bidder. Further, a vendor using a catalog that has prices that are higher (for the same item) can offer a higher percentage discount and not affect the overall net to them. For every purchase the Respondent would have to compute the item price and apply the discount before the real cost could be known. The Petitioner challenged Special Condition 18. In pertinent part, that provision stated: VOLUME DISCOUNT: Through history, it is known that SBBC purchases the same item in high volume. In order for SBBC to leverage a pricing advantage, bidders are to provide, on the bid summary sheet, the lowest net price for purchasing a minimum of one. Additionally, SBBC will release quotes to awardees for volume purchasing and request the best and the lowest net price for ordering the quantity of items indicated on released quotes. The awardee that offers the lowest cost will be awarded that quote. This provision is offensive to the Petitioner because it allows the second bite of the apple. That is, by requiring the bidders to disclose their pricing for this ITB and then allowing all awardees to come back after-the-fact with a second “quote” does nothing to assure that the competitive pricing inherent in the bid process has been protected. Any awardee could, after seeing the pricing offered by the competition, know the discounts applied by the competition. This process according to the Petitioner defeats the purpose of finding the lowest bidder at a fixed point in time. The ITB responses merely create a pool of potential winners. So long as a bidder was lowest on one item, it will be assured an opportunity to “quote” on all purchases (and will do so having the competition’s best numbers). Who would offer their best prices on all items in response to this ITB? No one. The bidder that offers (at whatever low price) the best price on any single item is designated an “awardee” and gets to try to defeat the competition on each “quote” subsequently announced. Moreover, the “quotes” are not guaranteed the same protections as the sealed bid process. Consequently, the Respondent may purchase thousands of dollars of items without being assured that they were given the lowest and best price. The “quotes” may exceed $25,000. Special Condition 20 was also challenged by the Petitioner for the same reason. That provision states, in pertinent part: QUOTES: SBBC anticipates the procurement of bundled classroom solutions with installation. Therefore, SBBC reserves the right to solicit quotes for these solutions at any time during the contract period. The quotes will only be released to awardees of this contract. The models that become components of the solution must be the same models that were awarded as a specific item. However, there is no guarantee that an awardee of a model of a component of the solution will be the awardee of the quote. SBBC is opening competition to all awardees of this contract to offer the best pricing for these solutions. Section 5, Additional Information, Bundled Classroom Solutions includes a form that bidder is to complete and return with the bid. Bidder is to state if it wants to receive quotes, and if it has the capability to provide the necessary licensing and certifications associated with installation and wiring, not to include, high voltage electrical installation. Awardee of the quoted solution will be solely responsible for any issues related to the installation and minimum three [sic] warranty period of the bundle. Additionally, bidder must have an established working relationship with an SBBC awarded high voltage electrical company. This form is a questionnaire that is for informational purposes and will not be considered in determining award. Special Condition 27 provides: BALANCE OF LINE ITEM DISCOUNT (ITEM 39): SBBC encourages all awardees for this item to offer SBBC additional discounts for volume purchases of like items. SBBC reserves the right to release quotes for large catalog volume purchases. Bidders are required to offer a balance of line single, fixed percentage discount for equipment ($1000.00 or greater) and supplies (under $1000.00) off bidders catalog for any Audiovisual, Photographic Equipment and Related Supplies, and Computer Peripherals not itemized on the Bid Summary Sheets. This percent must be stated in the Bid Summary Sheet. An omission from this entry will be considered as a 0% discount offered from catalog. The single fixed percentage discount quoted by bidder shall apply to the catalog list price for all catalog items. This percentage discount does not include the itemized equipment listed on the Bid Summary Sheet. Items excluded from single fixed percentage discount should be listed on a separate piece of paper. These items will be excluded and should not be purchased. In the event a bidder handles catalog items that carry a little or no percentage, this fact shall be taken into consideration and percentages offered shall be a single fixed percentage discount for each category (supplies and equipment) and catalog. Awardees may offer SBBC additional educational discounts at any time and invoice SBBC at a greater discount than their bid discount. According to the Petitioner, bundled solutions have the possibility and the likelihood of exceeding $25,000. If so, the requirement for sealed bids by allowing only quotes would be circumvented. The Respondent seeks to obtain the needed equipment at the lowest possible cost to the School Board. By using the “quotes” procedure it believes it will achieve a lower cost per item purchased. The “quote” procedure to be used does not, however, allow entities not within the “awardee” group to participate. If the purpose of the “quote” is to secure the lowest possible price at a fixed point in time (at a point in time future to the ITB opening), the possible savings available through another entity outside those within the “awardee” class is lost. Further, members of the “awardee” class have no incentive to provide their lowest price for all items bid in response to this ITB.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order amending the specifications challenged to assure that the award of the items will be to a single lowest and best responsible and responsive bidder. The Petitioner’s challenge to the provisions must be sustained as a matter of law. S DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. D. PARRISH 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 30th day of October, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Franklin L. Till, Jr. Superintendent Broward County School Board 600 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-3125 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Robert Paul Vignola, Esquire Broward County School Board C. Wright Administrative Building 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 11th Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mitchell D. Adler, Esquire Greenspoon Marder, P.A. Trade Centre South, Suite 700 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309-2140
Findings Of Fact This case concerns what is called a "turnkey lease." The program was developed by the State of Florida in 1971. It encompasses a situation whereby agencies seeking space for their operation may, after a specific need is determined that cannot be filled by existing adequate space, solicit competitive bids from developers for the provision of land and the construction of a building there sufficient to meet the agency's needs, for lease specifically to the agency requesting it. The Bureau of Property Management within DGS was given the initial responsibility to develop the guidelines, promulgate the rules, and seek statutory authority for such a program. The Bureau's current role is to work with agencies requesting this program. The agency certifies the need to the Bureau, in addition to the fact that there is no available existing space present. The Bureau then determines agency needs and gives the agency the authority to solicit the bids for the turnkey project. Once the bids have been solicited and the preproposal conferences have been held, the bids are then received, evaluated, and a recommendation for an award is forwarded by the agency to the Department of General Services. DGS reviews the supporting documents required by the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code and either concurs or does not concur in the recommendation. If DGS concurs, the submitting agency is notified and is permitted to then secure the lease. Once the lease has been entered into, it is then sent back to DGS for review and approval, as to the conditions, and thereafter the plans and specifications for the building are also referred to DGS for review and approval as to the quality and adequacy of the plans and specifications and code compliance. Section 255.249 and Section 255.25, Florida Statutes, sets forth the requirement for soliciting and awarding bids for lease space in an amount in excess of 2500 square feet. This provision requires that an award of this nature be made to the lowest and best bidder, and DGS subscribes to that standard in evaluating and determining whether or not it will concur with an agency's recommendation. In the instant case, DHRS advertised for bids for the construction of office space in Palatka, Florida for its District III facilities. Before seeking to solicit bids, District III staff conducted a search for other possible existing space within a five mile radius of the downtown area and located no adequate facilities. Thereafter, a certification of need was processed for a solicitation of proposals and approval was granted by DGS to follow through with the solicitation. A preproposal conference was advertised and held on October 14, 1983 and after review by those present at the conference, bid opening date was set for November 22, 1983. Thirty-two bid packages were distributed and twelve bidders submitted proposals. The public bid opening was held as scheduled at 2:00 P.M. on November 22, 1983, in Palatka, Florida by Robert E. Litza, Facilities Service Coordinator for DHRS District III. Of the bids submitted by the twelve bidders, the lowest bid was rejected because of the failure of the bidder to comply with the requirements of the bid package. Of the remaining eleven bids, the four lowest were evaluated with the understanding that additional high bids would be evaluated if the four lowest were found to be unacceptable. Among the four bids considered were bids of Chuck Bundschu, Inc.; Kenneth McGunn, the Intervenor (Mr. McGunn submitted five price schedules for his bid and of these only one was considered); Elizabethan Development, Inc.; and TSU. A recommendation by the evaluation committee which met at DHRS District III that Intervenor's bid be selected was forwarded to DGS in Tallahassee through the Director of DHRS's General Services in Tallahassee on December 22, 1983. The terms of the successful bid and the reasons for its being considered lowest and best are discussed below. The successful bid for the lease in question, lease number 590:8030, was, upon completion of the committee's evaluation, also evaluated by Mrs. Goodman in the Bureau of Property Management of DGS. She also considered the McGunn bid as the lowest and best of the eleven non-disqualified bids. In that regard, not only Mr. McGunn's bid but all of the twelve bids received were considered and reviewed not only at the local level but at DHRS and DGS Headquarters as well. In her evaluation of the proposal and the bids, Mrs. Goodman considered the documentation submitted by DHRS. This included a letter of recommendation supported by a synopsis of all proposals, the advertisements for bids, and any information pertinent to the site selection process. The letter from DHRS dated December 22, 1983, which recommended award of the lease to Mr. McGunn, included Mr. Litza's December 21, 1983 analysis and recommendation letter which, itself, was attached to McGunn's primary bid documents. Her analysis did not include a prior award recommendation and analysis from Mr. Litza, dated December 8, 1983. It also did not include the site plan, the floor plan for the proposed building, or a survey of the site, but these areas are considered to be within the discretion of the leasing agency. Their absence is not considered to be particularly significant. In her analysis, Mrs. Goodman found that Petitioner's bid was also responsive. However, comparing it with Mr. McGunn's bid, she and her staff found that the latter was the lowest bid submitted. The determing factor in her decision was cost. In determining that McGunn's bid was the lowest as to cost of all bids, Mrs. Goodman compared the average rate per square foot per year for each. This did not take into consideration proration of costs per year, but strictly the average over the fifteen years of the term of the lease (10 year basic plus 5 year option) . According to Mrs. Goodman, this same method of calculating cost has been used in every lease involving a turnkey situation and in fact in every lease since 1958 - as long as she has been with DGS. This particular method, admittedly, is not set forth in any rule promulgated by DGS. However, the agencies are instructed by DGS to advertise and bidders to bid on an average square foot basis, the basis utilized by Mrs. Goodman and her staff in analyzing the bids submitted. In that regard, the request for proposals does not, itself, indicate how the calculation of lowest cost would be made by DHRS and DGS but it does tell prospective bidders what information to submit. This procedure has been followed exclusively in situations like this for many years and many of the bidders have bid before using this same system. While Mrs. Goodman is not certain whether TSU has ever bid before, using this system, she does not consider it to be unfair because all bidders are considered on the same footing in an evaluation. They are notified of what information to submit and if they do so, their information will be considered along with all other bidders. Further, anyone who inquires as to the basis for evaluation will be given a straight and complete answer as to the method to be used. In the instant case, DHRS followed procedure for solicitation and evaluation utilized in the past and DGS followed its own policy in evaluating the submissions. In short, the primary consideration for DGS is the price factor and all other factors are considered to be within the expertise of the requesting agency. In Mrs. Goodman's opinion, based on the fact that she worked with the Florida Legislature on the development of the controlling statute, and helped develop the existing rule within DGS, that was the intent of the Legislature. Consequently since the statute requires award to the lowest and best bidder, it can be said that in this case the term "lowest" falls within the purview of both DHRS and DGS but "best" is solely within the purview of DHRS. Therefore, utilizing the lowest and best criteria and accepting the fact that the lowest bid may not be the best bid, the determination of "non-best" should be based on the reasonable "end objective" of the agency and need not be based on a criterion which is set forth in the bid proposal. In other words, it is not necessary for the agency to set forth the manner of evaluation it will use or the factors it will consider, according to Mrs. Goodman. With regard to the bid and evaluation committee process, Mr. Litza, the facilities manager for DHRS in Gainesville, was involved in putting together the bid package along with Mr. George Smith from Tallahassee, Litza's predecessor in the job in Gainesville. He worked with Mr. Smith in order to take advantage of Smith's experience in evaluating bids for leases. So far as he knew, the bid package contained minimum standards for all parts of the bid, and the package was, in fact, approved by officials in Tallahassee before being released. While no particular factors were identified to prospective bidders as being significant, Mr. Litza did conduct a bid conference for them prior to the date the bid was due and was available to answer any questions that prospective bidders might have. He did not receive any questions regarding the significance of any particular factor from any bidder. The bids were advertised and when received, were opened and read properly in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. When the bids were received and opened, it was seen that Mr. McGunn had submitted five different bids for the same project. Litza had not been confronted with this situation before and asked Mr. Smith what to do about it. Mr. Smith's reply was to put all five McGunn bids in with the rest and extract the lowest five of all bids. When this was done, Mr. McGunn was shown to have submitted two of the lowest five bids. In determining which were the lowest five bids, Mr. Litza utilized the average cost per square foot formula utilizing therein the entire 15,772 square feet authorized for the project. Once the five lowest bids were determined, Mr. Litza selected an evaluation committee made up of local Palatka DHRS supervisors except for the fiscal member, Mr. Foust, Mrs. Shinholster, Litza's secretary and Litza himself. He gave each of the members a score sheet with point values for each area. Each member filled out the form independently. Though he gave very little briefing to the evaluation committee, he admits that he did, in advance, tell each member that Mr. McGunn was the lowest bidder and should be awarded the highest points for criteria number 1, which related to cost. There were several irregularities in Mr. Litza's processing of the evaluation committee's results. For example, on the evaluation of the file conducted by member Sheryl Dollar, regarding criteria number 2, which relates to the conformity of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid (with a weight of 25 points), Mr. Litza admitted he lowered Mrs. Dollar's point award in that area from 35 to 25 without first checking with her to insure that his action would meet with her approval. While this is irregular, it is of little or no consequence since - the maximum number of points that could be given for that particular item was 25 and Mr. Litza's actions did not reduce that member's award to less than the maximum allowable. He contends that his action was based on what he considered to be a mistake on her part. In another apparent irregularity, Mr. Litza prepared a recommendation letter based on his and the other committee members' evaluation of the files to DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee on December 8, 1983. In that letter, be indicated that McGunn would provide gas heat for the proposed building for free. Though McGunn had not specifically stated this, he implied it from the energy features paragraph in the Intervenor's bid. On the other hand, the bid by TSU contained an express comment offering to pay the utility charges. This specific provision was overlooked and omitted from the evaluation and report to Tallahassee by Litza, who contends that this omission was merely an oversight. There are other discrepancies as well. In his testimony, Mr. Litza indicated Mr. McGunn proposed to build one building but his letter of December 8th and that of December 21, 1984, both reflect two buildings. Here again, Mr. Litza explains this as the result of his being confused. Nonetheless, this erroneous information was referred to Mrs. Goodman at DGS. This is significant in that at the evaluation committee meeting, when the forms were given out, several of the members expressed a preference for a two-building complex. After the award, Mr. Litza secured agreement from McGunn to build two buildings. Mr. Litza admits that much of this was done in an attempt to insure that McGunn, as the low bidder, got the award. Mr. Litza equated the lowest bid with the best and had Petitioner been the low bidder, he contends he would have done the same thing. In most areas, he would not, however, have given Petitioner's four-building concept a high score because of the increased heat and air requirements of four buildings. Mr. Litza also downgraded Petitioner on that bid criteria which relates to the proximity of offered space to the clients to be served because Petitioner's site, he contends, was too close to the clients to be served. In this case, a housing project for low income families which make up much of the clientele to be served by DHRS, was located across the street from the proposed site offered by the Petitioner. Mr. Litza contends that he was thinking of the potential damage to the building because of increased activity by virtue of the facility being so close. There were other questionable areas in Mr. Litza's testimony. For example, he testified that though Petitioner provided 15 more parking spaces than Intervenor, this would result in mud being tracked in from the adjacent dirt road 200 feet away in greater quantities than in Intervenor's proposal. He also considered positively that the Intervenor's proposed site was closer to a restaurant than that of the Petitioner. Though it was recommended by DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee that only two of the committee members be from the Palatka office, Mr. Litza disregarded that advice because, he contends, there was a morale factor in that office and the people assigned there wanted to have a part in this decision. Because of this, he allowed Ms. Stouffenberg to put five extra members of her staff on the committee. Nonetheless, the evaluation committee serves only in an advisory capacity. Its recommendation is no more than an advisory opinion. The ultimate decision as to which of the bidders should be awarded the contract is made at DHRS Headquarters in Tallahassee. Ms. Shinholster, a Clerk IV in the DHRS Gainesville office, who works as a secretary to Mr. Litza and several others, was advised she would be on the committee for the evaluation at the same time she was given the bid file. She did not get an opportunity to meet with other committee members to talk about the standards to be used, nor was she given any standards by which to evaluate the files. All she was told by Mr. Litza was that McGunn was the lowest bidder. She cannot explain how she accorded points on her evaluation sheets except that she gave the low bidder the highest number of points. Mr. George Smith, a Senior Analyst with DHRS in Tallahassee, relied on Mr. Litza's input when he made his recommendation to his superiors that the award should be made to McGunn. He also formulated his own opinion, based on his own analysis of the bids. He resolved any dispute regarding cost in favor of Mr. McGunn on the basis of the average rental, and regarding space, in favor of McGunn on the basis of the number of buildings. Dr. Perry, an economist with the University of North Florida, testified to the Federal Government's policy regarding the desirability of using the present value of money methodology and the determination of an acceptable discount rate or index in calculating the actual cost of the bids. Both experts, Dr. Perry and Dr. Scott, who testified for DGS, agree that the present value methodology is valid and presents a more accurate analysis of cost than the average rental cost methodology which does not utilize this theory. The major difference between the two was primarily in the percentage to be utilized in applying the discount rate. Whereas Dr. Perry adopted the Federal policy and suggested a 10 percent discount rate, Dr. Scott testified that a more viable percentage rate in November, 1983, at the time the award was to be made, would have been 3.3 percent. If the 10 percent rate were used, then the Petitioner's bid would be the lowest of all submitted. On the other hand, if the 3.3 percent rate were used, Intervenor's bid would be the lowest. If a different discount rate, that of 5.7 percent were to he used, the bid of Elizabethan Development Corporation would be low. It is at about the 6 percent point and above that Petitioner's bid becomes the lowest. Nonetheless, the State has not adopted the present value of money theory and the policy followed by the State is not to consider that methodology in analyzing costs. State policy is to use only the average rental methodology. There are no written instructions (rules) on evaluating bids for leases of this nature. Oral instructions given by DGS to each agency are that the average rate per square foot is to be computed using, if the square footage is constant, for each year of the lease, the basic square footage requested, multiplied by the rental rate proposed for each year of the basic lease, divided by the number of years. If the square footage is not constant in every year of the lease, evaluators are directed to apply the rate per square foot proposed in each year to the square footage to be utilized in that year, total up the annual rentals, total up the square footage involved, and divide to arrive at the average rate per square foot per year. Utilizing one or the other of those two methods in evaluating both the McGunn and the TSU bids, it becomes clear that the McGunn bid results in an average of $8.86 cost per square foot per year and the TSU bid an average of $9.58 per square foot per year. Recalculation of DHRS' evaluation by DGS showed the DHRS' figures as stated above were correctly arrived at. This procedure is followed on all turnkey and non-turnkey leases in the State of Florida. The reason the State uses this process instead of the present value of money process is because it is easy. DGS statistics indicate that most landlords in the approximately $32,000,000 worth of leases presently existing with the State are "Mom and Pop" landlords. These people are not normally trained lease evaluators. By using the straight average rental rate method, there are no arbitrary variables. It has always worked because people can understand it and all agencies which lease property in the State of Florida follow this procedure. Also, this procedure does not require computer-based calculations, and it does not require economists to work with it. Both latter reasons are amplifications of the first. In Mrs. Goodman's estimation, if the present value of money system were to be adopted, her division would have to hire at least two $30,000 per year economists and buy an in-house computer to operate the system. This additional cost, she believes, would far outweigh the paper savings to be realized by utilizing the present value of money system. As of the hearing date, considering all the factors, in Mrs. Goodman's opinion, DGS would nonetheless still recommend Mr. McGunn's bid as the lowest and best bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that DHRS lease Number 590:8030 be awarded to Kenneth R. McGunn. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Holmes, Esquire William E. Townsend, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer D Palatka, Florida 32078-0019 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Stephen J. Kubik, Esquire Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Allen Poll, Esquire 112 South Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Linda C. McGurn, Esquire 1717 Northeast 9th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Thomas, Executive Director Department of General Services 115 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination at formal hearing was whether the intended decision by the Palm Beach County School Board to reject all bids on the Gladeview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Palm Beach County School Board (Respondent) issued a request for proposals (RFP), soliciting sealed bids for the reroofing, renovating and replacing the HVAC of Gladeview Elementary School, Project No. 125191702/205840 (Gladeview Elementary Project). The RFP and bid documents for the Gladeview Elementary Project were contained in the "Project Manual." The addendum to the RFP required all bids to be submitted by April 20, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids were to be publicly opened. Pertinent to the case at hand, the RFP further required a bid bond or cashier's check for not less than five percent (5 percent) of the bid and notified bidders that Respondent had the right to reject all bids and waive any informalities. Section 00100 of the "Instruction to Bidders" in the Project Manual is material to the case at hand and provides in pertinent part: BIDDING PROCEDURES: * * * Preparation and Submission of Bid Proposal Form: [P]roposals containing any conditions, omissions, unexplained erasures, alternates, items not called for or irregularities of any kind may be rejected by the Owner. . . (e) Proposal Submittal shall contain the following documents: Section 000443 - Public Entity Crimes Statement Section 00310 - Proposal Form Section 00410 - Bid Bond or otherwise acceptable Bid Guarantee (see Paragraph 3.08). Manufacturer's Letter of Intent to Warranty (See Section 7610) and will be enclosed in a sealed envelope. . . * * * 3.08 Bid Guarantee: Bids shall be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than five percent (5 percent) of the amount of the Base Bid, which shall be a Cashier's Check or a Bid Bond (Bid Bond, see Section 00410) made payable to the Owner. * * * 3.10 Subcontractors: At the time of the Bid Opening each Bidder submitting a Bid shall submit a written list of the major Subcontractors; namely, structural steel, membrane roofing, preformed metal roofing & siding, plumbing, HVAC, electrical and general contractor, on Form 00420 (List of Major Subcontractors). The list shall be placed in a "sealed envelope". . . Within five (5) Owner Business days after the Bid Opening, the apparent low Bidder(s) shall submit Form 00430) (List of Subcontractors), completed in full to the Owner ... Failure to submit these lists within the time period specified herein shall result in a non- responsive Bid. * * * REJECTION OF BIDS: 6.01 The Bidder acknowledges the right of the Owner to reject any or all Bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any Bid received. In addition, the Bidder recognizes the right of the Owner to reject a Bid if the Bidder failed to furnish any required Bid security, or to submit the data required by the Bidding Documents, or if the Bid is any way incomplete or irregular; to reject the Bid of a Bidder who is not in a position to perform the Contract; and to re-advertise for other or further Bid Proposals. SUBMISSION OF POST-BID INFORMATION: * * * 7.02 The selected Bidder shall within eight (8) Owner business days after notification of Board Award submit the following: . . . 6. Photocopies of prime Contractor's certification and/or registration and either state registrations or Palm Beach County Certificate of Competency of all Subcontractors. . . * * * AWARD OF CONTRACT: The Contract, if awarded by the Owner, will be awarded to the lowest bona fide responsible Bidder; provided the Bid is reasonable and it is in the interest of the Owner to accept the Bid. The method of determining the lowest bona fide Bid from Bidders shall be the Base Bid price plus or minus Alternate Prices listed on the Bid Proposal Form which are accepted by the Owner. Alternates will be considered for acceptance by the Owner as set forth in the Alternate section of the Specifications, Division One-General Requirements, Section 01030-Alternates. The bid opening was conducted on April 20, 1993, at which time the bids were tabulated and the Bid Tabulation Form (BTF) was posted. Respondent received bids from Bonner Roofing whose base bid was $869,000, S&S Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner S&S Roofing) whose bid was $693,000, Therma Seal Roofs, Inc. (Petitioner Therma Seal) whose bid was $691,500, Titan Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Titan Roofing) whose base bid was $689,500, and Trans Coastal Roofing, Inc. (Petitioner Trans Coastal) whose base bid was $884,248. The BTF showed that the rank of the bids, beginning with the apparent lowest bidder to the apparent highest, were (1) Petitioner Titan Roofing, (2) Petitioner Therma Seal, (3) Petitioner S&S Roofing, and (4) Petitioner Trans Coastal. The BTF showed further that Bonner Roofing failed to submit with its bid the Manufacturers Letter of Intent which was a required document. Bonner Roofing's bid was rejected. Within minutes after the bid opening, Respondent's staff discovered that Petitioner Titan Roofing had failed to list its major subcontractors on Form 00420, List of Major Subcontractors, even though it had submitted the form. Respondent's staff contacted Petitioner Titan Roofing by telephone and requested the list. Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 was inadvertent and not intentional. At the time of the bid opening, Respondent's staff had not considered Petitioner Titan Roofing's failure to submit a completed Form 00420 to be a major irregularity, but a minor one. Consequently, Respondent's staff considered the failure to be a waivable irregularity. Unable to discern if it had the original figures submitted by its major subcontractors, Petitioner Titan Roofing telephoned them to verify the figures it had. Within two hours, Petitioner Titan Roofing had faxed to Respondent's staff a completed Form 00420. Respondent's recommendation or intended action was to award the bid to Petitioner Titan Roofing as the apparent lowest bidder. Petitioner Therma Seal, the apparent second lowest bidder, filed a timely protest of Respondent's intended action. Respondent held an informal hearing on the protest, and the recommendation was to reject all bids. In prior bids, a bidder's failure to submit Form 00420 at bid opening has been considered a major irregularity by Respondent. The purpose of Form 00420 is to prevent or guard against bid shopping. Respondent's action has been to routinely reject bids with such a deficiency. Petitioner Therma Seal failed to submit with its bid the required bid bond of 5 percent of its base bid. Failure to submit a required bid bond is considered by Respondent to be a major irregularity. Furthermore, Petitioner Therma Seal was not a licensed general contractor. It listed itself as the general contractor on Form 00420. All bids failed to comply with the roofing warranties and specifications, which Respondent considers to be a major irregularity. Respondent's budget, based upon its architect's construction estimate, for the Gladeview Elementary Project was $652,130. All bids were over budget. Prior to the formal hearing, Respondent Trans Coastal notified the parties that it was not proceeding with its protest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Palm Beach County School Board enter its final order rejecting all bids on the Gladview Elementary School project, Project No. 125191702/205840, and re-advertise. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROLL H. POWELL 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 7th day of September, 1993.
Findings Of Fact Respondent advertised for bids for work to be performed on the Statewide Regional Juvenile Detention Center located in Pasco County identified as Project Number HRS 85-300000. In response to this advertisements Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted bids on January 23, 1966. According to calculations performed by Respondent, Petitioner was low bidder and Intervenor was the next lowest bidder. The construction budget for this job is $1.5 million, and both bids are considered by Respondent to be within budget. Depending on the alternatives chosen within each bid, Petitioner's bid is lower than Intervenor's by between approximately $6,000 and $40,000. Section B-14 of the advertisement for bids requires each bidder to submit a list of the subcontractors who will perform work on the job for him and specifies that only one subcontractor shall be listed for each phase of the work. Section D of the advertisement for bids specifies the work areas for which a subcontractor must be listed and states that said list is an integral part of each bid submitted. The subcontracting areas include electrical plumbing, mechanical, roofing security control systems, food service equipment and fire protection. Petitioner's bid was rejected on February 4, 1986, because its bid failed to include a roofing subcontractor's name as required in the advertisement for bids. Petitioner does not dispute that its bid was incomplete when submitted since it failed to identify a roofing subcontractor. However, Petitioner contends this omission was a result of clerical error in typing the bide and that, in fact, it had selected Republic Roofing as its subcontractor. John Breen, Petitioner's project manager, testified that it was his intent to use Republic Roofing when he submitted the bide that he had a firm bid from Republic Roofing, and that when this omission was brought to his attention after bids were opened, he identified Republic Roofing in writing on January 24 and 29, 1986, to Brian Seufert an intern architect working for Respondent's project architect. Seufert confirms Breen's testimony through affidavit jointly filed by the parties. Seufert indicates that the project architect has no reason to believe that Petitioner could not perform the work required by the project. By affidavit jointly filed by the parties, Joyce Kleja secretary for Petitioners also supports Breen's testimony about her clerical error in omitting the roofing subcontractor when she typed the bid. Ray Scerbo, an estimator for Republic Roofing, disputes the testimony of Breen through jointly filed affidavit. Scerbo indicates it was not until a couple of days after the bid opening that he was told by Petitioner that Republic Roofing "had the job" if Petitioner was awarded the contract. This conflicts with the first written notice from Breen to Seufert dated January 24, 1986, as well as Seufert's affidavit that Petitioner told Seufert on January 24, 1986, that Republic Roofing had been selected. Scerbo is no longer employed by Republic Roofing. After considering all of the evidence, it is specifically found that Petitioner's omission of Republic Roofing from its list of subcontractors was through clerical error and that Petitioner had firmly decided to use Republic Roofing for subcontracting work prior to submission of its bid. The advertisement for bid required all subcontractors to be listed in any bid in order to allow Respondent to review prior performance and licensure of subcontractors, and also to prevent "bid shopping". Bid shopping is a practice which inflates a general contractor's bid and therefore the actual award by encouraging subcontractors to initially submit high bids to the general contractor and then negotiate a lower price with the general contractor who has received the award. The general contractor's bid remains inflated however and in this way the cost to the state is increased.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order awarding Project Number HRS 85-300000 to Intervenor. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April 1986, at Tallahassee Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 1st day of April 1986. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 86-0495B1D) Petitioner has submitted a memorandum and a Proposed Recommended Order, both of which appear to set forth proposed findings of fact in unnumbered paragraphs. For purposes of ruling thereon, the unnumbered paragraphs which appear to set forth proposed findings have been consecutively numbered. Memorandum: Introductory material and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, but otherwise rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Rejected as simply a summary of testimony and evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 2 and otherwise rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Proposed Recommended Order: Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1, 3, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise rejected as contrary to Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rulings on Respondent's and Intervenor's jointly filed Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. , 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6, 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis R. Long Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 Sam Powers Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32301 William Page; Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Fons Esquire Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, D. J. Haycook Construction Company (Haycook) was the lowest responsive bidder for an elementary school procurement project known as Elementary School "X," let by the Volusia County School Board and whether the Petitioner should have been awarded the contract.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 2003, the School Board of Volusia County authorized the issuance of a request for proposal for the construction of a new elementary school known as Elementary School "X." The proposed new school would be located in Orange City, Florida. The school board issued an advertisement for the construction of Elementary School "X" and had it published. The project architect for the Board prepared the solicitation documents constituting a "Phase III specifications" manual and three addenda. The advertisement stated that "the school board expressly reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive informalities therein, and to use sufficient time to investigate the bids and the qualifications of the bidders." Section 00430 of the solicitation required that all bidders list the name of the subcontractor for each type of the 12 areas of construction work for Elementary School "X" as follows: 'For each type of work' below, list the name of the subcontractor. List only one name on each line and only one subcontractor for each type of work. Various 'type of work' sub-contracts may have more than one subcontractor (re: roofing; metal roofing and membrane roofing), list each subcontractor accordingly. Use additional sheets, if required. Additionally, Section 00430 provided: The term subcontractor as used herein shall be defined in 2001, Florida Statute 713.01(27) - subcontractor means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with a contractor for the performance of any part of such contractor's contract. The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the solicitation was August 6, 2003. On August 6, 2003, Haycook's bid proposal and that of the second and third lowest bidders were opened and read by the members of the school board's staff. Haycook listed itself as performing or "self-performing" in areas of earthwork, masonry, concrete, and structural steel on the required list of subcontractors form pursuant to section 00430 of the solicitation. Subsequently, the project architect began to investigate the bids for the project. This was done through correspondence and direct contact between Haycook, the project architect, Mr. Daimwood, and the school board staff. This process began on August 8, 2003. As part of the evaluation process the architect verbally requested documentation from Haycook to verify its past and present abilities to self-perform in the four areas of earthwork, concrete, masonry, and structural steel, as well as by letters dated August 12, August 15, and August 25, 2003. Haycook responded to these information requests by letters of August 11, 13, and 28, 2003. The bid documents for the school project included the bidding and contractual conditions, general conditions, technical specifications, and the drawings listed on pages 10D-1 to 10D-2. In order to have a responsive bid a bidder was required to comply with the bid documents when submitting its bid. The relevant bid documents at issue in this dispute are Section 0020, "invitation to bid," Section 00100, "instruction to bidders," Section 00300, "bid form," and Section 00430, "list of subcontractors." The bid documents also required each bidder to deliver a bid bond in the amount of five percent of its bid to accompany the proposal. After acceptance of the lowest responsive bid, and issuance of the contract award, a bidder was required to deliver a payment and performance bond in the amount of 100 percent of the contract price. There is no dispute that Haycook has a bonding capacity of 18 million dollars for a single project and 35 million dollars for aggregate projects and the bonding capacity is not in dispute. The invitation to bid documents require that bidders be required to hold a current Certificate of Pre-Qualification issued by the school board at the time of bid opening. Haycook at all material times hereto held a Certificate of Pre- Qualification and was licensed to perform all work called for by the bid documents including, among others, self-performance of earthwork, concrete work, masonry, and structural steel. The three bids received were in the amounts as follows: (1) D. J. Haycook Construction Company: a base bid of $7,599,000.00; Alternate One, $189,000.00; Alternate Two, $48,800.00; Alternate Three, $21,000.00; (2) Mark Construction Company of Longwood, Florida: base bid of $7,657,000.00, Alternate One, $221,000.00; Alternate Two, $50,000.00; Alternate Three, $20,000.00; (3) Clancy and Theys Construction Company of Orlando, Florida: base bid of $7,840,000.00; Alternate One, $230,000.00; Alternate Two, $50,000.00; Alternate Three, $21,000.00. Section 00430 required each bidder to furnish a list of subcontractors defined as quoted above in the bid form. Section 00430 of the bid form also permitted a bidder to list itself as a subcontractor. The form provides: "A contractor may not list himself as performing a type of work unless he is self- performing and is a Florida licensed contractor for that type of work". Haycook was properly licensed at the time of bidding, and at all relevant times, to self-perform in the four areas of earthwork, structural steel, masonry, and concrete at issue in this case. After the bids were opened and examined, Mr. Daimwood, the architect evaluating bids for the school board, requested that Haycook furnish a list of past projects where it had self- performed earthwork, structural steel, masonry, and concrete work. Haycook provided a list of examples of prior projects for which it had self-performed work in those areas on August 11, 2003. The list included five projects for earthwork, four projects for structural steel, seven projects for masonry, and seven projects for concrete. Thereafter, on August 12, 2003, the architect requested additional information regarding self- performance of work in the four areas at issue. Haycook provided the architect with the requested additional information on August 13, 2003, including a list of each project, the total cost of each project, the completion dates, as well as contact persons with their telephone numbers and including copies of qualifications of the subcontractors listed on Haycook's subcontractor list. On August 25, 2003, the architect requested Haycook payroll records and workers compensation information for two of the listed projects of those Haycook had provided, that for Goldsboro Elementary School and Eustis Elementary School. On August 28, 2003, Haycook sent a letter to the architect explaining that on the Goldsboro job the earthwork was self-performed by a combination of supervising and directing the work with salaried employees, with leasing of labor from an employment service, and hiring of labor by the cubic yard with a cap on the activity. Haycook also explained that structural steel work on the projects was self-performed by a combination of supervising and directing the work with salaried employees, leasing of labor from an employment service, hiring of labor paid by the foot to erect specific components of the job, as well as using salaried employees for the performance of specific activities, and including purchasing of fabricated materials and then hiring crew labor and equipment on an hourly basis to erect them. In the August 28, 2003, letter Haycook also explained, with respect to the self-performed masonry work on both the Eustis and Goldsboro jobs, that those areas of work were self- performed by purchasing fabricated material, supervising and directing the work with salaried employees, hiring labor by the unit price (for instance by the block) to lay the block, and hiring labor from an employee leasing service for specific activities as to those jobs. Haycook also explained in the August 28, 2003, letter that a combination of the methods and means of performing delineated above and in that letter would be used for the activities listed on the subcontractor list on the relevant bid form for Elementary School "X". Haycook explained that it had priced and used its own costs for the activities listed on the bid form to arrive at the bid price for Elementary School "X". Enclosed with the August 28, 2003, letter from Haycook were copies of its purchase orders and cost journals for the Goldsboro School, concerning earthwork, masonry, and structural steel activities and its vendor purchase orders and cost journals for the Eustis Elementary School's masonry work done by Haycook. The enclosures with the August 28, 2003, letter showed that Haycook had purchased the materials, performed the work with its own employees, and performed work using additional outside labor in the areas of structural metals, prefabricated structures, earthwork, cast-in-place concrete, structural steel erection, and masonry work. Haycook also provided its proposals used on the Goldsboro project which consisted of concrete labor and structural steel labor. The architect interpreted the term "self-performance" to mean labor with the contractor's own employees only. Based upon that restrictive interpretation, he concluded that he had not found adequate information demonstrating Haycook's having "self-performed" these types of work previously. Additionally, the architect opined that Haycook's intended self-performance on Elementary School "X" project at issue, in the four work areas in dispute, "is in our opinion, a subcontractor format." Uncontroverted evidence adduced at hearing established that Haycook has extensive public school construction experience. The Petitioner's President, Dennis Haycook, has built more than 35 public schools and Haycook's project manager, Reed Hadley, who is assigned to the Elementary School "X" project, has built over 25 school projects. Dennis Haycook was also a principal of Mark Arnold Construction Company in the past, which was one of the largest public school contractors in Florida. In the past 10 years, with his own company, the Petitioner, Haycook, has built numerous school projects including the Goldsboro school which was a $7,000,000.00 project. The Goldsboro, Eustis, and other Haycook-built schools referenced during the hearing and in the evidence were all projects that were built within the authorized budget, were timely, and were of quality construction. The Board ultimately rejected Haycook's bid on Elementary School "X" because of the architect's interpretation concerning "self-performance," i.e. that all work must be performed by employees on Haycook's payroll. The bid documents did not define "self-performance," nor do the bid documents require that labor used must be on the contractor's payroll in order for his performance to constitute "self-performance." Haycook's witnesses were consistent in their testimony as to the definition of "self-performance": "self-performance," as customarily used in the construction industry, includes the contractor's purchasing of materials, performing part of the work with its own labor force, providing other labor not on the contractor's payroll, and directly supervising the work with the contractor's supervisory personnel. The term "subcontractor" is defined in the custom and usage of the construction industry, however, to mean someone or an entity that provides all labor, material, and equipment necessary to do the complete operation, as well as all supervision. It is more of a "total turn key operation." A subcontractor provides everything necessary to finish the work, including supervision, and then merely answers to the general contractor in terms of responsibility for the quality of the job and its timeliness. The school board's witnesses, expert and otherwise, gave interpretations of the concept of self-performance which were somewhat conflicting. Mr. Daimwood, the architect, opined that self-performance requires the contractors to use employees on its own payroll and make direct payment of workers' compensation for such employees. His opinion was that anything else would be a subcontractor relationship and not self- performance. He later testified, however, that paying labor not actually on Haycook's payroll could still constitute self- performance. Patricia Drago, of the school board staff, testified that if a contractor uses 10 employees on his payroll and uses 10 non-employees, this would be self-performance. If such a contractor has 10 employees and uses 11 non-employees, she was not sure whether this would constitute self-performance. Allen Green testified that self-performance of an area of work requires the majority of that work to be performed by the contractor's own employees, while other work could be performed by contract labor. He later changed his definition to require a contractor to have all employees on the payroll in order to self-perform. In other testimony, however, Mr. Green opined that if a contractor supplemented his labor with a couple of additional masons and paid them by the piece, then he would no longer be self-performing. At still another point in his testimony he added that it would be dependent upon the stage of the project as to whether the contractor's use of contract labor is self-performing or subcontracting. He felt that if the contractor adds some additional masons near the end of a job, as opposed to the beginning, then he could still be self- performing. Gary Parker is the Director of Facilities for the Lake County School Board. He testified that from his perspective, self-performance required the use of employees on the contractor's payroll. This definition, however, was not consistent with Lake County's course of conduct with the job that Haycook performed. Mr. Parker acknowledged that there had been no complaints by the architect or anyone else associated with the Eustis school project where Haycook listed itself as self-performing for masonry work, even though Haycook had retained a different entity to perform masonry labor (although not supply materials or supervision). Scott Stegall, the Director of Capital Outlay for the Seminole County School Board, testified that self-performance would require a contractor to perform all work without the use of outside contractors, including labor. Yet Mr. Stegall acknowledged that Haycook listed itself as self-performing masonry work on the Goldsboro school project and used a firm or entity known as Webber and Tucker to perform some masonry work, and that the Seminole County School Board had no dispute with this approach. Mr. Stegall's evaluation form for Haycook had stated that Haycook did not improperly substitute any subcontractors from the submitted list in that project. He later changed his definition of self-performance to acknowledge that a contractor could bring in laborers individually to perform without a "formal contract"; these informal labor contracts would not take it out of the self-performance category according to Mr. Stegall. The evidence concerning the Lake County District's and Seminole County District's experience as to the Eustis school project and the Goldsboro school project with Haycook's performance, including Haycook's approach to self-performance, was satisfactory in terms of pricing and the quality and timeliness of the work performed. The perceived fear by the Respondent that Haycook's performance might be substandard or that it might "bid shop" amongst potential subcontractors, after the bid opening, if Haycook did not list all subcontractors on the bid response, and self-performed in the manner Haycook described in its evidence, has not been shown to have occurred with regard to any of Haycook's past projects. There has been no demonstration by preponderant evidence that the use of only subcontractors listed or named in the bid response has resulted, in itself, in a lower price or better performance for the public by a contractor situated as Haycook. The architect testified that one method of defining "self-performance" is to determine whether the entity performing work was a subcontractor as defined by the bid documents. If the work is not being performed by a subcontractor, then it is being performed by the general contractor or self-performance. As the term is used in the construction industry, a subcontractor generally furnishes materials, installs the work, and supervises its own work. The bid documents define subcontractor as follows: "subcontractor means a person other than a materialman or laborer who enters into a contract with a contractor for the performance of any part of such contractor's contract." Preponderant, credible, and substantial evidence was presented by Haycook to show that Haycook's use of the term "subcontractor" was an entity that furnishes the materials, provides the labor, and the supervision, and undertakes the entire responsibility for that type or phase of the work. When a general contractor hires contract labor only, this excludes what is occurring from the definition of subcontractor, since the definition of subcontractor prevailing in this proceeding based upon the bid documents, takes out of that subcontractor definition "a materialman or laborer." The preponderant credible evidence shows that when Haycook purchases materials and provides the labor, whether or not the labor is on Haycook's payroll, which Haycook then directly supervises, this, by definition, is not a subcontractor situation under the definition of that concept in the bid documents themselves. The bid documents provide no definition for self- performance, but simply contain the following requirements: "a contractor may not list himself as performing a type of work unless he is self-performing and is a Florida licensed contractor for that type of work." Therefore, if a contractor meets these two requirements, he is responsive to this specification concerning when subcontractors should be listed or need not be listed in the bid response. Haycook meets both of the two requirements for self- performing. Haycook's definition of self-performing work is consistent with and does not conflict with the definition of "subcontractor," which excludes materialmen and laborers. Haycook's expert witness, Mr. Harold Goodemote, is a general contractor with 20 years experience, including 8 years as a project engineer and chief estimator for Foley and Associates Construction Company for many public school projects in the Orlando, Melbourne, and Daytona Beach area. Mr. Goodemote is also Vice-President of "Coleman-Goodemote" which has been in existence for approximately 10 years and has built projects worth multi-millions of dollars for Daytona Speedway related entities. It was established through Mr. Goodemote's testimony that it is customary in the construction industry to self- perform work by the contractor's purchasing of materials and using the contractor's own employees, along with "third party labor," to complete work under the direct supervision and control of the general contractor. The testimony of Mr. Reed Hadley and Mr. Haycook likewise establishes that it is common practice in the construction industry to self-perform work in the manner in which Haycook has performed it in the past. For example, both the Lake County and Seminole County School Boards allowed Haycook to list itself as self-performing where Haycook purchased masonry materials and used contract labor to install the masonry materials and components. "Bid shopping" is a practice whereby a contractor submits a bid for a project and, after winning the bid, goes to its subcontractors or even to new subcontractors, not considered in the bid process, and attempts to get lower prices from them, versus the prices the contractor had when it submitted its bid. This allows more profit to be built into the job for the contractor or, if the contractor artificially bid low in order to get the job, tends to allow the contractor to restore profit to the job for itself. The school board's rationale for requiring pre-bid opening listing of subcontractors is to prevent bid shopping after the bid is awarded in order to protect the competitive integrity of the bidding process. The listing of subcontractors is a practice of the Volusia County School Board and some other school boards in Florida. Ms. Drago, in her testimony, acknowledged that a substantial number of school boards in Florida do not require a list of subcontractors to be provided with bid proposals, and she acknowledged that this does not mean that those school boards' bid processes lack credibility and competitive integrity. She was unaware of any examples in the Volusia County School Board's experience where a contractor listed itself as self-performing and then shopped subcontractors after the bid opening to obtain a better price. The preponderant evidence of record does not establish that this has been the case with Haycook or other contractors on past Volusia County School Board jobs. This is in accord with Mr. Haycook's testimony, who described the detrimental effects such a practice could have on future relationships between a contractors and subcontractors in terms of having them available for later jobs, if a contactor became known for "beating down" subcontractors' prices. If a contractor had a reputation for engaging in that practice, in the future subcontractors' bids to that general contractor would likely be higher, if he could get their bids, and this might result in that contractor having difficulty rendering bid proposals that were low enough to have a chance of being successful. The bid documents give the school board the right to determine if each subcontractor listed by the bidders is qualified to perform the work and if not, to reject that subcontractor and require a replacement subcontractor. It is noteworthy that neither the architect nor the school board rejected Haycook as being unqualified to perform the work in any of the areas in which Haycook, in effect, listed itself as the subcontractor. The bid documents do not provide that the school board may reject "sub-subcontractors" engaged by a subcontractor, nor does the school board examine the history and capabilities of sub-subcontractors that a subcontractor intends to use. Once a subcontractor is acceptable to the Board, there is no further review to determine what means, methods, and procedures the subcontractor uses to perform the work. The subcontractor can contract out all of the work to sub-subcontractors who are actually performing the work, and the Board might not even be aware of it. Therefore, its method or rationale of listing subcontractors and then investigating the subcontractors is no guarantee of ensuring quality of work. In fact, the more areas of work that the general contractor does itself, the more direct control over performance the school board would have. The school board apparently uses a different approach in the instance where a general contractor lists itself as a subcontractor for one or more types of work, i.e. is self- performing. The Board's practice in that situation requires the general contractor to list each contractor who may perform parts of the work. Therefore, the general contractor must list each contractor who will perform the work in each area while this standard is not applied to listed subcontractors. The bid documents do not disclose to bidders the school board's unwritten definition and interpretation of "self- performance." They do not reveal that under the Board's interpretation a contractor must self-perform only with employees on its payroll; that a pre-qualified contractor licensed to perform work in a given area must prove that it has self-performed such work in the past with its own employees only; that general contractors will be treated differently from subcontractors on the subcontractors list, as to the listing of contract labor, and that even though the term "subcontractor" in the bid documents excludes "materialmen" and "laborers," the school board still considers contract labor as a subcontractor or subcontracting, that must be listed for self-performance work. Haycook has substantial experience in bidding and performing work on public school projects, as does Mr. Haycook himself, with both Haycook and a prior company with which he was associated. Haycook had prepared a bid three or four months earlier on a prototype school project similar to Elementary School "X" and had extensive cost information obtained from its work on that project and from subcontractors, including those "bidding" Elementary School "X." Haycook maintains a large database of subcontractors and suppliers experienced in performing work and portions of the work necessary for the Elementary School "X" project, including cost information. It has a database of over 3,000 names useful in obtaining and providing labor for use on parts and subparts of any self- performed work. Prior to the bid, Haycook received the plans and specifications enabling it to determine the quantities of materials needed and the costs per unit for installing the materials and performing the necessary work. Haycook had received subcontractor bids in each of the four areas that it later determined it would self-perform (earthwork, structural steel, concrete, and masonry). Because Haycook's "takeoffs," historical pricing information and recent bid information from another Volusia County prototype school indicated that it could self-perform the work at less cost than using the bids of subcontractors in those four work areas, Haycook elected to self-perform the work and listed itself as the subcontractor in those four work areas. This was not a case where Haycook simply ran out of time to get subcontractors' bids in those four work areas and therefore simply listed itself as performing in the four work areas at issue due to time expediency. It was also not because Haycook intended listing itself as performing in the four subject work areas so that it would create an opportunity to get lower bids from unknown subcontractors after bid opening, in order to enhance its profitability and support a low bid, in terms of putting enough money in the job for itself. As general contractor for the entire project, Haycook intended to provide general supervision of the entire project including subcontractors. With respect to self-performed work, Haycook intended to supply materials and components and to directly supervise and control the means, methods, and procedures of the self-performed work with contract labor. Haycook's definition of "self-performance" for earthwork involved Haycook's renting equipment, retaining contract laborers to clear the site, place the fill (paid by the hour or by the yard), compact the fill, and grade the site. Haycook directly supervises self-performed work and schedules and manages it with Haycook's project manager and on-site superintendent. The testimony of Reed Hadley and Dennis Haycook on behalf of Haycook established that Haycook had self-performed earthwork on other projects in the same manner as described above, satisfactorily for the owners. Specific project names and other project information showing earthwork self-performance by Haycook was provided to the architect as referenced above. Mr. Haycook established that Haycook had "self-performed" earthwork on 50 to 60 percent of its projects in the past. Haycook's definition of self-performance of structural steel included engaging a licensed fabricator, as required by the bid specifications in this instance, hiring experienced labor erection crews, purchasing the materials and component parts, and directly supervising and managing the work, including scheduling of the labor crews. Haycook had performed structural steel on 10 to 15 percent of its past projects. Four examples of projects, self-performed in structural steel, were provided to the architect along with related detailed information. Haycook's self-performance of concrete work included its purchasing of materials, hiring contract labor for footings, paid by the lineal foot, and concrete slabs paid by the square foot, and directly supervising, coordinating, and scheduling the concrete work activities with Haycook's own project managers and superintendent. Haycook has self-performed concrete work on approximately 80 percent of its past projects. The architect was provided a project listing of self-performed concrete work and detailed information showing Haycook's experience in this area. Concrete work is the area of work most commonly self- performed by general contractors in the construction market area in and around Volusia County. Haycook's self-performance of masonry includes Haycook's purchasing of concrete blocks, and reinforcing steel placed within the block, hiring labor on a unit price basis to install it (as, for instance, paid by the block laid), directly supervising the work, and coordinating and scheduling the masonry work activities with Haycook's project manager and superintendent. Haycook has self-performed masonry on approximately 70 percent of its past projects. The architect was provided examples of projects listing self-performed masonry work by Haycook, as well as detailed information depicting Haycook's experience in this work area. Mr. Goodemote, as referenced above, is a local general contractor with school board project experience and is Haycook's expert witness. He established that it is common practice in the construction industry in the Volusia County area for contractors to self-perform work in the manner that Haycook had self-performed it in the past and proposes to do on Elementary School "X." He established with reference to the Board's definition of "subcontractor," which excludes "materialmen" and "laborers," that a contractor's purchase of materials and the hiring of contract labor to install the materials does not come within the definition of "subcontractor" or "subcontracting." He established that a subcontractor is the one who provides all labor, material, equipment, and supervision necessary to complete a work operation. "It's a total turnkey operation. They provide everything to finish the work." Mr. Goodemote's opinion establishes that "self-performance" of the subject work includes a general contractor hiring contract labor to perform a part of the work, because many times there are multiple vendors associated with a portion of the work, and the contractor is still directing and supervising the work and assuming all the risks associated with the work. Mr. Goodemote himself has self- performed as a general contractor and observed other contractors self-perform earthwork, masonry, concrete work, and structural steel work. He demonstrated that if a general contractor uses contract labor to perform a portion of the work, it still remains a "self-performance" by the general contractor, and that the laborers do not have to be on the contractor's payroll in order for the work to constitute self-performance, according to the general practice and usage in the construction industry. When requested by the architect to provide examples of past projects that it had self-performed in the four subject work areas, Haycook listed five projects as to earthwork; four projects in structural steel; seven projects as to masonry; and seven projects as to concrete. In consideration of his restrictive view of what self-performance means (i.e. that self- performance can only mean performance of work by salaried employees on the general contractor's own payroll), the architect (evaluator) requested payroll records and workers' compensation information on two projects only, the Goldsboro Elementary School and Eustis Elementary School. The bid documents do not provide unbridled discretion in the architect/evaluator, or in the school board, to define self-performance in a manner not provided for or inconsistent with the bid documents or to define "subcontractor," to include contract labor and thus require the labor to be listed as a subcontractor on the bid response. There was no notice to any of the bidders that such a restrictive definition would be employed, nor that a contractor listing itself as self- performing, and therefore standing in same position as other subcontractors as to the areas of work it would self-perform, would be treated differently from other subcontractors by, in effect, having to list such persons or entities as those providing contract labor as "sub-subcontractors." There was no evidence that the architect was provided sole discretion to verify self-performance experience as to the two projects only and ignore verification information of self-performance as to the other listed projects provided by Haycook. Although the architect and the Board contended that Haycook's listing of itself as self-performing in the four work areas at issue might allow Haycook to "buy out" subcontractors or to "bid shop," there was no evidence offered to substantiate that this was Haycook's intent or that Haycook or any other identified contractor in Volusia County or the surrounding area had ever attempted to "buy out" subcontractors on Volusia County school projects. Contrarily, Mr. Haycook testified that he does not engage in a practice of "buying out" subcontractors after he has obtained contracts with a winning bid. He explained, as referenced above, that subcontractors and the business relationships that he has with them are crucial to the success of his business. If Haycook made a practice of engaging in such inappropriate operational and pricing conduct when bidding for projects, or entering into related contracts, then subcontractors would either elect not give bids to Haycook at all when Haycook was, in the future, attempting to formulate bid responses, or would not give Haycook their lowest or best price because of their knowledge of such a practice, if Haycook engaged in it. This would obviously have an adverse effect on Haycook's ability in the future to be successful in competitive bid procurements or projects. Haycook has self-performed in the manner intended as to Elementary School "X" for years, as have his competitors. Although the Board apparently feared that Haycook's listing itself as self-performing in the areas of work in question gave it a competitive advantage over other bidders, the evidence does not bear out that fear. The competing bidders had the same opportunity to look at their past cost knowledge and experience, their knowledge of materialmen and suppliers in the area, their knowledge of the labor market and available labor and other data by which they might arrive at an independent evaluation of what a particular area of the work should cost, as well as the methods and means necessary to perform it. They had the same opportunity to evaluate any such knowledge base they have and elect to self-perform one or more areas of the work, as did Haycook. Since they had the same opportunity to do so, the evidence does not show there is any competitive advantage gained by Haycook in this situation which was not available to other bidders as well. As addressed above, the architect's recommendation to reject the Haycook bid was based upon his interpretation that "self-performance" required all work to be accomplished by employees on Haycook's payroll. Using that restrictive definition, the architect concluded that Haycook did not demonstrate, as to the Goldsboro and Eustis projects only, that Haycook had self-performed work with its own employees in the past and therefore that Haycook would self-perform with its own employees on the project at issue. The architect concluded that Haycook's subsequent engagement of contract labor in lieu of using his own payroll employees "could potentially give D. J. Haycook Construction Company an unfair advantage over the other bidders." Neither the architect's testimony nor the Board's other evidence explained, however, how that would give the Petitioner an unfair advantage over other bidders who, as found above, were free to engage in the same proposed self-performance as Haycook. The evidence did not establish how it would harm the public's strong interest in getting the best possible price for a quality construction effort that was completed on time, within the authorized budget, and in accordance with all the contractual terms. The architect's and Board's conclusion in this regard is based upon incorrect and unreasonable interpretations of what is meant by "subcontractor" and the concept of "self-performance." The rationale for finding that Haycook's putative self-performance would give Haycook an unfair advantage, vis a vis, other bidders or would promote bid shopping or buy-out of subcontractors has been shown by the evidence to be based upon speculation and conjecture. Haycook's bid response has been shown to be responsive to the specifications as they were stated, published and furnished to the bidders, including Haycook, in the bid documents at issue. The definition of self-performance employed by the architect and the Board is not supported by the language of the bid documents and has been shown by the preponderant, most credible evidence of record to be an unreasonable definition and manner of evaluating the bids and particularly Haycook's bid. Haycook has been shown to be responsive to the specifications and the relevant portions of the bidding documents and to have the lowest bid by a significant amount, some $241,000.00 dollars as to the base bids of Haycook versus that of Clancy and Theys.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the School Board of Volusia County awarding the contract for Elementary School "X" to the Petitioner, D. J. Haycook Construction Company, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: S. LaRue Williams, Esquire Kinsey, Vincent, Pyle, L.C. 150 South Palmetto Avenue, Box A Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Theodore R. Doran, Esquire Michael G. Dyer, Esquire Doran, Wolfe, Rost & Ansay 444 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 800 Post Office Drawer 15110 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 William E. Hall Superintendent Volusia County School Board Post Office Box 2118 Deland, Florida 32721-2118
The Issue This proceeding concerns the Respondent's rejection of all bids for construction of its new middle school "FF". Petitioner has challenged that intended action, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the law. The parties disagree as to the basis for the intended action. Initially the School Board considered rejecting all bids for failure to meet MBE/WBE goals, and Petitioner protested. Later, the Respondent determined that significant revisions to the construction documents were required, and the bids were all rejected on that basis. Petitioner protested again, but contends that the original basis for intended action is still at issue. For reasons set forth in the following recommended order, the MBE/WBE goal issue is moot. The central issue for determination, therefore, is whether Respondent properly rejected all bids based on its determination that substantial changes are required, and Petitioner's motion to consolidate its two protests is DENIED.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mark C. Arnold Construction Co., (Arnold), is a commercial general contracting firm located in Orange County, Florida, but well-experienced in building public facilities throughout the state. Arnold currently is engaged in constructing school "EE" for Respondent, Orange County School Board (School Board, or Board). In January 1992, the school board promulgated an advertisement for bid soliciting bids for the construction of a new school project known as Middle School "FF". The advertisement for bid was published five (5) times in the Orlando Sentinel on January 7, 14 and 28 and on February 4 and 1, 1992. The board also compiled a project manual which among other things contained a copy of the advertisement for bid and instructions to bidders which governed the bidding process. The advertisement for bid reserved the school board's "right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality or irregularity in any bid received". (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2) The instructions to bidders also reserved the school board's "right to reject any and all bids when such rejection is in the interest of the school board of Orange County, Florida...". (Joint Exhibit 5) The project manual also contained a bid form to be used by bidders. In it the bidder agrees "that the Owner reserves the right to reject this bid, or to waive informalities in any bid,...". Such language was contained in the bid submitted by Arnold. (Joint Exhibits 7 and 9) By addendum dated February 5, 1992 the school board amended and replaced Section A-12 of its project manual and instructions to bidders. Such amendment, among other things, established goals for minority/womens business enterprise (MBE/WBE) subcontractor and supplier participation in the project, and it required any bidder who failed to attain the goals to demonstrate a good faith effort to do so; otherwise, the bid of such bidder would be rejected. (Joint Exhibit 8) Arnold's bid showed that Arnold had no MBE/WBE subcontractor or supplier participation. (Joint Exhibit 9) Arnold's bid was the lowest of eleven bids received by the school board. Arnold's bid was in the amount of $10,977,000.00. The next lowest bid was in the amount of $11,075,000.00. After bids were opened, Arnold promptly contacted the MBE/WBE manager of the school board, and was advised by her to try to obtain MBE/WBE participation to meet the goals; within several days after bid opening Arnold was able to get a total of about 13.5% MBE/WBE subcontractor/supplier participation. Contrary to the MBE/WBE manager's instruction, the addendum to the project manual and bid instructions proscribed any effort after bid opening to attain the MBE/WBE goals and to thereby make a bid responsive. In spite of Arnold's attempt to demonstrate to the MBE/WBE manager that it had made a good faith effort to attain the goals prior to bid opening, the MBE/WBE Manager determined that no sufficient good faith effort was shown by Arnold. On March 5, 1992 the school board furnished to Arnold a written notice of its intended decision to reject all bids because of the failure of all contractors (bidders) to attain the MBE/WBE goals and/or to show compliance with the good faith effort requirement of the contract documents. (Joint Exhibit 11) On March 10, 1992 Arnold and its attorney attended a meeting of the school board for the purpose of appealing the MBE/WBE manager's decision that Arnold had not demonstrated a good faith effort to meet the goals. Mark C. Arnold spoke at length to the school board itemizing actions which Arnold contended showed its requisite good faith effort to solicit MBE/WBE participation. Arnold's attorney also made a presentation at the meeting. By a 6 to 1 vote, the board initially sustained the findings of the MBE/WBE manager that a good faith effort was not shown by Arnold, and rejected all bids because of the failure of all contractors (bidders) to meet the minority participation goal and/or to show compliance with the good faith effort requirements of the contract documents. (Joint Exhibits 12 and 15) Following a work session after its initial meeting on March 10, the board convened again in regular session on March 10, at which time it unanimously voted to reconsider its earlier action of rejecting all bids, and it voted to postpone action of the award of a contract for the construction of Middle School "FF". The effect of that action was to rescind its earlier action rejecting all bids and determining that Arnold had not shown a good faith effort to solicit MBE/WBE participation; and also to postpone action on the entire matter to a future time. (Joint Exhibit 13). On March 20, Arnold filed Formal Protest directed to the board's March 5th Notice of Intended Decision and directed to the March 10 action rejecting Arnold's bid. During or about the first week in April, engineers for the school board met with the school board's attorney, William M. Rowland, Jr., to inform him that significant revisions needed to be made in the site work and sewer plant plans for the Middle School "FF" project. The engineers recommended that because of the need to make such revisions all bids for the project should be rejected and the project should be rebid after the plans were revised. As a result of the early April meeting with the engineers, the board's attorney prepared and delivered a memorandum dated April 7th advising the school board of its engineers' recommendations. The attorney also submitted a resolution which, if adopted, would serve to reject all bids and require a rebidding of the project. (Joint Exhibit 16) On April 10th the school board furnished to Arnold an amended notice of intended decision, which by its express terms replaced, amended and superseded its prior notice of intended decision dated March 5th, and notified Arnold of its intent to reject all bids on the project because of the need to make significant revisions in the construction documents. (Joint Exhibit 17) Said amended notice rendered moot the March 20 formal protest filed by Arnold. At its meeting held on April 14th, the board considered the April 7th memorandum from its attorney. At that meeting, the board heard from its staff engineer, Chuck Greif, who pointed out the revisions needed to the site plans for the Project. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 59-62, 77-78) Mark Arnold also spoke, contending that the site revisions could be handled by change orders if Arnold's bid were accepted. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 76-77) Bob Gallardo, the school board Director of Facilities and Planning, advised of problems encountered in the site work and of the need to make significant revisions in the site plans. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 87-92) As the geotechnical engineer on the job, Charles Cunningham stressed the significance of the site plan changes. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 96-97) Derek Burke, engineer on the project, confirmed that major redesign needs to be done. (Joint Exhibit 20, page 64) Attorney Rowland advised that the prior intended decision to reject all bids because of failure of all bidders to comply with the MBE/WBE requirements of the bid documents, was moot and no longer before the board for action, and that the only resolution before the board for action was the resolution to reject all bids because of the need to make significant site plan revisions for the project. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 72-76) The school board unanimously adopted that resolution. (Joint Exhibit 20, pages 97-99; Joint Exhibit 18) On April 23rd Arnold timely filed the written formal protest which is the subject of these proceedings. At the time of the meeting held by on April 14th, there was a need to make significant changes in the site work and sewer plant for the Middle School "FF" project. Such changes formed a valid and legitimate reason for the board to reject all bids. Even at the time of this administrative hearing, some details regarding the site work still needed to be worked out. For example, an outfall is needed for the percolation pond underdrain but it was not included in the project design. The site work and sewer plant changes and revisions could have been handled by change orders between Arnold and the school board, had the board accepted Arnold's bid, since any changes in a project can be accomplished by change orders; however, revising the nature and quantity of construction work by change orders involves the potential for excessive cost to the project owner and change orders always require agreement between the parties. Prudence dictates that when it is known that changes must be made, the bid advertisement should include those changes up front to remove the uncertainty of costs and to put all bidders on equal footing. There has been no showing of any illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct in the actions of the school board in rejecting all bids on the Middle School "FF" Project and in opting to seek new bids for the project. There has been no showing in these proceedings that the school board's rejection of all bids had the purpose or effect of defeating the object and integrity of competitive bidding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the bid protests by Petitioner. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Evans Davis, Esquire 170 East Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1992. William M. Rowland, Jr., Esquire 1786 North Mills Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Dr. James L. Schott, Superintendent Orange County School Board P.O. Box 271 Orlando, FL 32802
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1982 the Chancellor of the State University System approved Amendment 567, as revised, to the Capital Outlay Implementation Plan. This Amendment budgeted $6,350,000 for the construction and equipment of a teaching gymnasium at Florida International University on the Tamiami Campus. Included within that figure were $350,000 of planning expenses appropriated by the 1981 Florida Legislature and $6,000,000 appropriated by the Legislature in 1982 for the expenses of construction, art work and contingencies. In the early part of 1983 the State University System advertised for bids from contractors to construct the gymnasium. The bids were open on May 17, 1983 at 2:00 PM. on the Florida International University Tamiami Campus. Petitioner's base bid of $5,998,000 was the lowest of the 17 received, nevertheless it was $350,000 above the estimate in Amendment 567. The next lowest bid was for $6,045,000. The bid specifications required that six alternatives in addition to the base cost be bid on, but through an oversight Sanmar's bids on these alternatives did not conform to the bid specifications. Sanmar's alternative bids failed to indicate that the amount reflected was in addition to the base cost bid. However, because the issues in this case concern the base bid amount, Sanmar's error with respect to the alternatives is not material. At the May 17, 1983 bid opening Respondent's agent, the architectural firm of Greenleaf-Telesca, announced that it would recommend to the Board of Regents that all bids be rejected as being in excess of the funds available through legislative appropriations. Respondent intends to make design changes in the project to make it less expensive and to then rebid it. On May 18, 1983 Sanmar timely filed a protest to the rejection of its bid. Subsequent to May 17, 1983 and Respondent's decision to reject all bids, the Florida Legislature through Section 2(2)(y), Chapter 83-333, Laws of Florida (1983), appropriated an additional $500,000 for the construction of the gymnasium. This appropriation became effective on July 1, 1983. After its receipt of Sanmar's bid protest Respondent provided in a letter dated June 3, 1983 the figures on which the Respondent based its decision to reject all bids including Sanmar's. These figures follow: Architects fee including additional services $ 379,240.00 **Architects construction observation (included in architects estimate as part of the fee and contingencies) $ 90,000.00 Sanmar Base Bid $5,998,000.00 Equipment $ 200,000.00 Contingency (3 percent of construction cost) $ 179,940.00 Based on Sanmar's bid $6,847,420.00 Artwork $ 28,240.00 $6,875,420.00 **Estimated based on 18-month construction time. Petitioner has taken issue with the 3 percent contingency amount included in the above figures, however, the evidence shows that 3 percent is a reasonable amount based upon the State University System's experience with previous construction and is a fair estimate to insure that projects once begun can be adequately funded by the amount appropriated for their construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Regents enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for the construction of a teaching gymnasium at the Tamiami Campus of the Florida International University. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Allstate Construction's (Allstate) bid was delivered in time. Whether Florida State University (FSU) had the authority to waive the lateness of Allstate's bid if it was late. Whether the failure by Allstate to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 was a bidding irregularity. Whether Allstate's failure to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 could be waived by FSU.
Findings Of Fact Florida State University requested bids for repairs to the roof and walls of Thagard Student Health Center on July 2, 1992. Thereafter, two addenda were issued. The first addendum was issued on July 27, 1992, and the second on July 28, 1992. Item #1 of Specifications in Addendum No. 1, which is attached, changed the date the bids were to be presented to August 6, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 124-D of Mendenhall Maintenance Building at FSU. Item #1 to Specifications in Addendum No. 2, which is attached, changed the specifications of ringlets and counterflashings published in Item #4 to Specifications in Addendum No. 1; and Item #2 in Addendum No. 2 changed the specifications of the materials in the cants published in the original specifications. On August 6, 1992, representatives of Harrell, Southeast, and FSU were present in Room 124-D, Mendenhall Maintenance Building prior to 2:00 p.m. Harrell and Southeast had already presented their bids to Sallie Dixon, FSU's representative. One of the persons present had called upon Ms. Dixon to call time and open the bids, but she had not done so when Dot Mathews and Joe O'Neil entered the room. Mr. O'Neil announced to those present that Ms. Mathews was late because he had misdirected her to another part of the building when Ms. Mathews's had entered the office he was in, Room 124, and had asked directions. Ms. Mathews immediately handed Allstate's bid to Ms. Dixon, and Ms. Dixon received it. Immediately, Ms. Dixon opened, tabulated, and posted the bids. Allstate had the lowest responsible bid. Allstate's bid did not acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2. FSU's rules on bidding provide that the official time will be that of the clock in the reception area of the Purchasing Department; however, the opening was held in Mendenhall Maintenance Building because of repairs to the Purchasing Department, and the university's officials were uncertain whether the reception area and clock existed at the time of the opening. It was the clear impression of all present, except Ms. Mathews, that the bid presented by Ms. Mathews was after 2:00 p.m. The estimates of the time varied, but none placed the time beyond 2:04 p.m. FSU generally sent an acknowledgment form with an addendum which required the bidders to acknowledge receipt of the addendum; however, in this instance, the addendum was sent by the supervising engineer, and an acknowledgment form was not sent with the addendum. The specifications did not require acknowledgment of addenda. The essence of the substantial amount of testimony received on the impact of the changes was (1) that the change in thickness of materials had a negligible impact, and (2) the real change in costs was the result of the requirement that the paint finish be by the manufacturer. The requirement that the materials be painted by the manufacturer was part of Addendum No.1. Further, the bidders are deemed manufacturers, and the finish that they put on the manufactured items is "by the manufacturer". Although testimony was received that Petitioner would have manufactured the items and then had them coated thereby increasing their total costs, an alternative method of manufacture was described by Allstate's representative in which the painted raw materials are retouched after being cut and welded into the finished structures. Petitioner's choice of the first method was explained by its representative to be its effort to comply with the bid requirement that the winning contractor guarantee the finish for twenty years. Intervenor's choice was to use the second method. To the extent that one method may have been more expensive that the other, there was no prohibition of the Petitioner to adopt the less expensive method; and, therefore, there was no economic advantage to Allstate. In the absence of an economic advantage to Allstate, Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2 was a minor irregularity. FSU waived the lateness of Allstate's bid and Allstate's failure to acknowledge Addendum No. 2, and awarded the bid to Allstate.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed, and the bid be awarded to Allstate Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-5465BID Florida State University and Allstate Construction, Inc. submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Florida State University's Proposed Findings: Para 1-4 Adopted. Para 5-7 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 8 Adopted. Para 9-11 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 12-24 Adopted. Para 25 Not necessary/irrelevant. Allstate Construction's Proposed Findings: Para 1,2 Adopted. Para 3 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 4-8 Adopted. Para 9 Not necessary/irrelevant. Para 10-15 Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Wendell Parker Mike Harrell Harrell Roofing, Inc. P.O. Box 20421 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Sonja Mathews Florida State University 540 W. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-4038 Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr. 3375-A Capital Circle, N.E. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jeff Miller Route 16, Box 1307 Tallahassee, FL 32310 Dale W. Lick, President Florida State University 211 Westcott Building Tallahassee, FL 32306-1037 Gerold B. Jaski, General Counsel Florida State University 540 West Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32306
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in determining to award the bid for its district office to Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) and whether the petitioner submitted the lowest and best bid under the terms of the bid specifications.
Findings Of Fact GENERAL BACKGROUND - STIPULATED FACTS Petitioners received a formal Invitation to Bid on Lease No. 590:1784 from HRS, District V. The purpose of the ITB was to obtain competitive proposals for the leasing of office space by HRS within a specifically defined area. Petitioners timely submitted their bid in response to the ITB. All timely received bids were first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. Petitioners' bid was determined to be responsive to the technical requirements of the ITB. Responsive bids were then presented to a bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of a recommendation for award. In comparing the various responsive bids and formulating a recommendation for award, the members of the bid evaluation committee were required to visit each proposed facility and to apply the evaluation criteria as contained in the ITB package. By memorandum dated July 30, 1986, the bid evaluation committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger although petitioners submitted the lowest rental price. On or about August 5, 1986, petitioners received notice from HRS of its intent to award Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. By letter dated August 6, 1986, petitioners notified HRS of their intent to protest the intended award of Lease No. 590:1784 to Koger. The Notice of Intent to Protest was timely filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10- 13.11, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the petitioners timely filed their formal written protest. Petitioners are substantially affected by the decision of HRS to award the lease to Koger. THE BIDDING PROCESS The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an Invitation to Bid and Bid Submittal Form (ITB) seeking approximately 39,968 net rental square feet of office space in Pinellas County, Florida, to be used as the district administrative offices. The ITB set forth the method in which the bids would be evaluated as follows: EVALUATION OF BIDS Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsive- ness. This includes submittal on bid submittal form, inclusion of required information and data, bid signed and notarized, etc. Non responsive bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. Responsive bids are presented to a bid evaluation committee for com- parison and formulation of a recom- mendation for award. This is accomplished by a visit to each proposed facility and application of the evaluation criteria. The committees recommendation will be presented to the department's official having award authority for final evaluation and determin- ation of successful bidder. EVALUATION CRITERIA The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated in the bid submittal form. The ITB also provided that "the department agrees to enter into a lease agreement based on submission and acceptance of the bid in the best interests of the department and the state." In accordance with the ITB a pre-bid conference was held on April 29, 1986; however, neither petitioners nor any representative of petitioners attended the pre-bid conference. Further, petitioners made no oral or written inquiries concerning the ITB or the evaluation criteria to be utilized. Bids received from the following providers were determined to be responsive and presented to the bid evaluation committee for comparison and formulation of the recommendation for award: James P. & Margaret R. Gills (1100 Building) Koger Properties, Inc. (Koger) LTBCLH Partnership (Justice Building) Procacci Real Estate Management Co., Inc. (ICOT Building) Elizabethan Development, Inc. (Handy City Building). BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE The bid evaluation committee was composed of the following people who, along with their staffs, would occupy the leased property: Robert Withrow, Chairman of the Committee and District Administrative Services Director; Samuel Kinsey, Financial and Accounting Director for District V; Patricia Bell, Program Manager for Aging and Adult Services; Fredrick M. O'Brien, General Services, Manager for District V; and Pegi Hollingsworth, Personnel Officer. Each member of the evaluation committee received a bid package consisting of the bid specifications and the bids submitted. Each member also received a bid evaluation sheet which was used to rate each bidder. They received no other instructions with regard to the evaluation criteria. Although each specific evaluation criterion was weighted, i.e., given a comparative value, the committee members were not specifically instructed as to how points should be assigned for each category. The evaluation committee went to each of the proposed buildings for the purpose of making a comparative evaluation based on the evaluation criteria provided. However, the primary focus was on the Koger Building and the petitioners' 1100 Building because they had submitted the lowest rental rates of the five bidders considered. After the viewing process, the members of the committee, except Mr. Withrow, discussed the factors that should be considered in applying each of the evaluation criterion. Although the committee members had not formulated the evaluation criteria to be used, they were uniquely qualified to apply the evaluation criteria provided to the specific needs and requirements of the HRS offices that would occupy the building. Though the committee members were in agreement as to the various factors to be included in each of the criterion listed, they did not discuss the points that would be awarded to each facility. Each member independently assigned points to each facility based on his or her own evaluation of the facility's comparative value in each of the listed categories. Koger received the best evaluation from all five committee members with point totals of 98, 98, 98, 98 and 99 out of a possible 100 points. Petitioners' building was ranked last of the five buildings evaluated by four of the members, with point totals of 75, 77, 71 and 75, and fourth by Mr. Withrow with a total of 81 points. Based on the comparative evaluation of the buildings, the committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Koger. By letter dated July 30, 1986, the District V office received authorization from the HRS Director of General Services to award the bid to Koger as being in the best interest of the department and state. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA The ITB included the evaluation criteria list used by the committee to ascertain the relative value of each building. At the top of the page it is stated: The successful bid will be that one determined to be the lowest and best. All bids will be evaluated based on the award factors enumerated... The evaluation criteria are divided into three general areas: (1) Associated Fiscal Costs, (2) Location, and (3) Facility. Each general area includes subcategories, with each subcategory being given a total maximum value. Each of the criteria disputed by petitioners is discussed below. 1(a) Rental rates for basic term of lease. (Weighting: 45) All of the bids received by HRS were within the rental limits established by the Department of General Services and also much lower than expected. Even the highest bid was lower than anticipated, and Koger's and petitioners' bids were considered especially desirable. The bids received, listed at present value for the ton year basic lease period, are as follows: BIDDER TOTAL COST AMOUNT MORE THAN LOW BID 1100 BUILDING $1,881,690.1 KOGER 1,993,131.4 $111,441.3 JUSTICE 2,473,559.8 591,869.7 ICOT 2,655,306.1 773,616.0 HANDY CITY 3,223,202.0 1,341,511.9 Rental rates for the basic term of the lease were given a weighted value of 45. All of the committee members gave petitioners 45 points, as the low bidder, and all gave Koger 44 points as the next low bidder. However, four of the members simply agreed that the low bid would receive the maximum amount of points with each subsequent low bidder receiving one less point than the one before it, which resulted in the high bidder receiving 41 points even though its bid was 1.7 times greater than the low bid. Only Mr. Withrow made an attempt to prorate the points based on the differences in the amount bid, thus resulting in the high bidder receiving only 20 points. However, even Mr. Withrow awarded Koger 44 points based on the minimal difference between the Koger bid and the petitioners' bid. Both Mr. Withrow and Mr. Kinsey explained the award of 44 points to Koger by comparing the difference in the amounts bid to the HRS District V budget or the budgets of the entities using the facilities. However, the purpose of the evaluation was to compare each facility to the other facilities. Thus, the award of points for rental rates should have been based on a comparison of the rates offered. Although it was reasonable to assign the maximum number of points to petitioners, as the low bidders, the amount of points assigned to the remaining bidders should have been based on a comparison of the amount of each bid to the low bid. This would have made a significant difference in the points awarded to Justice, ICOT, and Handy City; however, even using a strict mathematical computation would not significantly affect the points awarded Koger due to the minimal difference in Koger's bid and petitioners' bid. Koger would receive no less than 42 points, only 2 points less than awarded, regardless of the method of mathematical computation used. 1/ 2(a) Proximity of offered space in central or preferred area of mad boundaries (Weighting: 5) All the members of the committee agreed that Koger is in the most preferred area because its location is more accessible to the employees and the persons who visit the office than any of the other buildings. Koger is in northeast St. Petersburg, minutes from the interstate. The 1100 Building is located in a more congested area in downtown Clearwater on the extreme northern boundary of the designated area. In making a comparison Of the building locations, all of which were located within the map boundary, the committee jusifiably determined that the building that was the most strategically located, in terms of accessibility, would be considered to be in the most preferred area. Thus, Koger was awarded five points by all committee members. The 1100 Building received 2, 0, 1, 3 and 1 points. Although all committee members awarded Koger the highest points, only one committee member resided closer to the Koger Building than the other buildings. Mr. Withrow, who lives closer to the 1100 Building than Koger, gave the 1100 Building only 1 point because it was more inaccessible to the district clients and employees. Further, the District Administrator, who approved the lease to Koger, resides closer to the 1100 Building. 2(b) Frequency and availability of satisfactory public transportation within proximity of the offered space (Weighting: 5) Both Koger and the 1100 Building received the maximum of five points in this category except from Mr. Withrow who gave the 1100 Building four points. The committee members felt that the bus transportation as about the same for each building. Although the 1100 Building had more buses passing the facility due to its location in downtown Clearwater, the committee considered the destination of the buses and concluded that a person would wait the same length of time for a bus to take him to his destination from either the Koger Building or the 1100 Building. Mr. Withrow differed on the points awarded because he considered the Koger location to be better due to its proximity to the airport. The district office has a large number of people that visit from Tallahassee and other districts in the state. 2(c) The effect of environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building and the area surrounding it, on the efficient and economical conduct of departmental operations planned for the requested space. (Weighting: 3) Koger received the maximum of 3 points from every committee member in this category; the 1100 Building received 0 points from every member. Although this category is listed within the general area of "Location", the committee members followed the category requirement and considered all environmental factors, including the physical characteristics of the building. In the 1100 Building, committee members noted problems with the air conditioning system and the elevators. The building was not maintained well, and the bathrooms were small and poorly ventilated. The HRS parking at the 1100 Building was not conveniently located. To get to the parking lot from the building an employee would have to cross a parking lot adjacent to the building, cross an intersection and then walk up to a block to get to his or her car. Many of the office employees work late and would be walking to their cars after dark, and there was concern expressed for employee safety considering the parking arrangement offered by petitioners. Koger had none of the problems observed at the 1100 Building. Further, Koger was better suited for the handicapped because there was no need to use a ramp as there was at the 1100 Building. 3(a) Conformance of space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid. (Weighing: 10) 3(b) Susceptibility of the design of the space offered to efficient layout and good utilization. (Weighting: 10) 3(c) Provisions of the aggregate square footage in a single building. Proposals will be considered, but fewer points given, which offer the aggregate square footage in not more than two locations...within 100 yards of each other. (Weighting: 10) Koger's bid is for a two-story building containing approximately 39,000 square feet. The 1100 Building is a 15-story building. It would provide approximately 39,000 square feet on the second, fourth, fifth, part of the eighth, part of the ninth, and twelfth floors. The space allocation in the 1100 Building, spread over 6 floors, would provide a major problem in efficiently locating the staff. Certain offices could not be placed on certain floors because of space restrictions, and related offices could not be placed in close proximity to each other. Offices that needed to be on the same floor could not be located on the same floor. Because the space offered by petitioners is spread over 12 floors, accessibility to related offices would be much more difficult. Further, the limited space per floor makes it more difficult for HRS to properly utilize the space provided. None of the testimony provided by the committee witnesses related the "conformance of the space offered to the specific requirements contained in the Invitation to Bid" (e.s.) The ITB lists the offices and rooms required, giving sizes for each. Other than the total square footage, which petitioners met, there were no other specific requirements contained in the ITB. None of the committee members compared the conformance of the space offered to the specific room and office requirements. Indeed, the testimony of the committee members indicate that accessibility of the space was considered under criteria 3(a) rather than the conformance of the space to the ITB. Since the space offered by petitioners apparently complied with the requirements of the ITB, petitioners should have received 10 points for that category. The points awarded under 3(b) and 3(c), however, were proper. The space offered by the 1100 Building is not susceptible to an efficient layout or good utilization of the space offered. Further, the committee legitimately differentiated between the single buildings offered by each bidder, under 3(c), by considering where the space was located within the building. Obviously, factor 3(c) reflects a concern that the space offered not be too separated. It clearly provides that proposals for space in two separate buildings will get fewer points than single building proposals, and there is no indication that all single building proposals should receive the same maximum points. This factor clearly relates to the proximity of the spaces offered to one another, with contiguous space getting the most points. 3(d) Offers providing street-level space (Weighting: 2) Approximately half of the space offered by Koger is street-level space. Koger received two points. The 1100 Building provides no street-level space; it received no points in this category. Petitioners do not contend that they should have gotten any points, but assert Koger should only have gotten one point because not all its space was street-level space. THE COMPARATIVE EVALUATION The evaluation committee members were very conscientious in comparing the relative values of the buildings offered based on the criteria provided and their observations. Their evaluations were not made arbitrarily, but based upon the factors set forth in the evaluation criteria. Although errors were made in calculating the values awarded for categories 1(a) and 3(a), these errors were not due to arbitrary action by the committee members. Further, should the appropriate points under 3(a) be added to petitioners evaluations and three points be subtracted from Koger's evaluations (two points for 1(a) and one point for 3(d)), petitioners evaluations would be 79, 80, 76, 80 and 84, and Koger's would be 95, 95, 95, 95 and 96. The strategic plan for HRS, 1986-1991, Goal 12, is to enhance employee morale and job satisfaction in several ways, one of which is to replace or upgrade 90 percent of substandard physical work environments by December 31, 1990. The testimony and evaluations show, and the committee members found, that the Koger Center would provide a better work environment than the petitioners' 1100 Building. Based on the criteria set forth in the ITB, the Koger bid is the "lowest and best" bid.
Findings Of Fact Respondent HRS published ITB 590:2306 for existing rental space in the central area of Brooksville, Florida. The bid solicitation specified a bid opening time and date of 2:00 p.m. July 17, 1991. Petitioner and Intervenor timely submitted sealed bids. They were the only two bidders. Neither they nor anyone else timely filed any protest of the bid specifications, and therefore the specifications are not subject to attack in this proceeding. Petitioner received a notice of intent to award the bid for lease 590:2306 to Intervenor by letter from Respondent dated August 27, 1991 and timely filed its notice of intent to protest and formal bid protest. Petitioner accordingly has standing to bring this proceeding. Intervenor is the intended awardee and as such has standing to intervene. Petitioner submitted the property located at 7348 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida, and showed in his bid submittal form that his proposed property contained 22,500 net square feet, with future expansion of 2,100 square feet available. When Petitioner submitted his bid, it included a floor plan, site plan, and a PUR 7068 form. A PUR 7068 form is a "Public Entity Crime Certification Statement," a sworn statement under Section 287.133(a) F.S. The ITB included two separate requirements for bidders to establish that they have control over the property that they submit to HRS. HRS' purposes in requiring bidders to demonstrate control are to prevent bids based on total speculation, to establish a reasonable expectation that the bidder can meet his obligations if awarded the bid, and to establish a reasonable expectation that the property can be occupied on time. Item 1 on page 3 provides as follows: Control of property - This pertains to both the structure(s) and proposed parking areas. To submit a responsive bid, a prospective lessor must meet one of the following qualifications: a.) Be the owner of record of the facility and parking areas (submit copy of deed). b.) Be the lessee of space being proposed and present with bid, a copy of lease with documen- tation of authorization to sublease the facility and parking areas through the base lease term and all renewal option periods. c.) Submit documentation of an option to purchase the facility and/or parking areas. d.) Submit documentation of an option to lease the facility with authorization to in turn, sublease. Any lease must encompass the entire time period of the basic lease and any renewal option periods as required the state. e.) Submit form PUR. 7068 Sworn Statement of Public Entity Crimes (Attachment H). Page 12 provides, in part, as follows: In order for a bid proposal to be accepted the items 1 through 6 must be included in the bid proposal. Items 7 through 11 must be included, if applicable. [Items 11 and 13 state:] 11. Documentation showing bidder as controller of property. 13. Public Enemy [sic] Crime Certification Statement A pre-bid conference attended by Petitioner made clear that evidence of control and the PUR 7068 form were two different items. Petitioner testified that he attached the PUR 7068 form as his sole basis for evidencing control of the building and parking spaces he submitted for lease, and acknowledged that, in fact, the form did not provide any information with regard to his control of the buildings or parking spaces offered for lease. Petitioner's assertion that his name on some of his site plans, etc. constitutes evidence of control is not persuasive. Such assertion is not in line with the ITB requirements or even common sense. Petitioner Proctor owned the buildings he offered HRS in his bid submittal. Petitioner offered multiple buildings separated by parking areas and driveways. The property offered by Petitioner was to have built an awning- covered walkway between buildings but the walkway would have to be placed through the driveway area of the property. The expansion area for Petitioner's property designated in its bid submittal was composed of approximately 10 gated warehouse units which would be converted to office space. Petitioner had leased a portion of the same premises to HRS for 15 years, and HRS was still leasing that portion at the time of the bid opening. At the time of the bid opening, another portion of the property Petitioner proposed to be leased to HRS was also already rented to other tenants, including a lease to the Florida Department of Labor which was not scheduled to expire until December 31, 1991, one day prior to HRS' proposed first day of occupancy under the ITB. The space leased to the Department of Labor would require some renovation for HRS' use, at least to connect it on the interior with the rest of the building. The remainder of the second, adjacent, building to be rented under Petitioner's bid would require more extensive renovation to create office spaces to meet HRS' needs. In addition to the Department of Labor, Petitioner was also renting space in the second building to a beauty salon, a book store, an office supply store, a clothing store, and a barber at the time of bid submittal and opening and at the time of the formal hearing. These latter tenants were on month-to-month leases. In order to ensure that there would be time for necessary renovations before January 1, 1992 and further to ensure that the property would be available for occupancy on January 1, 1992, the ITB required in the following unequivocal language that all bidders file tenant acknowledgments of the bid/proposed lease with their bid submittal: Existing Tenants: If the offered space or any portion thereof (including parking areas) is at present occupied or will be covered by an active lease(s) at the stated availability date, written documentation by the tenant indicating acknowledgment of the bid and ability to vacate premises by the proposed date must be included with the bid submittal. [Emphasis added] Petitioner submitted no tenant acknowledgments from any of his tenants with his bid to HRS. Even though Petitioner failed to submit evidence of control in the form of a deed and further failed to submit the required acknowledgments from tenants occupying the premises on the bid date, HRS did not immediately disqualify Petitioner's bid as nonresponsive. Instead, HRS evaluated Petitioner's bid simultaneously with Intervenor TCC's bid. HRS relied on old leases in its files and actual knowledge that monthly rent was paid to Petitioner for its own currently leased space, and HRS ignored the absence of tenant acknowledgments with Petitioner's bid. HRS followed this course of action despite the requirement of the ITB on page 7, item 1 under EVALUATION OF BIDS which unequivocally provides: Bids received are first evaluated to determine technical responsiveness. This includes submittal on bid submittal forms, inclusion of required information, data, attachments, signatures and notarization, etc. Non responsive [sic] bids will be withdrawn from further consideration. The portion of the ITB designated, Documents Required To Be Submitted With Bid Submittal For Existing Buildings on page 12, item 4. required bidders to submit "Scale Floor Plans showing present configurations with dimensions." Page 3 of 22, Item 9.(b) further required that, as a part of the bid submittal, bidders were to provide "A scaled (1/16" or 1/8" or 1/4" = 1'0") floor plan showing present configuration with measurements." Contrary to the ITB requirement, Petitioner submitted a floor plan scaled at 1/20" = 1', which also failed to reflect the present configurations with all measurements. Petitioner's scaled floor plan submitted with his bid was prepared prior to the present addition to one building and contained a hand- drawn configuration without accurate measurements for the northwest corner of one building. The term of the lease as shown on the ITB and Bid Submittal Form was 9 and one-half years with an option to renew for 2-5 year renewal periods. At the time of the bid opening on July 17, 1991, the bid submitted by Petitioner failed to have any proposed rental rates shown for "Renewal Options: Option II years 1 through 5." HRS permitted Petitioner to correct or supplement its bid after the bid opening (same date and place) to cover this material omission. Page 6, item 4 of the ITB provided for the property owner or other bidding entity to sign the bid submission. The pertinent part states: 4. Each bid submitted shall be signed by the owner(s) corporate officers, or legal representative(s). The corporate, trade, or partnership title must be either stamped or typewritten beside the actual signature(s). If the Bid Submittal is signed by an Agent, written evidence from the owner of record of his/her authority must accompany the proposal. ALL BID SUBMITTAL SIGNATURES MUST BE WITNESSED BY TWO PERSONS. [Emphasis appears in ITB] Petitioner Proctor signed his bid submittal in proper person. TCC's bid submittal was signed by Sharon K. Lane, "Executive Director," of TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc., Intervenor herein. At all times material, TCC Number 3 Ltd. Inc. has been a Florida corporation. At the time of the bid opening, Ms. Lane was TCC's sole shareholder and "all officers." At the time of formal hearing, Ms. Lane remained the sole shareholder, but others had assumed some of the corporate offices. Her status at the time of the bid submittal was sufficient for her to bid on behalf of the TCC corporation and to execute the PUR 7068 form on that corporation's behalf. Intervenor TCC submitted the required PUR 7068 form, but TCC submitted as sole evidence of control an undated, unrecorded "Contract for Sale and Purchase" by and between Hernando Plaza Ltd. as Seller and Intervenor TCC as Buyer, for the property which Intervenor was offering for lease to HRS. The best date assignable to this document is April 29, 1991. It was executed on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. by Edward M. Strawgate and Harold Brown representing themselves as general partners of the limited partnership. TCC's obligation to proceed to closing under the foregoing contract was contingent upon TCC's securing an anchor tenant. However, the contract requires TCC to take steps to secure an anchor tenant. By its terms, TCC may purchase the property with or without an anchor tenant, but the contract requires TCC, in seeking an anchor tenant, to set time limits for the lease arrangement with the proposed anchor tenant which do not necessarily accord with the timing of HRS' bid process. HRS accepted TCC's contract to purchase from Hernando Plaza Ltd., as evidence of TCC's control of the premises offered by TCC for lease, believing it to constitute an option to purchase and the necessary evidence of control as required by the ITB. (See, Finding of Fact 6, supra.) At the time of the bid opening, HRS had no reliable information as to what entity actually owned the property offered by TCC, and TCC had not disclosed to HRS that its contract to purchase the property was with a legal entity other than the record title owner of the property, which record title owner was and is the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation (Brown Foundation). See, infra. Up to that date, at least, Hernando Plaza Ltd. had represented itself to TCC as the owner of the property. The ITB did not require that an abstract of title be submitted with the bid, and HRS normally does not require an abstract from successful bidders, although the ITB contains provisions for future disclosure from successful bidders. (See, ITB item 5 under Requirements for Bidders to Submit Bids.) Absent some reason to "go behind" facial evidence of control, HRS attempts to protect itself by requiring successful bidders to put up an irrevocable letter of credit for one-half of one percent of the proposed lease rental obligation over the basic lease term as a penalty in the event a successful bidder cannot perform. (See, ITB page 4, item 10.) Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s certificate from the Florida Secretary of State expired December 31, 1981. That fact was advertised and the certificate cancelled July 16, 1982. At that time, Edward M. Strawgate was listed as a general partner and Harold Brown was listed as a limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd. Hernando Plaza Ltd. had been administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. Subsequent to the time that Intervenor submitted its bid proposal, but prior to formal hearing, Hernando Plaza Ltd. was reinstated by the Florida Secretary of State. Once reinstated, the limited partnership's ability to act related back and validated its prior actions. At all times material, the record title of the property offered by Intervenor TCC for lease to HRS was owned by "Harold Brown, Lillian Brown and Muriel Kahr as Trustees of the Victor and Lillian Brown Foundation." This title is derived from a recorded June 30, 1967 warranty deed from Hernando Plaza Ltd., which deed was admitted in evidence at formal hearing. The warranty deed was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. Neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid to HRS on behalf of the record title owner, the Brown Foundation. There is also in evidence a recorded December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease between the Brown Foundation and City National Bank. That Amendment to Lease also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal to evidence control of the premises TCC was offering to lease to HRS. That Amendment to Lease also recites that Hernando Plaza Ltd. leased back the subject property from the Brown Foundation by a lease dated June 30, 1967. The June 30, 1967 lease was not recorded, was not part of TCC's bid submittal, and is not in evidence. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to recite that Hernando Plaza Ltd. has assigned its lessee interest under the June 30, 1967 lease to City National Bank by a March 14, 1978 assignment. There is also in evidence a recorded March 14, 1978 "Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease from Hernando Plaza Ltd. to City National Bank." This assignment was not part of TCC's bid submittal. The December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease goes on to further recite that the Brown Foundation has "agreed to give and grant to [Hernando Plaza Ltd.] an option to purchase the property." The remainder of the December 18, 1985 Amendment to Lease details the terms or conditions of the option to purchase granted by the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza. For instance, in order to exercise that option to purchase the subject property from the Brown Foundation, Hernando Plaza Ltd., among other requirements, would have to demonstrate that all the terms of the unrecorded June 30, 1967 lease are "in good standing." One may reasonably infer that "in good standing" would at a bare minimum mean that the rents under the lease are paid current at the time the option is exercised, but what the other terms of the lease might be are subject to pure conjecture. TCC's bid submittal did not include documentation that the June 30, 1967 lease was "in good standing." There is also in evidence a recorded June 7, 1989 Trustee's Deed (quitclaim deed of the trustee's interest) from City National Bank's successor bank/trustee to Hernando Plaza Ltd. The Trustee's Deed also was not attached to TCC's bid submittal. On the date of bid submittal/opening neither TCC, the corporation, nor Sharon K. Lane, individually, held any authority as agent to submit a bid on behalf of Hernando Plaza Ltd. or City National Bank's successor. At formal hearing, TCC submitted an October 24, 1991 written hearsay statement by Harold Brown as Trustee of the Brown Foundation to the effect that Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s December 18, 1985 option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation was "in full force and effect" and that the June 30, 1967 lease back from the Brown Foundation to Hernando Plaza Ltd. was "in full force and effect and that the lessee is in good standing thereunder." Assuming these items may be considered in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.58 (1) F.S. as supplementing or explaining direct evidence, they still do not clarify in any way what all the terms of the unrecorded 1967 lease are or that those terms will remain in good standing on the date in the future that Hernando Plaza Ltd. elects to exercise its option, if it elects to exercise its option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation so that Hernando Plaza Ltd. may, in turn, convey the property to TCC, pursuant to Hernando Plaza Ltd. and TCC's April 29, 1991 contract for sale and purchase. Oddly enough, there is further explanatory hearsay that on October 24, 1991, Harold Brown was a trustee of the Brown Foundation and that he also was the sole limited partner of Hernando Plaza Ltd., although TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza for sale and purchase previously indicated Harold Brown was one of two general partners. Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s option to purchase the property from the Brown Foundation must be exercised by Hernando Plaza Ltd. before Hernando Plaza Ltd. can honor its contract to purchase/sell to TCC. Since there is no record evidence that the June 30, 1967 lease from the Brown Foundation as lessor to Hernando Plaza Ltd. as lessee will be in good standing on whatever future date Hernando Plaza Ltd. attempts to exercise its option with the Brown Foundation, one may only speculate both as to when and if TCC will be able to purchase the property from Hernando Plaza Ltd. TCC has only an option to become owner of the subject property at some unspecified date conditioned upon Hernando Plaza Ltd.'s first successfully exercising its option from the Brown Foundation and further conditioned upon all the terms of TCC's contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. Apparently, TCC's only recourse to enforce its contract with Hernando Plaza Ltd. is a Circuit Court action for specific performance. TCC also submitted a site plan and floor plan with its bid submittal. The ITB required that offices on outside walls must provide windows. TCC's plans did not reflect windows in two sides of the building, but given HRS' retaining the right to partially design and locate its own halls and offices during the building's renovation, TCC's failure to show windows in the two outside walls is not, in and of itself, a material, disqualifying deviation from the ITB so as to unilaterally render TCC's bid nonresponsive. HRS staff member Donald J. Cerlanek prepared a bid synopsis of each bid. This involved completing a form from the HRS leasing manual which illustrates the characteristics of each of the bids. The bid requirements included evaluation criteria and a maximum amount of points which could be awarded for each criteria item. Five HRS bid evaluation committee members executed no conflict of interest forms. These were: Thomas C. Little Jr., David Thomley, Sylvia Smoot, Harvey Whitesides, and Mary Hawks. All committee members were given copies of the bid synopsis form to use in evaluating the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Some of the committee members did not obtain or review the actual bid submissions of each of the bidders, but all of them had access to the bid submissions and read the bid synopsis forms for both Petitioner's and Intervenor's bid submittals. The bid evaluation committee members, except for Mary Hawks, made site visits to the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. Ms. Hawks essentially acted only as a facilitator or conduit for the evaluations of the other four evaluators as set out infra. The four site evaluators took notes regarding each location. The four site evaluators each assigned numerical weights to each item of evaluation criteria except for the rent and renewal rent portions of the evaluation criteria. Although on their site visits some committee members visiting TCC's site may have seen a color version of an artist's rendering of what TCC's project could look like after renovation was complete, a black and white version of the same artist's rendering was attached to TCC's bid submittal to which all committee members had access, and it is found that this situation in and of itself presented no false or misleading information nor constituted any prejudice to a fair bid process/evaluation. Likewise, although some evaluators discussed expansion prospects with TCC's and/or Proctor's on-site representatives, the evidence is credible and persuasive that each evaluator who visited the sites assessed the projects' respective expansion prospects substantially upon what they saw on each site and had experienced in Proctor's existing facility. The points awarded and reasons for the recommendations of each evaluator who visited the sites were reasonably based on specific needs of HRS. These specific needs of HRS were reasonably articulated by the two evaluators who made on-site inspections and who also testified at formal hearing and were reasonably set out in writing in the written notes of the two other evaluators who did not testify. Thomas C. Little, Jr., testified that he found the Intervenor's property superior as a result of the security problems at Petitioner's locations, the closer proximity of the courthouse, hospital, and health department to Intervenor's property and the superiority of a single building offered by Intervenor versus multiple buildings offered by Petitioner. Additionally, he found the esthetics of Petitioner's buildings lacking and expansion offered by Petitioner limited and was concerned that HRS would outgrow the space due to the fact that their service area is one of the most rapidly growing in Florida. His contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Sylvia Smoot, also a member of the evaluation committee, testified that she found Intervenor's facility superior based on its proximity to the courthouse, hospitals, and other key locations, and its flexibility of design and concentration of space in one building. She further found Petitioner's location lacking as a result of the three separate buildings, its limited expansion room, and the necessity for redirecting clients between buildings, and the difficulty for elderly and handicapped clients accessing Petitioner's building. Her contemporaneous notes were to the same effect. Evaluators Whitesides and Thomley made substantially similar contemporaneous notes justifying their scoring of the two bidders. Three of the four site evaluators met as a group following the site visits and discussed the properties submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor. All four of the site evaluators made recommendations to accept the property for lease proposed by Intervenor, but they did not all confer and jointly develop a single recommendation to the facilities manager. The points assigned by each of the four site evaluators for the properties proposed by Petitioner and Intervenor were as follows: Evaluation Committee TCC Number Member's Names Proctor's Points 3's Points Thomley 75 98 Little 78 93 Whitesides 74 95 Smoot 80 91 307 377 The rent portion of the evaluation criteria was ascertained by applying present value methodology as set forth in the HRS leasing manual to the annual rents offered by the bidders. The discount factor was 8.32 percent. The present value of Proctor's bid was $1,934,038 and the present value of TCC's bid was $2,028,316. The leasing manual is considered advisory only. It advises present values be made, a determination of the difference in amounts be calculated and a comparison of the difference be made to determine a percentage. Thereafter, the percentage is applied to the maximum amount of points allocated for rent in the evaluation criteria. The lowest present value receives the maximum number of points allocated, and, thus, Proctor was awarded 35 points. TCC received 33 points, based upon the fact that its present value of rent was close to the present value submitted by Proctor. No penalty is imposed to a bidder whose rental amounts is higher than the lowest bidder. No benefit is conferred upon the lowest cost bidder over the next lowest bidder. Mary Hawks, Manager for Administrative Services, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received each of the individual evaluation recommendations from Thomley, Little, Whitesides and Smoot. As a result of travel restrictions placed on the HRS, the four site evaluators and Ms. Hawks, who was also a fifth committee member, did not meet as a group following the site visits although three of the four site evaluators did meet collectively following the site visits. (See Finding of Fact 43-44, supra.) The committee members could have met by telephone conference call but Mary Hawks found it unnecessary to do so because there was such a clear evaluation in favor of Intervenor based on the total composite evaluation scores of 377 for Intervenor and only 307 for Petitioner, out of a total of 400 points. She assigned no points herself but approved their recommendations and forwarded a single recommendation in favor of TCC for ultimate approval by HRS management. Mary Hawks had spoken to the evaluation committee members subsequent to the evaluation and no member had expressed any reservation regarding his/her evaluation or a need to meet to discuss anything additional regarding the bid evaluation. The HRS Intent to Award to TCC subsequently issued. The evaluation process and formula for rent evaluation are not among the more commonly used methods but were reasonable and rational and fairly applied to the bids in this case. No conflict of interest in the evaluation committee members was demonstrated by Petitioner in these proceedings.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that: The bid of TCC Number 3 Ltd. is nonresponsive; The bid of Derick Proctor is nonresponsive; Declining to award the bid for Lease No. 590:2306 to either bidder. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5963BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Proctor's 74 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted, except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the recommended order (RO). Unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material has not been utilized: 1-3, sentence 1 of PFOF 4, 5-6, 9, 11-12, sentence 1 of PFOF 13, sentence 1 of PFOF 16, 17-26, sentence 1 of PFOF 29, 30-33, 35-36, sentences 1 and 4 of PFOF 38, 39-41, 44-54, 56-57, 60-61, 63. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute a proposed conclusion of law (PCOL) or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 4, sentence 2 of PFOF 16, 34, 43. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 10, sentence 2 of PFOF 13, 14- 15, sentence 2 of PFOF 29, sentences 2 and 3 of PFOF 38, 55, 58. PFOF 7-8 are accepted as modified because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found and other parts are mere recitations of unreconciled portions of the record and legal argument. The following PFOF are accepted in part but not utilized because parts are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, and other parts are rejected as immaterial to the dispositive issues herein, although correctly quoted from the record: 68-73. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or not dispositive: 27-28, 37, 42, 59, 62, 65, 67, 74. The following PFOF are covered in preliminary material: 64, 66. HRS 21 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-19. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 5, 9-10, 14-15, 21. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 20. PFOF 13 is accepted as modified to correctly reflect the credible record evidence as a whole. TCC Number 3 75 PFOF: The following PFOF are accepted except to the extent they are unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the RO. Material unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative has not been utilized: 1-31, 34-38, 42- 45, 47-48, 56, 58-60, 64-69, 71-75. The following PFOF are rejected because they are not FOF as framed but constitute PCOL or are rejected because they constitute mere legal argument: 32. The following PFOF are rejected because, as framed, they constitute mere recitation of isolated, unreconciled testimony or other record evidence or are not supported by the greater weight of the credible record evidence as a whole. However, the subject matter is covered in the RO as proven and supported by the competent, substantial evidence in the record: 33, 40-41, 53-55, 57, 61-63, 70. The following PFOF are rejected as immaterial or as not dispositive: 39, 46, 49, 51-52. PFOF 50 is not a sentence, but the subject matter is covered in the RO as understood. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, FL 32790 Ralph McMurphy, Esquire HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 B. Gray Gibbs, Esquire Sam Power, Clerk Bette B. Lehmberg, Esquire Department of Health and Suite 800 Rehabilitative Services One 4th Street North 1323 Winewood Boulevard St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
