The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact On the evidence, it is found and determined that: I. The RFP and Stage I, II and III Evaluation Respondent issued the RFP on August 19, 2004, seeking competitive proposals for a contract for administration of the FCAT. Respondent's intent in this procurement is to contract with a qualified vendor who will be capable of performing the contract at the lowest possible cost to the State. This contract impacts all Florida public schools. The RFP included the following provisions regarding the general scope of the requirements and bidder responsibilities. 1.0 . . . A contract, if awarded, will be awarded by written notice to the qualified and responsive bidder whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the state, while taking into consideration price and other criteria specified by the RFP. 1.3 . . . This RFP defines the requirements for implementing the FCAT assessment program. The RFP and the selected contractor's proposal, together with clarifying documents, define the work to be conducted under contract. These documents will be incorporated into the contracts resulting from the FCAT project award. Because the FCAT assessment program is technical and complex, it is possible that a responsive proposal may not totally or clearly reflect RFP requirements in all details. If the proposal of a contractor selected as a result of the bidding process is inconsistent with the RFP, the requirements of the RFP prevail; the selected contractor will be expected to perform all RFP requirements without an increase in cost above the proposed cost. * * * 5.18 Acceptance of a Proposal The Department reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in a proposal. A minor irregularity is a variation from the RFP that does not affect the price of the proposal, or give one bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders, or adversely impact the interest of the Department. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the bidder from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements if the bidder is awarded the contract. Rejection of Proposals Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of this RFP may be rejected by the Department. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal contains unauthorized amendments, either additions or deletions, to the requirements of the RFP. The proposal is conditional or contains irregularities that make the proposal indefinite or ambiguous. The proposal is received late. The proposal is not signed by an authorized representative of the bidder. The bidder is not authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida or has not included a statement that such authorization will be secured prior to the award of a contract. A bid bond is not submitted with the proposal. The proposal contains false or misleading statements or provides references that do not support an attribute, capability, assertion, or condition claimed by the bidder. The proposal does not offer to provide all services required by this RFP. Department Reservations and Responsiveness of Proposals The Department reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received. 5.22 . . . In the event of conflict between the language of a proposal and the language of the RFP, the language of the RFP shall prevail. * * * 7.1 Stage I: Evaluation of Mandatory Requirements (Part I) During the Stage I evaluation, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will determine if a proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of this RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the Office of Agency Procurement and Contracting Services will evaluate each proposal according to the process described in this section. The RFP required prospective vendors to submit sealed proposals in two parts, a technical proposal and a price proposal. The technical proposals were reviewed and scored by an evaluation committee prior to opening of the sealed cost proposals. Failure of a bidder to meet every item on the Stage I list would not necessarily result in elimination of the proposal from consideration. A proposal would be eliminated only if it contained a material irregularity. "Stage I" of the process was identified in the RFP and is basically a check list of documents and commitments that are to be included with proposals. In accordance with Section 7.1, the purpose of the Stage I review is to determine whether the proposals are sufficiently responsive to be considered by the evaluation committee. Two of Respondent's employees opened the technical proposals and checked the proposals against the Stage I list to make certain "Mandatory Documents and Statements" required by Section 7.1 of the RFP were present. They did not make any substantive judgments about the extent of compliance. In performing this Stage I review, Respondent's employees followed the department's standard operating procedures. No scoring points were associated with the Stage I check list review. The technical portions of the RFP were categorized into two parts: Part II titled, "Bidder Qualification and Experience"; and Part III titled, "Technical Proposal for Administration." Bidders could receive a maximum of 50 points for Part II and a maximum of 50 points for Part III, a total maximum possible points of 100 for the technical proposals. The RFP is designed to ensure that only qualified, responsible bidders will be eligible for award of the contract. In order to be considered eligible, a bidder was required to receive a minimum of 70 cumulative points for the technical proposals. Each of the two parts of the technical proposals was broken down into ten categories or criteria. The RFP provided that an evaluation committee would assign scores from one to five, with five being the highest possible score, for each of the criteria. The RFP consists of approximately 200 pages of technical specifications, instructions, and guidelines including appendices and addenda issued after the original release date. Each of the bidders submitted technical proposals in excess of 400 pages. The RFP provided that evaluation of proposals would be based on a holistic approach so that the proposals could be scored based on consideration of the whole package proposed by the bidders without artificial limitations on the evaluators' ability to evaluate the entire proposal and score it accordingly. The evaluation process was designed to be as objective as possible, but a degree of subjective judgment is involved in the scoring of the proposals. The 20 scoring criteria for Parts II and III were designed to cover broad categories of qualifications against which the proposals were judged. Because of the holistic evaluation approach, there was no intent to evaluate proposals on the basis of an item-by-item determination. The committee evaluating the proposals was selected to include representatives familiar with various aspects of the FCAT, which were covered in the proposals. It also included a person not employed by Respondent as required by new procurement guidelines and also included a parent representative. The evaluation committee was selected so that each member brought a different expertise or perspective to the process. The evaluation committee was instructed on how the evaluation process was to be accomplished. The evaluators took their responsibility seriously and did a thorough job. For Part II, the rating scale ranged from five (excellent) to one (unsatisfactory). A score of five means the evaluator found that the bidder demonstrated superior qualifications and experience to perform the required tasks. A score of one meant the bidder demonstrated insufficient experience and capability to perform the required tasks or did not establish its qualifications and experience. The RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of Overall Bidder Qualifications and Experience will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix M." The "holistic" approach referenced in the RFP means that Respondent looks at the proposal as a whole. The RFP and the administration of the FCAT is very complex and the evaluators are not required to look at each component of the proposal, but are to judge the whole proposal. For Part III, the rating scale also ranged from five to one. The criteria for what merited a five or a one changed, however, from Part II. A score of five means that the bidder proposed superior solutions to the requirement of the RFP and has proposed products and services that are desirable for use in the FCAT administration program and are likely to create a high quality assessment program that meets sound psychometric standards that are clearly feasible to implement. A score of one under Part III means that the bidder proposed inferior or incomplete solutions to the requirements of the RFP or has proposed products and services that would be technically indefensible, would create a flawed assessment program not meeting psychometric standards, or would not be feasible to implement. Again, the RFP stressed in bold typeface that "[t]he evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be completed by the proposal evaluation committee using 'holistic' ratings. Each proposal evaluation committee member, acting independently, will assign a single rating for each criterion identified in Appendix N." The proposals were scored independently based upon the proposal's compliance with applicable RFP criteria; the proposals were not scored based upon how they compared to each other. Indeed, the evaluators were instructed not to discuss their scores so that each evaluator would establish their own internal criteria that was consistent across proposals. Although none of the proposals were deemed non- responsive in this stage, there are indications that failure to meet certain RFP requirements were noticed by the evaluation committed and scored accordingly. Stages II and III of the evaluation process took four days. Representatives of the bidders, including its attorney, attended all of the Stage II and III evaluation sessions. Documentation of Subcontractor Information. The RFP included the following specifications relating to documentation of subcontractors and printers. 4.6.1 Subcontractors The test administration contractor may choose to employ subcontractors for the completion of one or more tasks. If the bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor(s), the qualifications and experience of the subcontractor(s) will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as those of the bidder. A separate chart in the proposal will identify all of the subcontractors proposed to be involved in the project and the services they are expected to provide. All subcontractors must be approved by the Department. It is assumed that the contractor will use outside printers for some materials. Printers will be documented as subcontractors, and the management plan will identify the proportion of materials to be printed by the contractor and by outside vendors. Procedures for quality control and security during printing are to be described. Destruction of secure materials is addressed in Section 3.7.4. The contractor will assume responsibility for all services offered in the proposal whether or not they are performed or produced by the contractor or by subcontractors. The Department will consider the selected contractor to be the sole point of contact for contractual matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the contract. Other specifications in the RFP contained similar or identical language. The RFP also provided the following in Section 5.31 with respect to subcontractors: Any change of subcontractors must be approved in advance by the Department. In the event of poor performance by a subcontractor, the Department reserves the right to direct the contractor to replace that subcontractor. While Item 10 on Page 77 of the RFP required a representation from the vendors that they had identified all subcontractors and the amount of work to be performed directly by each subcontractor, the only investigation that Respondent undertook to confirm the accuracy of these statements was the Stage I evaluation. The Stage II and Stage III evaluators did not check to ensure that all of the subcontractors had been documented as required by the RFP. The RFP specifically required that all printers be identified and documented as subcontractors. Section 6.3 of the RFP requires the management plan to specifically identify the proportion of materials to be printed by outside vendors. Section 4.6.1 of the RFP on Page 53 states that if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the qualifications and experience of the subcontractors will be documented in their proposal at the same level of detail as the bidder. That section also provides that "printers will be documented as subcontractors." The timeliness, accuracy, and security of the printing operations are very important to the FCAT program; and the qualifications and experience of the printers, who would actually print the materials, is an important component of this procurement. As it relates to the "back-end" printing of the student and parent reports, there are privacy concerns that are particularly sensitive. The RFP provisions were included to ensure that, if a vendor was going to use outside printers for some of the activities, Respondent would be able to tell from the response who all of those printers were and what services they were going to perform. The RFP was drafted to ensure that Respondent was dealing with vendors who were qualified and experienced and able to deliver the products requested in the RFP. There were specific requirements in the RFP as to how the bidders were supposed to identify prior contracts, provide contact information, and document the printers who were going to do any of the actual printing. Section 6.2 on Page 74 of the RFP required that all vendors were to document contracted services for previous assessment projects similar to the one described in the RFP. For each of those projects, the documentation was supposed to include a description of the services and products delivered, the contract period, the name, address, and telephone of the contract person for each of the contracting agencies. This provision was applicable to all of the printers who were involved in this contract. The printers were also supposed to document how they were going to monitor security and provide quality control during the printing process itself. The intent of the RFP was to have bidders document who was going to do the printing, whether it was subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, or sub-sub-subcontractors. Section 5.27 on Page 65 of the RFP states that "if a bidder proposes to employ a subcontractor, the subcontractor's qualifications and experience will be documented in the proposal at the same level of detail as that of the bidder. Procedures for quality control and security of the work tasks performed by the subcontractors are to be described." These provisions are not discretionary. They are mandatory and require all vendors to provide a description of the quality control and security measures to be employed by all subcontractors, including the printers who must be documented as subcontractors. CTB's proposal identified The Grow Network as the entity that would be responsible for printing requirements. The Grow Network is an affiliate of CTB. CTB's proposal included documentation regarding The Grow Network's qualifications to perform the printing. In its response to the RFP, CTB provided extensive documentation and met all of the requirements of the RFP with respect to its front-end printers. Indeed each of those printers was identified in paragraph 10 of the transmittal letter that accompanied the CTB proposal. The Grow Network was also responsible for providing the back-end printing for the reports to be sent to the parents and students. The Grow Network was identified as doing 20 percent of the printing. However, the Grow Network does not actually do any printing themselves. At the hearing, the Grow Network claimed that it was the "print publisher" of the back-end reports. It stated that the Grow Network utilizes a "distributed printing approach." This, in fact, meant that the printing was going to be subcontracted out. The services that would be subcontracted out by the Grow Network include digital printing, collating, packing, distribution, and tracking. CTB's proposal states that GDS, a digital imaging company, will be the print facility utilized by the Grow Network to perform these aspects of the FCAT report printing requirements. CTB's proposal describes the corporate capabilities and experience of GDS, including descriptions of the California and New Jersey projects where GDS was utilized by the Grow Network as its print facility. The RFP also required bidders to provide examples of materials to demonstrate the quality of the work done on similar projects. Accordingly, CTB included sample reports printed by the Grow Network in conjunction with GDS, for the California and New Jersey projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing detailed documentation of both the Grow Network and GDS, Petitioner asserts that CTB failed to comply with the RFP because the CTB proposal indicates that much of the printing work will be out-sourced without disclosing who is actually going to be providing these services. However, CTB's proposal identifies only one printing facility, GDS, that will be utilized as the print facility under its distributed printing approach. CTB's proposal specifically states that "Grow currently uses GDS to support their California and New Jersey projects, and they will employ GDS' services for the Florida reporting project." CTB's proposal identifies other printing facilities, Delzer, R.R. Donnelley, and Bowne, that Grow could utilize on the FCAT with Respondent's approval. These other companies were potential "backup" printers, which were identified in case Respondent preferred using another printing facility. Otherwise, the Grow Network intended to utilize GDS as the sole printing facility on the FCAT and has a commitment from GDS to perform the tasks required. The RFP does not require commitment letters from subcontractors. The RFP required only the identification of the proposed printers, which could be changed with Respondent's approval. CTB has also indicated in its response that it will utilize 180 employees of Kelly Services, at three different locations, to supervise approximately 3,000 scorers. However, nowhere in the proposal has CTB documented Kelly Services as a subcontractor, nor provided information regarding their experience and qualifications to perform this work. CTB uses Kelly Services as a recruiting service provider. CTB is responsible for the hiring, training, and directing of the Kelly Services personnel and ultimately for the deliverables received from those employees. Kelly Services is not a subcontractor as contemplated in the RFP, because they are not held accountable for their deliverables. Accordingly, CTB's proposal is not deficient for failing to document Kelly Services as a subcontractor. Even if the failure to so document Kelly Services were a deficiency in CTB's proposal, the lack of detail would only lower CTB's score, not make it non-responsive. The Post-submittal Clarification Process. The RFP provided at Section 7.0 that each bidder would be required to make a presentation to the evaluation committee after the technical proposals were opened and that information presented or issues clarified during the presentation might affect the number of points an evaluation committee member assigned to a given proposal. On the first day of the evaluation process, the bidders were required to make separate oral presentations to the evaluation committee. Following those oral presentations, the evaluation committee was to begin the process of scoring the proposals based on the various RFP criteria. This was to be a "closed session" during which the vendors were not permitted to interact with the evaluation committee members; likewise, the evaluation committee members were not permitted to direct any questions to the vendors. RFP Section 7.0 spells out the rules and processes for conducting the oral presentations of the vendors. This includes the imposition of time limits on the presentations and questions from evaluators, which were to be strictly followed. Section 7.0 states, in pertinent part: The purpose of the presentation will be for the bidder to describe its offering of products and services and make any statements that will enhance understanding of its offering. The proposal evaluation committee will NOT evaluate the presentations or otherwise award points for the quality of the of the presentation. Information presented or issues clarified during the presentation MAY affect the number of points a proposal evaluation committee member assigns to a given proposal. . . . The presentation shall not exceed 30 minutes with an additional 15 minutes reserved for proposal evaluation committee member questions. These meetings will be open to the public; however, only members of the proposal evaluation committee may ask questions of the bidder. The above-quoted language in the RFP does not contemplate written submissions by vendors following the oral presentations. Nothing else in the RFP specifically authorizes vendors to clarify information in their proposals after the presentations have concluded. Thus, the oral presentation part of the evaluation process is the only RFP-authorized mechanism available to evaluators for seeking clarification of the proposals. Because clarifications are permissible during the vendor presentations, the RFP expressly states that such clarifications may affect scoring of the proposals. By contrast, nothing in the RFP authorizes the evaluators to seek or consider in scoring the proposals any vendor clarification made in any other form or at any other point, whether before or after the oral presentations. In fact, considering any information received from the vendors outside of the oral presentations would be inconsistent with RFP Section 5.3, which restricts communications by bidders with Respondent's staff. In short, to the extent a clarification of a proposal was needed, under the RFP, it should have been provided orally during the vendor presentations. Each of the bidders made a presentation to the evaluation committee. During the presentations, members of the evaluation committee asked bidders various questions relating to their respective responses to the RFP. One of the members sought clarification regarding the total number of full time equivalent ("FTE") hours for the persons identified in the proposals. Although the evaluation team was not given any specific standards or base lines to utilize in scoring the staffing and personnel commitments submitted by the parties, a bidders' commitment of personnel resources was an important factor for several of the criteria in the RFP. The bidder representatives for CTB and Petitioner were not able to provide the requested FTE information at the time of the presentation. Harcourt's representatives, who had had the benefit of hearing the presentations made by Petitioner and CTB, were able to answer the FTE question at the presentation. Because the evaluators had lingering questions on staffing, Respondent made a decision to send out questions to two of the three vendors following completion of the oral presentations. No scoring was done on any of the proposals prior to the time Petitioner's and CTB's responses were presented to the evaluators. At least some of the evaluation committee members felt that the staffing information was critical. The questions were not based on the presentations by the vendors, but were based on the evaluation committee members' concerns that had not been resolved by the oral presentations. The questions reflected areas that the evaluators were not able to understand from the initial proposals submitted. After the presentations, Respondent delivered letters dated August 30, 2004, to Petitioner and CTB, but not to Harcourt, asking them to provide the requested FTE information by the following day. CTB and Petitioner both promptly provided the information requested. CTB's August 31, 2004, written response to the FTE question included a chart that identified all personnel and the associated FTEs that would be assigned to the project. This FTE chart was prepared by Diane Driessen, CTB's senior program manager who was one of two CTB employees primarily responsible for preparing CTB's response to the RFP. As a format for its written response, CTB utilized the existing chart for Professional Personnel Responsible for Major Contract Activity (Figure 9), which was in its proposal. CTB added to this chart the additional personnel to reflect the total FTEs for the project as a whole. CTB took the material in the proposal and presented it in a consolidated format. CTB combined the monthly activities by program chart, which was Table 9, with the key personnel chart, which was Figure 9, and handscoring resources presented in the proposal. The additional named personnel in its response were not named in the original figure of key personnel because they were not considered responsible for major contract activities. It was an oversight that the chart still retained the heading, "Time Task Chart for Key Project Personnel" when it actually reflected the 330 total FTEs for the whole project team as requested by Respondent. The cover letter to Respondent explained that CTB was listing all personnel, not just "key personnel." All of the unnamed persons added to the chart are identified by position in the original proposal. As part of its written response to Respondent's written requests for additional information, CTB also included a written recap of the questions and answers from its oral presentation. The evidence demonstrated that the information provided by CTB after receiving Respondent's staff's questions included corrections of errors contained in CTB's initial response to the RFP. This information was presented to the evaluators for them to review and consider in the scoring process. No one from Respondent made an analysis to determine whether the information in the supplement was contained in the original proposal before it was presented to the evaluators. The RFP also required the vendors to provide all required information by the deadline that the proposals were to be received. Respondent was obligated to follow these provisions and not accept any information in a manner inconsistent with them. In addition, bidders were required to commit to complying with all requirements of the RFP if awarded the contract: I certify that this Proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation firm, or person submitting a proposal for the same materials, supplies or equipment, and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to abide by all conditions of this Proposal and certify that I am authorized to sign this Proposal for the Proposer and that the Proposer is in compliance with all requirements of the Request for Proposal including but not limited to, certification requirements. . . . The supplemental information submitted by CTB should have been included in CTB's initial submittal. The fifth bullet point of Section 4.6.2 of the RFP on Page 54 required bidders to indicate by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities with an estimation of the amount of time and full-time equivalencies each person was going to devote to the tasks under the contract. The proposal was also supposed to include a vitae for all such professional personnel. This bullet point was not limited to only those who had a supervisory role. It was the intention of the bullet point that the individuals should be identified by name, including software development staff. Much of CTB's software development staff was not identified by name in its initial response, but they were identified in the supplement. The RFP required vendors to provide the total time commitment for key personnel in the initial submission and required that the bidders identify by name the professional personnel to be responsible for major contract activities. The time commitment for some of the key project personnel that CTB identified in its initial proposal were significantly "revised" in its supplement. These "revisions" purportedly correct "errors" in the initial response and include changes to the time commitment for "key project personnel," including the project manager for manufacturing, senior research scientists and the scoring director for one of the major scoring sites. There are six new names that appear in CTB's supplement, as well as numerous revisions to the time commitment of key personnel. In its written questions to the vendors, Respondent did not request any revisions or corrections of error with respect to any of these key personnel. The evidence is clear that there are "revisions," corrections of errors and significant reformatting that were tailored to address lingering concerns of the evaluators. CTB's supplemental proposal also included a new chart broken down with many different allocations of days that did not appear anywhere in the original proposal. This submittal also included a number of different "to be assigned" categories that were not specifically included on the chart in the initial submittal and a re-categorization of some of the positions. The evaluation committee members would not have had enough time to make an assessment as to whether that information was in the original proposal. Had CTB not provided its supplemental information, the evaluation team would have had a significantly different view point on CTB's staffing. After the oral presentations, Petitioner also received a written question regarding staffing from Respondent. Petitioner's response was a listing of the FTEs taken from the charts already contained in the original proposal. Petitioner was concerned with the procedure that was being implemented, but after seeking advice of counsel, submitted the response nonetheless. Harcourt was not given this opportunity. RFP Section 5.16 does not address proposal clarifications, but it does impose limitations on the consideration of proposal "amendments." Section 5.16 states that, absent a specific request by Respondent, any "amendments, revisions, or alterations to proposals will not be accepted after the deadline for the receipt of proposals." In addition, Section 5.16 does not address when, during the evaluation process, Respondent may request a vendor to amend a proposal. This timing issue is only addressed by statute in Subsection 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes (2004), which states that "no submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which amend or supplement the bid or proposal shall be considered." However, the timing of when Respondent could request a proposal amendment under Section 5.16 is not at issue in this case. Respondent acknowledges that it made no such request in this case. Absent a specific request, Section 5.16 precluded Respondent from considering any amendment to a proposal offered by any vendor. CTB's written responses to Respondent's written questions amount to a clarification of their bid proposal, since then were submitted only after Respondent requested the information. The responses do not constitute an amendment or supplement to the proposal. The Evaluation Process Immediately following the bidders' oral presentations and receipt of the bidders' responses to the evaluators' questions, the evaluation committee met as a body and reviewed each of the proposals. Dr. Orr and Dr. Melvin were co-chairpersons of the committee and facilitated the evaluation committee review of the technical proposals. They did not participate in the actual scoring of proposals. The evaluation committee reviewed the three proposals consecutively, evaluating them against the criteria in the RFP. Open discussion about the criteria and the locations within the proposals where criteria were addressed was encouraged and took place. Whether one bidder was slightly better than another bidder was not the basis for determining the contract award. The RFP provided a balanced formula that sought to ensure the competency of the awarded by requiring a minimum technical score of 70 while rewarding the competent bidder that submitted the lowest price. In accordance with the RFP, the evaluation committee assigned holistic ratings to the technical proposals, judging them based on the quality of the proposals as a whole. Each evaluator independently scored the proposals by assigning a score from one to five for each of the 20 criterion in the RFP. The evaluation committee did not compare the proposals to each other. The evaluation committee completed the evaluation of the first proposal before considering the second proposal and completed the evaluation of the second proposal before completing the evaluation of the third proposal. Alternative Proposals. The RFP permitted bidders to propose alternative approaches for meeting Respondent's objectives, but provided that no cost savings or increases for alternative proposals could be referenced in the technical proposal. Any cost savings or increases for alternative proposals were required to be submitted in a separately sealed package and clearly labeled. None of the bidders included any reference to cost savings or increases in their technical proposals. Petitioner's proposal clearly marked its alternatives. CTB sometimes identified its alternatives with a special marker and sometimes simply described them within the text of the RFP. Harcourt generally did not clearly designate its alternatives. During the Stage II and III evaluation process, a committee member raised a question regarding assigning points for alternative proposals. Because the RFP did not provide a mechanism for evaluating the alternatives, an internal decision was made by Respondent not to consider the alternatives at all in connection with scoring the proposals. The members of the evaluation team were told to disregard the references to alternative proposals submitted by each of the bidders. There was no provision in the RFP that was relied upon in making that determination. The evaluators were given no guidance as to which provisions of the various proposals should not be considered. This led to inconsistencies in what was treated as an alternative and not scored, versus what was treated as part of the base proposal and scored. It is clear that the decision not to consider alternatives resulted in confusion and inconsistency in the evaluation process. For example, one evaluator, Clarence Reed, indicated that if a proposal went beyond the requirements of the RFP and offered something that was not required, but was an enhancement, he viewed that as an alternative and would not have considered it. Similarly, the chairperson of the evaluation committee and one of the facilitators for the evaluation process, Dr. Orr, testified that "enhancements" should not have been considered. By contrast, most of the evaluators viewed offerings by vendors that went beyond the requirements of the RFP and did not include a cost to Respondent as "enhancements" that could be considered in their evaluation of the proposals. Likewise, Dr. Melvin, one of Respondent's facilitators for the evaluation team, believed that an "augmentation" was not the same as an "alternative." Thus, in many instances, when a vendor offered something beyond the requirements of the RFP, at no cost to Respondent, and did not identify it as an "option" or "alternative," it was considered in the scoring by at least some of the evaluators. The evidence is clear that there are portions of the proposals submitted by Harcourt and CTB that was essentially the equivalent of no cost "alternatives" that were considered by the evaluators while Petitioner's clearly identified "alternatives" were not. In sum, whether a particular proposal was an "augmentation," "option," "alternative" or an additional clarification created confusion among the evaluators. As a result, there was no consistency in terms of what the evaluators could consider in the proposals and what they could not consider. While it is impossible to quantify the exact impact of the decision not to consider alternatives, it is clear that Petitioner's bid received a disproportionate negative impact because many of its important enhancements, which were being offered to Respondent at no cost were listed as "alternatives" and never factored into the evaluation process. There were several alternatives proposed by Petitioner that would have been enhancements to the current program and would have been made available at no cost to Respondent. Thus, Petitioner's score was artificially influenced in a negative way. By contrast, the evidence is clear that CTB and Harcourt, in many instances presented different ways to accomplish tasks without specifically utilizing the term "alternative" or "option" and such matters were factored into the evaluation. The claim by Respondent and CTB that the decision not to consider alternatives was applied even-handedly is not supported by the evidence. Because there was not a consistent manner in which the various companies presented their "enhancements," "augmentations," "options" or "alternatives," Respondent's determination to exclude consideration of "alternatives" precluded the evaluators from fairly determining what each of the vendors could actually provide to the program. It also meant that the vendors were not evaluated on an equal footing. Thus, the decision was contrary to the bid specifications. In spite of these concerns, the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Respondent's instruction to evaluators not to consider alternatives rendered the proposed agency action clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, and/or arbitrary and capricious because Respondent was not obligated to accept any of the alternatives offered by a bidder. The Price Proposals. Respondent's evaluation of the three bidders' proposals established that each of the bidders was capable and qualified to perform the work under the contract. The bidders' price proposals remained sealed until after the evaluation committee completed its scoring of the technical proposals. The price proposals were evaluated based on a formula that awarded 50 points to the bidder with the lowest price. The remaining bidders received points based on a proportion or ratio that compared their price to the low bidder's price. The RFP provided at Section 7.4, Page 82, in pertinent part: A total of 50 points will be awarded to the lowest acceptable Cost Proposal. Proposals with higher costs will receive the fraction of 50 points proportional to the ratio of the lowest proposal cost to the higher cost proposal. The fractional value of points to be assigned will be rounded to one decimal place. For example, if the lowest responsive cost were $50,000.00, the bid would receive 50 points. If the next lowest responsive cost proposal were $75,000.00, it would receive 33.3 points. If the highest responsive cost proposal were $100,000.00, it would receive 25 points. Upon opening the three bidders price proposals, it was determined that Petitioner's bid for the base and renewal period was $224,969,699; Harcourt's bid was $167,055,970; and CTB's bid was $140,107,439. On September 23, 2004, Respondent posted a Notice of Intent to Award the contract for the FCAT administration to CTB. The posting showed the final scores of the three vendors as follows: Proposers Mandatory Bidders Technical Total Cost Total Requirement Qualifications/ Quality Points Proposal Points Met Experience Stage III (Stages Stage IV Stage Stage II II&III) V Pearson Yes Educational Assessment 44.6 44.3 88.9 31.4 120.3 Harcourt Yes 42.7 42.2 84.9 42.4 127.3 CTB/McGraw Yes Hill 43.8 44.9 88.8 50 138.8 CTB's price for performing the contract over a five-year period is approximately $85 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $27 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt. Over a three year contract period, CTB's price for performing is approximately $53 million less than the price proposed by Petitioner and approximately $14 million less than the price proposed by Harcourt.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner of the Department of Education adopt this Recommended Order and enter an final order awarding the contract for RFP No. 2005-01 to the low bidder, CTB/McGraw-Hill, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Donna E. Blanton, Esquire Radey, Thomas, Yon & Clark, P.A. 313 North Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10967 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jason K. Fudge, Esquire Florida Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 W. Robert Vezina, III, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A. 318 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7606 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 1244 Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Lynn Abbott, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether the proposed award of Contract No. E1G23 to DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. d/b/a DBI Services Corporation (DBI) is contrary to the Department of Transportation’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications in the Request for Proposals (RFP).
Findings Of Fact On June 18, 2007, the Department issued RFP No. E1G23, which solicited proposals for “ultra asset maintenance” for Interstate 75 (I-75) and interchanges in Broward, Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Manatee, Desoto, and Sarasota Counties. The Department issued three addenda to the RFP. The addenda did not make any material changes that are pertinent to the issues in this proceeding. The Scope of Services for the RFP stated that for all roadways and facilities covered by the contract, the contractor will be responsible for performing all of the maintenance activities that would otherwise have been performed by the Department, including but not limited to, mowing the right-of- way, maintaining guardrails, fixing potholes, maintaining stormwater management facilities, cleaning and maintaining rest areas, tree trimming, and incident response and management. In the asset management industry, this type of contract is known as a comprehensive asset management contract because the contractor is responsible for all maintenance activities within the right-of-way “from fence to fence, including the fence.” The RFP states that the contract will be awarded to the responsive and responsible vendor whose proposal receives the highest total score, which is composed of a price score and a technical score. The price score is weighted 30 percent, and the technical score is weighted 70 percent. The vendor proposing the lowest price received the full 30 points for the price score. The other vendors’ price scores were calculated through a mathematical formula based upon the percentage that the vendor’s price exceeded the lowest price. The technical score was based upon a subjective evaluation of the proposals in four broad categories: administration plan (weighted 20 points); management and technical plan (weighted 30 points); operation plan (weighted 30 points); and compliance plan (weighted 20 points). There are sub-categories in each of those categories, with a specific number of points assigned to each sub-category. Five evaluators independently reviewed the proposals. The evaluators –- Jennifer Perry, Howard Summers, David Holden, Lance Grace, and Robert Mannix -- were Department employees selected based upon their familiarity with the areas and services covered by the contract. All of the evaluators attended the pre-bid conference, which was mandatory for prospective bidders. No questions or concerns were raised at the pre-bid conference or at any point prior to submittal of the proposals regarding the evaluators having experience with the prior I-75 contract or having been involved in the preparation of the RFP. Three companies -- ICA, DBI, and VMS, Inc. (VMS) -- submitted responses to the RFP. ICA is a Tennessee corporation. DBI is a Pennsylvania corporation. Both companies provide asset management services in Florida and around the country, but ICA has more experience than DBI in providing comprehensive asset management services. The price offered by ICA -- $89,200,300.01 -- was the lowest of the three vendors that responded to the RFP; the price offered by DBI -- $92,630,739 -- was approximately 3.8 percent higher. As a result, ICA received a price score of 30 and DBI received a price score of 28.89. Three of the five evaluators -- Ms. Perry, Mr. Summers, and Mr. Golden -- scored DBI’s proposal the highest. Two of the evaluators -- Mr. Grace and Mr. Mannix -- scored ICA’s proposal higher than DBI’s proposal, but they scored VMS's proposal the highest. None of the evaluators scored ICA’s proposal the highest. DBI’s proposal received an average score of 85.40 from the evaluators, and ICA’s proposal received an average score of 82.96. As result, DBI received a technical score of 59.78, and ICA received a technical score of 58.07. When the price scores and the technical scores were combined, DBI received the highest total score of 88.67. ICA was the second-ranked vendor with a total score of 88.07. VMS was the third-ranked vendor with a total score of 86.12.3 On August 21, 2007, the Department posted notice of its intent to award the contract to DBI. The initial posting erroneously identified the winning vendor as “DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. T/A Aguagenix, Inc.” rather than DBI. The contract administrator, Cheryl Sanchious, explained that this was a clerical error caused by the Department’s computer system and that it has been corrected in the system. ICA timely filed a notice of protest and a formal written protest challenging the award to DBI. ICA posted a cashier’s check in the statutorily required amount in lieu of a protest bond. After the protest was filed, the Department entered into temporary emergency asset management contracts for the roadways and facilities covered by contract at issue in this case. ICA was given the contract for Broward and Collier Counties because it was already providing asset management in those counties under the predecessor to the contract at issue in this case, No. BC680. DBI was given the contract for the other counties, Sarasota, Lee, Manatee, Charlotte, and Desoto. It is undisputed that ICA’s proposal was responsive to the RFP in all material respects. The focus of ICA’s protest is four-fold. First, ICA contends that DBI’s proposal is not responsive because it did not affirmatively state that it would grant a first right of refusal to RESPECT of Florida (RESPECT). Second ICA contends that DBI is not a “responsible vendor” and that the Department confused the concepts of “responsiveness” and “responsibility” in its review of the proposals. Third, ICA contends that the evaluation committee failed to prepare a technical summary as required by the RFP, and that its failure to do so was material because it would have brought to light the discrepancies in Ms. Perry's scoring. Fourth, ICA contends that Ms. Perry's scoring was flawed and out of sync with the other evaluators in several respects. Each issue is discussed in turn. Responsiveness / RESPECT First Right of Refusal Section 8.2 of the RFP provides that “[a] responsive proposal shall perform the scope of services called for in this Proposal Requirements [sic] and receive a Technical Proposal score of at least seventy (70) percent of the maximum attainable points established for scoring the Technical Proposal.” Section 17.1 of the RFP provides that “[d]uring the process of evaluation, the District Contracts Office will conduct examinations of Proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the Proposal Solicitation. Those determined to be non-responsive will be automatically rejected.” Section 16.5 of the RFP requires the proposal to “[u]se only statements of what the Proposer will or will not accomplish” rather than “words such as may, might, should, etc.” Section 8.5 of the RFP authorizes the Department to “waive minor informalities or irregularities in Proposals received where such is merely a matter of form and not substance, and the correction or waiver of which is not prejudicial to other Proposers.” That section defines “minor irregularities” as “those that will not have an adverse effect on the Department’s interest and will not affect the price of the Proposal by giving a Proposer an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Proposers.” The Scope of Services for the RFP requires the contractor to “grant ‘Respect of Florida’ a first right of refusal” to provide maintenance services at rest areas. This was intended by the Department to be a mandatory requirement of the RFP, and was understood as such by ICA and DBI. RESPECT is a not-for-profit organization that employs disabled and disadvantaged individuals. RESPECT employees perform janitorial and grounds maintenance functions at rest areas, including one of the rest areas covered by the RFP. ICA’s proposal expressly states that “ICA will grant Respect of Florida first right of refusal on rest area janitorial work consistent with statewide maintenance practices.” DBI’s proposal does not include an affirmative statement that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal. However, DBI stated in its proposal that it “is currently in negotiation with [RESPECT] to expand their existing maintenance responsibilities for rest areas within the project limits” and that “DBI Services believes that expanding [RESPECT’s] responsibilities in the project is the right thing to do.” The absence of an affirmative statement in DBI’s proposal that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal was not material to the evaluators. For example, evaluator Robert Mannix testified that he “generally looked for more of the intent to give [RESPECT] the opportunity of making a bid rather than the specific language of right of first refusal.”4 Similarly Ms. Perry testified that she considered granting RESPECT a first right of refusal to be a requirement of the contract whether or not the contractor mentioned it in its proposal. Amy Burlarley-Hyland, director of asset management for DBI, testified that DBI intends to provide a first right of refusal to RESPECT and that, consistent with the statement in DBI’s proposal, DBI is “committed to expanding Respect’s responsibilities on this project.” She explained that she did not include an affirmative statement to that effect in the proposal because it is “a known requirement” that will be part of the contract by virtue of it being in the RFP. Mr. Rader, ICA’s executive vice president, testified that it is more costly to contract with RESPECT to provide maintenance services than to contract with another entity to provide those services. Ms. Hyland disagreed with that testimony, as did Ms. Perry. No documentation was provided to support Mr. Rader’s claim that it is more expensive to contract with RESPECT, and the evidence was not persuasive that DBI received a competitive advantage by not affirmatively stating in its proposal that it will grant a first right of refusal to RESPECT. The RFP does not require the vendor to expressly acknowledge and affirmatively agree to meet each and every mandatory requirement in the RFP. Indeed, if this were the test for responsiveness, ICA’s proposal would be nonresopnsive because it failed to expressly acknowledge and affirmatively agree to meet a number of the mandatory requirements in the RFP. DBI’s proposal complies with the intent of the RFP in regards to RESPECT. Its failure to specifically state that it will grant RESPECT a first right of refusal is, at most, a minor irregularity. Failure to Determine DBI’s Responsibility Responsiveness and responsibility are separate, but related concepts in the competitive procurement context. Section 287.012(24), Florida Statutes, defines “responsible vendor” to mean “a vendor who has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance.” Section 287.012(26), Florida Statutes, defines “responsive vendor” to mean “a vendor that has submitted a bid, proposal, or reply that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation.” In order to bid on certain Department contracts, a vendor has to be pre-qualified under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-22. Pre-qualification serves as an advance determination of the vendor’s responsibility. Pre-qualification is generally not required in order to bid on maintenance contracts; bidders are presumed qualified to bid on such contracts. However, as noted in the Bid Solicitation Notice for the RFP, “certain maintenance contracts will contain specific requirements for maintenance contractor eligibility” if deemed necessary by the Department. This is such a maintenance contract. Section 7.1 of the RFP required the Department to determine whether the proposer is “qualified to perform the services being contracted.” That determination was to be made “based upon the[] Proposal Package demonstrating satisfactory experience and capability in the work area.” The RFP did not specify when or by whom this determination was to be made. The Department and DBI contend that the determination required by Section 7.1 is essentially a determination of whether the bidder is responsible, and that the determination is to be made by the evaluators during their scoring of the proposals. In support of that contention, the Department and DBI refer to Section 17.1 of the RFP, which provides that “[p]roposing firms must receive an average technical proposal score of at least (70) percent of the maximum attainable points established for scoring the Technical Proposal to be considered responsive.” Similar language is included in Section 8.2 of the RFP under the heading “Responsiveness of Proposals.” The interpretation of the RFP advocated by the Department and DBI is reasonable, and DBI’s proposal received an average score from the evaluators of 85.40, which exceeds the 70 percent threshold in Section 17.1 of the RFP. Indeed, each of the evaluators gave DBI more than 70 points for its technical proposal. The preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing supports the Department's implicit determination that DBI is “qualified to perform the services being contracted,” as required by Section 7.1 of the RFP. DBI has a 29-year history. It employs approximately 700 employees in 34 offices nationwide; it is the largest vegetation management company in the world; and it is ranked in the top five nationally in Pavement Maintenance Magazine. Even though DBI has less experience in comprehensive asset management contracts than does ICA, DBI has extensive experience in managing comprehensive activities under large contracts. DBI has managed over $400 million in performance- based contracts nationwide, including a $9 million comprehensive asset management contract with the Department in District 4 (US 27/Belle Glade area), and DBI’s director of asset management has extensive experience in highway and facility asset management in the private sector with DBI and VMS and in the public sector with the New York Department of Transportation. In sum, a determination that DBI is a responsible bidder was inherent in the Department’s decision to award the contract to DBI, which was based in large part on the technical score of its proposal by the evaluators, and the evidence presented in this de novo proceeding supports that determination. Therefore, even if, as ICA argues, the Department and DBI are improperly construing the word “responsive” in Section 17.1 of the RFP to mean “responsible,” ICA failed to prove that such error is material to the outcome of this proceeding. Failure to Prepare Technical Summary Section 17.1 of the RFP describes the evaluation process as follows: A Technical Evaluation Committee . . . will be established to review and evaluate each Proposal Package submitted in response to this Proposal Solicitation. The Committee will be comprised of at least five persons with background, experience, and/or professional credentials in relative service areas. The District Contracts Office will distribute to each member of the Committee a copy of each technical proposal. The Committee members will independently evaluate the Proposals on the criteria in the section below entitled “Criteria for Evaluation” in order to ensure that the Proposals are uniformly rated. The Committee will then assign points, utilizing the technical evaluation criteria identified herein and complete a technical summary. . . . . (Emphasis supplied). The District Contracts Office and/or the Project Manager/Technical Evaluation Committee will review and evaluate the price packages and prepare a summary of its price evaluation. Points will be assigned based on price evaluation criteria identified herein. During the process of the evaluation, the District Contracts Office will conduct examinations of Proposals for responsiveness to requirements of the Proposal Solicitation. Those determined to be non- responsive will be rejected. ICA contends that the evaluation committee failed to prepare a “technical summary,” which would have brought to light the scoring issues discussed below concerning Ms. Perry. The RFP does not define “technical summary” nor does it specify the form that the summary must take. The RFP does not specify how the evaluation committee as a whole would assign points to the proposals in light of the independent scoring mandated by Section 17.1 of the RFP. The evaluators did not assign points to the proposals as a committee, but rather independently scored the proposals. The evaluators did not meet as a committee to prepare a “technical summary.” Several of the evaluators testified that they considered the evaluation form that they completed for each proposal to be their “technical summary” for the proposal because the form included the scores assigned in each technical review category and summary comments about the proposal. The evaluators did not collectively discuss their scoring of the proposals after they completed their independent evaluations; they simply submitted their completed evaluation forms to Ms. Sanchious. Ms. Sanchious’ office prepared a spreadsheet summarizing the evaluators’ technical scoring of the proposals. The spreadsheet -– Joint Exhibit 33, titled “Proposal Evaluation/Breakdown Sheet” -- lists the scores awarded by each evaluator in each technical review category; calculates the total points awarded by each evaluator for each proposal; and calculates an “overall score” for each proposal by averaging the five evaluators’ scores for each proposal. This spreadsheet is more akin to a “technical summary” than is Joint Exhibit 21, which DBI and the Department contend is the “technical summary.” Indeed, Joint Exhibit 21 only includes the “overall score” and not the underlying data that was used to calculate that score. It was not unreasonable for the Department to calculate an “overall score” for each proposal by simply averaging the five evaluators’ scores for each proposal, and ICA failed to prove that the averaging being done by Ms. Sanchious’ office (instead of the evaluation committee) was a material deviation from the RFP. Indeed, ICA’s contention that discussion amongst the evaluation committee members to prepare the “technical summary” would have changed Ms. Perry’s scoring of ICA’s or DBI’s proposal is speculative, at best, in light of the findings below. In sum, the evaluation committee’s failure to prepare a “technical summary” as required by Section 17.1 of the RFP does not undermine the proposed award to DBI. Scoring by Jennifer Perry Ms. Perry was one of the five evaluators who reviewed the technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Ms. Perry is a licensed professional engineer. She has 10 years of work experience with the Department, and she currently serves as the assistant maintenance engineer for District 1. In that capacity, she is responsible for all forms of maintenance contracting in District 1, including routine maintenance and asset maintenance. Ms. Perry served for a time as the project manager for the existing asset management contract for I-75, which was held by ICA. As a result, she had the occasion to work with ICA employees and become familiar with ICA’s performance under that contract. There is no evidence that Ms. Perry is biased against ICA in any way. Indeed, she credibly testified that she had a good working relationship with ICA; that she had no major issues with ICA’s performance under the existing contract; and that she would have had no hesitation recommending that the contract be awarded to ICA if its proposal had received the highest score. Ms. Perry was heavily involved in the preparation of the RFP as a result of her position as assistant maintenance engineer for District 1. She was also involved in the selection of the evaluators. There is no Department rule or policy that prohibits a person from serving as an evaluator if he or she was involved in the preparation of the RFP. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Perry served as the project manager for the asset management contract held by ICA does not preclude her from serving as an evaluator. Indeed, Section 17.1 of the RFP specifically contemplates that the evaluators will have “background, experience, and/or professional credentials in relative service areas.” Similar language is contained in Section 287.057(17)(a), Florida Statutes. Ms. Perry spent between 10½ and 11 hours reviewing and scoring the proposals. She made detailed notes while she was scoring in order to capture her general impressions of each proposal and to serve as a reminder of issues to address with the vendor who was ultimately awarded the contract. Ms. Perry gave ICA’s proposal a score of 74. She gave DBI’s proposal a score of 86. Ms. Perry double-checked her scores before submitting her completed score sheets. She specifically went back over her scoring of ICA’s proposal after she noticed that she scored ICA lower than DBI and VMS because she thought she may have added wrong or overlooked something. She decided not to make changes to give ICA additional points just because she liked working with ICA. The main difference in Ms. Perry’s scoring of DBI's and ICA's proposals relates to Plan for Compliance with Standards (Plan for Compliance) section. She gave ICA 10 points for that section, and she gave DBI 20 points, which is the maximum available for that section. Each of the other evaluators gave ICA and DBI very similar scores in the Plan for Compliance section. The Plan for Compliance section describes the programs that the proposer intends to implement to ensure compliance with the applicable statutes, rules and Department policies. A proposer’s quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program is an important component of its plan for compliance. DBI gave the Plan for Compliance section significant emphasis because of the weight assigned to the section in the RFP. Ms. Burlarly-Hyland rewrote the section to make it more detailed because of her perception of its importance to the Department. ICA did not place as significant of an emphasis on the Plan for Compliance section in its proposal as did DBI. Indeed, ICA’s position in this case is that “a plan for compliance is quite standard and one would expect to see very similar plans and therefore very similar scores among the proposals.” DBI references its QA/QC program several times in the Plan for Compliance section, but the detailed description of the QA/QC program is included in the Management and Technical Plan section of DBI’s proposal. Ms. Perry relied on the description of the QA/QC program in the Management and Technical Plan section of DBI’s proposal in her scoring of the Plan for Compliance section. Similarly, in her scoring of the ICA and VMS proposals Ms. Perry did not limit her scoring of a particular section of the proposal to information presented in that section. Instead, she looked at the proposals in their entirety and “gave them credit . . . in any section that [she] felt it applied to because . . . [i]f they have a good idea, they need credit for it.” Ms. Perry explained that that she scored DBI higher than ICA in the Plan for Compliance section because, even though both proposals discussed their QA/QC program, DBI went into much greater detail about its program and its plan for compliance generally. Ms. Perry viewed the level of detail provided by DBI regarding its QA/QC program and its plan for compliance generally as an indication of the importance of these matters to DBI. Some of the material differences identified by Ms. Perry were DBI’s commitment to do its first QA/QC within the first three months instead of waiting six months as ICA proposed; DBI’s identification of a high-level person, the project manager, as being responsible for compliance; DBI’s commitment to provide its QA/QC reports directly to the Department; DBI’s “corporate culture concept” program that is similar to the Department’s “grassroots” program; DBI’s more detailed description of its training programs; and DBI’s commitment to have all of its herbicide applicators licensed by the state, not just in compliance with state law. Ms. Perry’s rationale for her scoring differences on the Plan for Compliance section is generally consistent with another evaluator’s “overall impression” that “the ICA proposal did not offer a lot of new innovation or continuous quality improvement over the level of performance that we had already experienced and . . . we were hoping to have in reletting the new contract rather than renewing the existing contract ”5 ICA also takes issue with Ms. Perry’s scoring of the ICA and DBI proposals in the DBE/RESPECT/Agency Participation section; the Proposed Facilities Capabilities section; the Routine/Periodic Maintenance Operations section; and the Rest Area Maintenance Operations section. Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal five points and ICA’s proposal three points for the DBE/RESPECT/Agency Participation section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because DBI provided more detail on how it would help develop disadvantaged business subcontractors, including training them on compliance with Department standards and helping them obtain work. She recognized that ICA also had a subcontractor development program, but she was more impressed with DBI's proposal because “DBI really went into a lot more detail in what they were going to do.” Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal five points and gave ICA’s proposal three points for the Proposed Facilities Capabilities section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because of the amount and type of equipment that DBI was going to make available for the contract and because of DBI’s commitment to put an office on the Alligator Alley corridor. Ms. Perry felt that the Alligator office was “very important” because that area is isolated and having an office in the area would make it easier for the contractor to respond quickly to problems. ICA’s proposal did not commit to put an office on the Alligator Alley corridor. Ms. Perry gave DBI’s proposal ten points and gave ICA’s proposal six points for the Routine/Periodic Maintenance Operations section. She explained that she scored DBI higher than ICA in this section because DBI’s proposal included a week- by-week maintenance plan that detailed the specific activities that DBI would be working on each week and it also included detailed charts identifying the efforts that DBI would undertake to meet the requirements of the Department’s maintenance program. The description of the maintenance plan in ICA’s proposal was not nearly as detailed, and Ms. Perry was so impressed with DBI’s maintenance plan that she provided copies of the plan to the other districts’ operation centers as an example of the type of detained planning that she felt the Department should move towards. Ms. Perry scored ICA and DBI the same for the Rest Area Maintenance Operation section. She explained that even though the proposals focused on different aspects of their rest area maintenance plans, the plans were roughly equivalent overall. For example, DBI committed to maintain the rest areas in accordance with the Department’s standard maintenance requirements and, like ICA, DBI will handle customer comment cards from rest areas through its QA/QC program. Ms. Perry scored ICA higher than DBI in areas that she found ICA’s proposal to be better than DBI’s proposal. For example, in the Identification of Key Personnel Section, she gave ICA four points and DBI three points; in the Contractor Experience section, she gave ICA the maximum five points and DBI two points; in the Bridge Inspection section, she gave ICA the maximum 10 points and DBI seven points; in the Incident Response Operations section, she gave ICA nine points and DBI eight points; and in the Bridge Maintenance Operations section, she gave ICA the maximum five points and DBI three points. Ms. Perry’s explanation of her scoring decisions was reasonable and supported by the preponderance of the evidence presented at the final hearing. The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Perry's scoring of the proposals was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise improper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order dismissing the Formal Protest Petition filed by ICA, and awarding Contract No. E1G23 to DBI. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), acted illegally, dishonestly, fraudulently, arbitrarily or/and capriciously in determining to award the contract for RFP 95-142CM-FAP to Unisys Corporation (Unisys).
Findings Of Fact On November 14, 1994, HRS's Office of Information Systems distributed the RFP, entitled "FLORIDA System --Applications Programming Services." The RFP was designed to procure the programming services required by HRS to complete the software programming of, among other things, the state's federally mandated Child Support Enforcement System, and to maintain and enhance the system upon its completion. Upon selection of the winning proposal, HRS intended to enter into the contract for thirty-six months, renewable upon agreement of the parties for an additional 12 months. The cost proposal rates for the initial three-year term would be binding for any subsequent work on the project. HRS also reserved the right to acquire additional consulting services from the contractor for related activities for up to one year after the termination of the Contract. HRS began developing this RFP in the late spring or early summer of 1994 in anticipation of the expiration of the current contract with Deloitte for provision of applications programming services. Before release to prospective proposers, the RFP was approved by HRS' Office of Contract Services and the Information Technology Resources Procurement Advisory Commission (ITRPAC), a body consisting of various state officials including the head of the Division of Purchasing, which ensures that the RFP complies with state rules. In addition, various federal agencies approved the RFP before its release to prospective proposers. The RFP provided that 60 percent of the proposal scoring would be based on the technical proposals contained in the responses to the RFP, and that the remaining 40 percent of the score would be assigned to the costs as submitted in the proposals. After scoring and weighting of the scores, the weighted scores were to be combined to determine the winning proposal. The breakdown of scoring between technical and cost components is based upon HRS' standard practice and its experience with the format required by other state and federal agencies with whom HRS works. The division of the scores was also intended to ensure that an unqualified vendor did not secure the bid solely on the basis of low cost. The selection of the evaluation criteria and weighting of evaluation points for this RFP were subject to the discretion of the Department at the time the RFP was prepared. On December 12, 1994, HRS held a bidders' conference at which representatives of Deloitte and Unisys were in attendance. EVALUATION OF RESPONSES On January 6, 1995, Deloitte and Unisys submitted the only two proposals in response to the RFP. Both proposals were deemed responsive to the requirements of the RFP. HRS appointed a five member Evaluation Committee to review and evaluate the proposals. HRS provided training to the Evaluation Committee members specifically directed to the proper method for reviewing and scoring proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Each member of the Evaluation Committee was qualified by training, education and experience to review and evaluate the technical merits of each proposal. The RFP defined the criteria by which the proposals would be reviewed, scored and ranked by the Evaluation Committee, and the contract awarded. Included in the RFP were blank cost proposal forms which the proposers were to complete. Those forms did not include any blank spaces to be filled in referencing costs associated with any "renewal" periods or otherwise provide for including information about proposed costs for any renewal periods. The Evaluation Committee members each independently reviewed the technical proposals submitted in response to the RFP over a period of approximately two weeks. Committee members submitted the raw scores from their technical evaluations to Karin Morris, the HRS System Program Administrator. The cost proposals were opened and scored on January 20, 1995 by Ms. Morris. The RFP provided, in Section 6.0, that a comprehensive, fair, and impartial evaluation would be conducted of all proposals received. The RFP also provided for the grouping of evaluation criteria into six categories with points assigned as follows: - Mandatory Requirements 0 points - Management Summary 0 points - Corporate Capabilities 200 points - Project Staff 200 points - Technical Approach 100 points - Project Workplan 100 points - Cost 400 points Section 6.0 of the RFP also contained the following language: Selection of the successful proposer will be based on the proposal that is determined to be in the best interest of the department, taking into consideration cost and other criteria set forth in the RFP. Further, the RFP provided, in Section 6.1, that: An Evaluation Committee will be established to assist the department in selection of the winning contractor(s). All proposals not meeting the mandatory requirements will be rejected. The committee will evaluate the technical approach, corporate capabilities and project staff of all responsive proposals. The committee will rank proposers by the resulting scores and make a recommended award. The committee will summarize their findings and prepare an evaluation report to the Deputy Secretary for Administration. The report will then be presented to the Secretary of HRS. The Secretary will review the final report, pertinent supporting materials and make the determination of the final award, taking into consideration cost and other evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The Secretary reserves the right to take any additional administrative steps deemed necessary in determining the final award. (Emphasis added). Most importantly, Section 6.3(D) of the RFP dealing with the evaluation of the cost proposals stated: The points awarded for the three cost evaluation categories will be totaled and added to the points awarded for technical evaluation cate- gories 3 through 6 to determine the winning proposer. (Emphasis added). After reviewing and comparing the weighted scores of both proposals, the Evaluation Committee issued a "Final Report," with recommendations, on January 30, 1995. The weighted technical scores reflected in the Evaluation Committee's Final Report are as follows: DELOITTE UNISYS Corporate Capabilities 200 186.36 Project Staff 200 159.07 Technical Approach 100 76.62 Project Workplan 100 76.73 TOTAL 600 499 The weighted cost scores were: DELOITTE UNISYS Fixed Price Tasks 10.0 2.27 Monthly Price 357.90 380.0 Hourly Price 7.77 10.0 TOTAL 375.67 392.2 Totaling all categories as required by paragraph 6.3(D) of the RFP, the Department's Evaluation Committee arrived at the following final ranking: DELOITTE UNISYS Technical Proposal 600 499 Business Proposal 376 392 TOTAL 976 891 Based upon the Evaluation Committee's scores, Deloitte's demonstrated technical capability is 20 percent higher than that of Unisys. Under the terms of the RFP, there was no discretion involved in scoring the cost portion of the proposals, including the weight to be accorded costs in the final overall scoring to determine the winning bidder. Based upon HRS' inclusion of the specific criteria in the RFP, the cost portion scoring was merely a mechanical calculation. Both of the proposers' cost proposals fall within the agency's budgetary limits for the current year for accomplishing the work requested by the RFP. Four of the five members of the HRS Evaluation Committee recommended award of the contract to Deloitte, in the following language: Deloitte & Touche scored higher in all areas including recommendations. Deloitte and Touche is the incumbent contractor and therefore there are no risks associated with the transition. Deloitte understood the requirements of the RFP and addressed them more completely in their proposal. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the contract should be awarded to Deloitte & Touche. (Emphasis added). One member of the Evaluation Committee recommended the decision be left to the Secretary of HRS. None of the members of the HRS Evaluation Committee recommended award of the contract to Unisys. HRS SECRETARY'S DECISION TO AWARD TO UNISYS On January 27, 1995, prior to preparation of the recommendations contained in, or the issuance of, the Evaluation Committee's Final Report, HRS Secretary James Towey convened a meeting with Deputy Secretary Lowell Clary, John Holland, Bill Belleville and the department's legal counsel to discuss the contract award process, a draft of the Evaluation Committee's Final Report and other matters the Secretary felt relevant to HRS' ultimate decision on the RFP. At the meeting, Towey was informed by Bill Belleville that Deloitte's proposal was the "best." Towey was also informed by John Holland and Bill Belleville that both companies could perform under the contract. However, neither Holland's nor Belleville's assessments were based on responses to the RFP, but rather upon their own experience with the two vendors outside of this RFP process. Belleville conceded that he believed that a proposer was qualified to perform the contract by merely meeting the "mandatory" requirements of the RFP, a category that was accorded zero points in the scoring criteria. Informed that both companies could perform under the contract, Towey "zeroed in" on costs as the major consideration for the award of the contract. At the meeting, he considered a present-value calculation of the payments that the State would make over the course of a contract, if the contract had been for a 48 month term. The calculation had been prepared by Dean Modling, an HRS senior management analyst supervisor, although the RFP had been approved by the Department of Management Services without provision for such an analysis. The RFP not inform proposers that a present-value analysis would be performed and provision for the present-value of a contract was not included in the scoring criteria for the proposals. Present value calculation became an issue when it was raised and discussed at the January 27, 1995 meeting, and subsequently used in the Secretary's decision to award the contract to Unisys. Towey also considered, in deciding to award the contract to Unisys, a calculation of "raw costs," provided after the January 27, 1995 meeting. These "raw costs" were presented on two charts. Both added up the amounts submitted by each proposer for fixed price tasks and monthly costs, over 36 months. Although the RFP did not request, and neither proposer submitted costs for a 48 month contract, the two charts included a calculation for a hypothetical 48 month contract using the same monthly payments submitted for the 36 month contract. In addition, one of the two charts included a 5.8 percent factor for overtime, which was also not addressed by the RFP or by the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. There was no evaluation criteria contained in the RFP which dealt with the issue of "raw costs" over the term of the contract. Prior to the decision to award to Unisys, HRS never performed and Towey never considered a present value analysis for the 36 month contract period provided for in the RFP. Finally, as a result of concern expressed at the January 27, 1995 meeting regarding whether Unisys could handle the immediate tasks required by the contract, including requirements of the Child Support Enforcement and federal certification programs, Towey considered whether there would be any risk of transition if Unisys were unable to hire some of Deloitte's employees and subcontractors should he decide to award the contract to Unisys. Towey specifically requested Deputy Secretary Clary to research this issue. In order to obtain information, Clary had HRS personnel directly contact Deloitte's subcontractors. Clary responded to Towey three days later on January 30, 1995, the day before the decision by Towey to award the contract to Unisys, that Deloitte's subcontractors would not be prohibited from working for Unisys. Consideration of overtime and risk of transition were not criteria contained in the RFP, nor were these elements evaluated and scored by the HRS Evaluation Committee. By way of a January 31, 1995 memorandum to Clary announcing the award of the contract to Unisys, Towey stated: I have now had an opportunity to review the report of the evaluators of this RFP, the recommendations contained therein, the raw data submitted with the proposals, and the RFP. I understand the nature of the project and its importance to the agency. Based upon my review of the information presented to me and my understanding of similar projects in the past, my decision is to award the contract to Unisys as the proposal most advantageous to the state of Florida, taking into consideration the price and other criteria set forth in the RFP. Although I have considered the risk of transition to a new contractor, I find that I am unable to ignore the dollar savings which will result in awarding the contract to Unisys. Since you and your staff have assured me that both companies are technically competent to perform the work, I believe the monetary savings outweigh any risk that might exist in the transition of contractors. Therefore, I have determined that it is in the state's best interest to award the contract to Unisys. Please take whatever steps are necessary to implement this decision. (Emphasis added). By his actions, Towey exercised more than the prerogative conferred by the RFP to "take any additional administrative steps deemed necessary in determining the final award" and actually evaluated criteria other than that contained in the RFP in reaching his decision to award the contract to Unisys. Further, in awarding the contract to Unisys, Towey effectively altered the relative weight of the criteria as specified in the RFP. Towey relied upon the advice of Clary. Illustrative of Clary's perspective is his testimony at the final hearing that he believed the 60/40 weighting contained in the RFP to be inapplicable to decision making by the Secretary of HRS. Neither Bill Belleville nor John Holland reviewed, in detail, the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Neither performed their own independent analysis of the responses. Further, Clary never reviewed the RFP nor the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. In the course of his decision making process with regard to award of the contract to Unisys, Towey relied on the advice of Clary, Belleville and Holland, referred to by Towey as his "top managers", despite their undisputed lack of familiarity with the Deloitte and Unisys proposals. While his memorandum dated January 31, 1995, states he reviewed the RFP, Towey admitted in his testimony at the final hearing that he had not personally reviewed the document. Further, he never reviewed or performed his own analysis of the two proposals submitted in response to the RFP. The members of the Evaluation Committee members were the only persons to fully and carefully evaluate the two proposals and score them under the criteria contained in the RFP. Since that time, no one else from HRS has attempted to reevaluate or re-score the proposals. Neither Towey nor anyone else involved in the January 27, 1995 meeting disagrees with the analysis and scoring of the proposals by the Evaluation Committee. PRESENT-VALUE ANALYSIS Section 1.2 of the RFP, states, in part: This RFP will result in a thirty-six month contract. Further, Section 4.12(C) of the RFP states, in part: Upon selection of the winning proposal, the department shall enter into a contract for thirty-six (36) months. Although the possibility of renewal of the contract for a maximum of a single, one year term is contained in the RFP, there is no provision in the RFP which requires that HRS renew the contract after 36 months or that the contractor accept a renewal after 36 months for any specific term. By the terms of the RFP, any renewal of the contract for a period beyond the 36 month term is subject to negotiation between the contractor and the department. While proposals submitted by Unisys and Deloitte commit to maintaining the same costs in the event of renewal, negotiation as to the length, price and staffing for any renewal period less than a year, is not excluded by the terms of the RFP. Neither HRS nor the contractor is bound, under the terms of the RFP, to any extension of the contract. HRS' own manual, HRSP 75-3, entitled "Developing a Request for Proposal," states, in the section on contract renewals: If Contract Renewals have been provided for in this RFP, include the following recommended language in the Special Provisions subsection of the RFP: This contract may be renewed on a yearly basis not to exceed two (2) years beyond the initial contract or for a period no longer than the term of the original contract whichever period is longer. Such renewals shall be contingent upon satisfactory performance evaluations as determined by the department and shall be subject to the availability of funds. As specified in the provider's response to the RFP/ITB, the total cost for the contract under the' first year renewal will not exceed $ and the second year renewal will not exceed $ . Each renewal shall be confirmed in writing and shall be subject to the same terms and conditions set forth in the initial contract. (Emphasis added). Another in-house document at HRS is HRS manual, HRSM 75-2 (May 1, 1994 update), entitled "Contract Management System for Contractual Services". Chapter 5 of that document, entitled "Contractual Procurement Requirements," states, in pertinent part: The dollar amount and the manner in which the costs for the . . . renewals will be calculated must be specified in the response to the RFP and in the resulting contract document. By contrast, the RFP contains none of the language specified in either HRS manual regarding renewal. Section 4.12(c) of the RFP merely states: This contract term shall be renewable for a max- imum of a one year term upon the mutual agreement in writing of the contractor and the department. (Emphasis added). Terms of the RFP did not invite proposers to submit a specific cost or any other information for a renewal period or explain how costs for a renewal period would be calculated. Neither did the RFP contain any language that renewals would be conditioned on satisfactory performance by the contractor. Proposers, on blank cost forms, were requested in the RFP to provide HRS with their proposed prices for fixed price items, monthly costs and hourly costs. The forms, contrary to the requirements of HRS manuals applicable in situations where information for a renewal term is requested, did not provide a place for proposers to indicate costs for any renewal term or to demonstrate how those costs were calculated. Both contractors understood that any renewal would be subject to negotiation. The "Standard Contract" contained in the RFP provides only for a term of 36 months and a cost for that specific contract term. Consistent with the terms of the RFP that the contract was for a 36 month term, HRS submitted, on more than one occasion, materials to ITRPAC. In those materials, HRS represented that the proposed budget amounts of $25 million and $28 million for the project were for a three year term contract. The Notice of Award which HRS issued stated that a three year contract was to be awarded. Although the RFP addressed staffing at a maximum of 107 persons, HRS was aware that 100 percent staffing might not always occur. Section 2.l(B)(5) of the RFP permits 90 percent of the maximum staffing level at a given time without the vendor incurring a penalty. At one point in the RFP preparation, a draft of the RFP required 95 percent staffing. Even that level was considered by HRS to be too restrictive and anti-competitive and was amended to 90 percent out of fear that a 95 percent staffing level would discourage submission of competitive proposals. The 90 percent figure was also used in the RFP to account, in part, for projected attrition of contractor employees that HRS had historically experienced on this project. From the standpoint of budgetary allowances by HRS for the project, it is realistic to believe that the job will be staffed at somewhere between 90 percent and 95 percent rather than at the maximum staffing level of 107 employees. Although Section 4.15(D)(5) of the RFP states that the State is not responsible for paying contractor's employees for leave or vacation time, the testimony of Petitioner's financial expert, Dr. Elton Scott, establishes that a reasonable assumption is to assume that each employee is entitled to, and would take, at least two weeks vacation. Such an assumption should also be included when performing a present value analysis, particularly when assuming 100 percent staffing. Depending on budget allocations for this project, it is possible that HRS would only require that the contractor provide as few as 46 employees. The present value calculation performed by HRS indicated that, over 48 months, at 100 percent staffing (107 employees), the monetary cost of awarding the contract to Unisys would be approximately $500,000 less than the cost of awarding the contract to Deloitte, a savings of approximately 1.5 percent over the term of the contract. As demonstrated by HRS' subsequent present value calculation performed at final hearing in this cause, for the 36 month actual contract period, at maximum staffing, HRS would realize a savings of no more than $39,802 by awarding the contract to Unisys, a savings of less than 2/10ths of 1 percent. None of HRS' present value calculations accounted for leave/vacation time or for any staffing levels under 100 percent for any other reasons. Based upon the terms of the RFP, the language of HRS' procurement manuals, and the expert testimony of Dr. Scott, any valid present-value analysis should have included a 36 month term contract. Any such analysis should also have taken into account varying levels of staffing, leave/vacation time, and overtime if staffed at the minimum required. A properly performed present-value analysis indicates that Deloitte's proposal is less expensive than the Unisys proposal in the following amounts over a 36 month contract term, at the staffing levels indicated: Employees Leave/Vacation Time Overtime Deloitte Savings 107 2 weeks none $12,791 96 none none $109,062 96 none 5.8 percent $ 18,327 46 none none $844,473 (Pet. Exh. 15) The only scenario in which the Unisys proposal is less costly than the Deloitte proposal, using the proper present value analysis, would be at 107 employees, with no accounting for leave time. This unlikely future scenario would result in a savings of no more than $47,378, or less than 2/10ths of l percent of the contract amount over 36 months. Because it requires an up-front payment of more than $1,600,000 (as compared to $78,000 for Deloitte), the Unisys proposal places the State of Florida at substantially more financial risk than the Deloitte proposal in the event of nonperformance by Unisys. On February 1, 1995, HRS posted its notice of intent to award the Contract to Unisys. Deloitte filed its timely notice of intent to protest on February 3, 1995, and filed its timely formal protest and request for hearing on February 13, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which declines the award to Unisys and takes into account the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law when deciding the future course of contracting for the services sought by the RFP. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1995. DON W. 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 12th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made with regard to purposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Intervenor's Proposed Findings: Adopted. Adopted as to 1st sentence. Remainder not relevant with exception of last sentence which is adopted. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 6.-7. Rejected, cumulative. 8. Accepted. 9.-10. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, cumulative. 15.-17. Rejected, subordinate. 18.-20. Rejected, relevance. 21.-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 24.-25. Accepted. 26.-29. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 30. Accepted. 31.-36. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, opinion, weight of the evidence. 39.-41. Rejected, subordinate. Respondent's Proposed Findings: 1.-3. Adopted, not verbatim. 1.-6. Adopted by reference. 7. Rejected, relevance. 8.-9. Rejected, cumulative, unnecessary. 10.-12. Accepted. 13. Rejected, cumulative. 14.-16. Accepted. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 20.-21. Rejected, argument. 22.-23. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 24. Rejected, argument. 25.-27. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. 28.-29. Rejected, relevance. 30.-31. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, subordinate, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. 35.-36. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected, argument, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance, argument. 41.-42. Rejected, argument. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, 20 percent difference, improper characterization. Rejected, relevance, argument. Rejected, argument, subordinate. Rejected, redundant, subordinate. Rejected, legal conclusion. Rejected, relevance, argument, lack of credible evidence. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argumentative, legal conclusion. Rejected, legal conclusion, argument. Rejected, legal conclusion. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact: 1.-43. Accepted, though not verbatim in some instances. 44. Subordinate to HO findings. 45.-48. Accepted. Subordinate. Accepted. Subordinate. 52.-70. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William E. Williams, Esq. Red D. Ware, Esq. Huey, Guilday & Tucker, P.A. 106 E. College Ave., Ste. 900 Tallahassee, FL 32301 William A. Frieder, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 W. Robert Vezina, III Cummings, Lawrence & Vezina, P.A. 1004 DeSoto Park Dr. Tallahassee, FL 32302 Steven A. Blaske Unisys Corporation 4151 Ashford Dunwoody Rd. Atlanta, GA 30319 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are: (1) whether the decision by Respondent, Department of Transportation, to reject all bids for the contract at issue was illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and (2) if so, whether Respondent's actions in cancelling the notice of intent to award the contract at issue to Cyriacks Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., ("CECOS") and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.2/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is the state agency that issued the RFP to procure the Contract for Respondent's District IV. CECOS is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB is an environmental consulting and services firm that submitted a response to the RFP, seeking award of the Contract. DB was granted party status to DOAH Case No. 16-0769 by Order dated February 29, 2016, and by Order dated March 9, 2016, was determined to have standing in that case as a party whose substantial interests were affected by Respondent's decision to reject all proposals. Overview of the Procurement Process for the Contract Respondent issued the RFP on or about October 1, 2015. The RFP sought to obtain support services related to environmental impacts review for projects in Respondent's District IV work program; wetland mitigation design; construction, monitoring, and maintenance; permitting of mitigation sites; exotic vegetation control and removal in specified locations; relocation of threatened, endangered, or rare flora and fauna; permit compliance monitoring; and other services specified in the RFP. The RFP stated Respondent's intent to award the Contract to the responsive and responsible proposing vendor6/ whose proposal is determined to be most advantageous to Respondent. The responses to the RFP were scored on two components: a technical proposal, worth a total of 60 points, that addressed the proposing vendor's experience, qualifications, and capabilities to provide high-quality desired services; and a price proposal, worth a total of 40 points, that addressed the proposed price without evaluation of the separate cost components and proposed profit of the proposing vendor, compared with that proposed by other vendors. The price proposal evaluation was based on the following formula: (Low Price/Proposer's Price) X Price Points = Proposer's Awarded Points. The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 3, stated in pertinent part: In accordance with section 287.057(23), Florida Statutes, respondents to this solicitation or persons acting on their behalf may not contact, between the release of the solicitation and the end of the 72- hour period following the agency posting the notice of intended award, . . . any employee or officer of the executive or legislative branch concerning any aspect of this solicitation, except in writing to the procurement officer or as provided in the solicitation documents. Violation of this provision may be grounds for rejecting a response. The period between the release of the solicitation and the 72-hour period after posting of the intended award is commonly referred to as the "cone of silence." The Special Conditions section of the Advertisement portion of the RFP, paragraph 19, informed vendors that Respondent reserved the right to reject any or all proposals it received. Exhibit B to the RFP, addressing compensation, limited compensation for all authorizations for work performed under the Contract to a total of $5,000,000. Exhibit B stated that the schedule of rates listed in the Price Proposal Form C (i.e., the rates submitted for the sections comprising Exhibit C to the RFP) would be used for establishing compensation. On October 7, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 1 to the advertised RFP. Addendum 1 revised Exhibit A to the RFP, the Scope of Services; and also revised Exhibit C to the RFP, the Bid Sheet, to provide it in Excel format. As revised by Addendum 1, Exhibit C consists of an Excel spreadsheet comprised of six sections, each of which was to be used by the responding vendors to propose their rates for the specified services being procured in each section of the Bid Sheet. Section 6 of the Excel spreadsheet, titled "Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover, consists of eight columns and 258 rows, each row constituting a plant item on which a price proposal was to be submitted. The columns are titled, from left to right: No.; Scientific Name; Common Name; Unit; Estimated of [sic] number of Unites [sic]; Rate; Extension (Unit X Rate); and Multiplier 2.5 (Price X 2.5). Each row of the spreadsheet in Section 6 identified, as a fixed requirement for this portion of the proposal, the specified type of plant, unit (i.e., plant size), and estimated number of units (i.e., number of plants). For each row of the Section 6 spreadsheet, only the cells under the "Rate" column could be manipulated. Vendors were to insert in the "Rate" cell, for each row, the proposed rate for each plant item. The cells under all other columns for each row were locked, and the RFP stated that any alteration of the locked cells would disqualify the vendor and render its proposal non-responsive. The instructions to Exhibit C, Section 67/ stated: Trees, Schrubs [sic], and Ground Cover Price of plants shall include project management, field supervision, invoicing, installation, mobilization of traffic, water throughout the warranty period, fertilizer and [sic] six (6) month and demobilization, minor maintenance guarantee. Installation of plant material shall be per the Scope of Services. All planting costs shall include the cost to restore area to pre-existing conditions (i.e., dirt, sod, etc.). On October 20, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 2, and on October 29, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 3. Both addenda changed Respondent's schedule for reading the technical proposal scores, opening the sealed price proposals, and posting the intended awards. Addenda 1, 2, and 3 were not challenged. However, a key dispute in these consolidated proceedings is whether the Addendum 1 Bid Sheet in Section 6 and the instructions for completing that Bid Sheet were ambiguous, or whether Respondent reasonably believed them to be ambiguous. The vendors were to submit their responses to the RFP, consisting of their technical proposals and price proposals, by October 16, 2015. CECOS, DB, and four other vendors timely submitted responses to the RFP. On November 2, 2015, the scores for the technical proposals submitted by the vendors were presented to the Selection Committee ("SC") at a noticed meeting. DB received the highest number of points on the technical proposal portion of the RFP. The SC met again on November 3, 2015. At that time, Respondent's Procurement Officer, Jessica Rubio, read the total awarded points for each vendor's price proposal, as well as each vendor's total combined points——i.e., total points for technical proposal and price proposal. CECOS received the highest number of points for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and also received the highest total combined points. Respondent recommended, and the SC concurred, that Respondent should award the Contract to CECOS. At 10:00 a.m. on November 3, 2015, Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation, constituting its notice of intent that CECOS would be awarded the Contract.8/ CECOS submitted a price proposal of $4,237,603.70. DB submitted a price proposal of $9,083,042.50. The other four vendors' price proposals ranged between $4,540,512.90 and $5,237,598.55. The "cone of silence" commenced upon Respondent's posting of the Proposal Tabulation, and ended 72 hours later, on November 6, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. As discussed in greater detail below, after the Proposal Tabulation was posted, Respondent discovered an apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, regarding the instructions to that section and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column on the Bid Sheet. After an internal investigation, Respondent decided to cancel its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, Respondent posted a notice that it was cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. On November 5, 2015, DB filed a Notice of Protest, stating its intent to challenge the award of the Contract to CECOS. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, DB contacted Respondent by electronic mail ("email") to withdraw its Notice of Protest.9/ Due to the apparent ambiguity in Exhibit C, Section 6, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4 to the RFP. Addendum 4 required the responding vendors to submit new price proposals for all sections (i.e., sections 1 through 6) of Exhibit C to the RFP. Addendum 4 also established a new timeline for a mandatory pre-bid conference to be held on November 12, 2016; set a sealed price proposal due date of November 19, 2016; and identified new dates for opening the price proposals and posting the Notice of Intended Award of the Contract. On November 12, 2015, Respondent conducted a mandatory pre-bid conference to address Addendum 4. The participating vendors expressed confusion and posed numerous questions regarding the submittal of new price proposals and their technical proposals. Immediately following the pre-bid conference, Respondent issued Addendum 5, which consisted of a revised Exhibit A, Scope of Services; revised Exhibit C, Bid Sheet in Excel format for all six sections; and responses to the questions posed at the pre-bid conference.10/ The Addendum 5 Bid Sheet comprising Exhibit C, Section 6, was substantially amended from the version that was published in Addendum 1. Specifically, the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit"; the "Extension (Unit X Rate)" and "Multiplier 2.5" columns were deleted; and a new column titled "Proposed Cost (Rate per Unit X Est. No. of Units)" was added. Additionally, the instructions for Section 6 were substantially amended to read: "'Rate Per Unit' must include all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, travel, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, mobilization and demobilization, staking and guying, maintenance of planting site throughout the 180[-]day plant warranty." These amendments were intended to clarify that the proposed rate for each plant unit was to include all overhead costs associated with performance of the Contract with respect to that particular unit. On November 13, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest to Respondent's issuance of Addendum 4, requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 23, 2015, CECOS filed the First Petition challenging Respondent's decision, announced in Addendum 4, to require the responding vendors to submit new proposals for the price proposal portion of the RFP, and its decision to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS.11/ Once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest on November 13, 2015, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. On December 17, 2015, Respondent posted notice that it was rejecting all proposals and that the Contract would be re- advertised through issuance of a new RFP. On December 22, 2015, CECOS filed a Notice of Protest, and on January 4, 2016, filed its Second Petition challenging Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and re-advertise the Contract. Bases for Respondent's Actions Shortly after Respondent posted the Proposal Tabulation noticing its intent to award the Contract to CECOS, Christine Perretta, owner and president of DB, sent an email to Respondent, then called Rubio to inquire about Respondent's decision to award the Contract to CECOS. The evidence shows that these contacts occurred sometime on or around November 3, 2016.12/ In her telephone discussion with Rubio, Perretta inquired about how to file a notice of protest13/ and also asked whether Respondent had reviewed the vendors' price proposals for correctness or accuracy, or had simply chosen the lowest price proposal. In the course of the discussion, Perretta informed Rubio that DB had submitted a "loaded" rate for each plant unit ——meaning that DB's rate proposed for each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet consisted not only of the cost of the plant item, but also the cost for all associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 and in the RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), plus compensation.14/ Rubio could not clearly recall whether, in the course of their discussion, Perretta had inquired about the use of the 2.5 multiplier, and there is conflicting evidence as to whether Perretta related her view that CECOS may not be able to perform the Contract based on the price proposal it had submitted. In any event, as a result of Rubio's discussion with Perretta, Rubio determined that she needed to review Exhibit C, Section 6. In the course of her investigation, Rubio called Wendy Cyriaks, owner and president of CECOS.15/ Cyriaks confirmed that CECOS had submitted an "unloaded" rate for each plant item—— meaning that it had included only the cost of each plant item in the "Rate" column on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, and had not included, in the proposed rate for each plant item, the cost of the associated overhead services listed in the instructions to Section 6 or RFP Advertisement, paragraph 18(v), or compensation. Cyriaks told Rubio that CECOS expected that its overhead costs and compensation for each item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier. Also in the course of her investigation, Rubio asked Bogardus whether he had intended the 2.5 multiplier to be used to cover all costs, including vendor compensation, associated with obtaining, installing, and maintaining the plant items listed in Section 6. Bogardus initially confirmed that his intent in including the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet was to cover all of the overhead costs and compensation. However, the persuasive evidence establishes that Bogardus subsequently agreed with Rubio that the 2.5 multiplier should not have been included in Section 6. Pursuant to her discussions with Perretta and Cyriaks, Rubio realized that the wide discrepancy between DB's and CECOS' price proposals was due to their differing interpretations of the instructions in Section 6 regarding plant item rates and the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet. Rubio testified, persuasively, that the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column rendered Exhibit C, Section 6, of the RFP ambiguous. To that point, the RFP does not contain any instructions or discussion on the use of the 2.5 multiplier. Therefore, to the extent the multiplier was intended to be used by the vendors to build overhead costs and compensation into their price proposals, the RFP fails to explain that extremely important intended use——leaving the significance and use of the multiplier open to speculation and subject to assumption by the vendors in preparing their price proposals. Rubio reasonably viewed DB's and CECOS' divergent interpretations of the instructions and the inconsistent use of the 2.5 multiplier as further indication that Section 6 was ambiguous. She explained that in order for Respondent to ensure that it is procuring the most advantageous proposal for the State, it is vitally important that the RFP be clear so that responding vendors clearly understand the type of information the RFP is requesting, and where and how to provide that information in their price proposals. Rubio persuasively testified that in her view, the instructions in Section 6 had, in fact, called for a loaded rate, but that CECOS had erroneously assumed, based on the inclusion of the "2.5 Multiplier" column in the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that overhead and compensation for each plant item would be covered through use of the 2.5 multiplier, and that as a consequence, CECOS incorrectly proposed unloaded rates for the plant items. In Rubio's view, CECOS' error was due to the ambiguity created by the unexplained and unsupported inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. Rubio testified that CECOS had been awarded the Contract because it had submitted the lowest price proposal, but that its proposal was based on an unloaded rate for the plant items, contrary to the instructions for Section 6. In Rubio's view, CECOS' price proposal was unresponsive, and CECOS should not have been awarded the Contract. Rubio also testified, credibly and persuasively, that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 for compensation purposes rendered the RFP arbitrary. Respondent's District IV historically has not used a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes for commodities contracts, and no data or analyses exist to support such use of a 2.5 multiplier.16/ This rendered the RFP both arbitrary and unverifiable with respect to whether it was structured to obtain the most advantageous proposal for the State. To this point, Rubio credibly explained that Respondent's existing environmental mitigation services contract with Stantec was procured through the "Invitation to Negotiate" ("ITN") process. In that procurement, Respondent negotiated to obtain the best value for the State. The ITN bid sheet contained a 2.5 multiplier that was used only for weighting purposes to evaluate and determine which firms would be "short- listed" for purposes of being invited to negotiate with Respondent for award of the contract. Importantly——and in contrast to the RFP at issue in this case——the multiplier in the ITN was not used to determine the final prices, including compensation, to install trees, shrubs, and ground cover under that contract. Rubio also testified, credibly, that the Bid Sheet was structurally flawed because it did not allow the vendor to clearly indicate the "unit price" inclusive of all overhead costs, and that this defect would result in Respondent being unable to issue letters of authorization to pay invoices for the cost of installing the plant items or compensating for work performed. For these reasons, Respondent determined that it needed to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS. As noted above, Respondent posted the cancellation of the intent to award the Contract on November 5, 2015. At a meeting of the SC conducted on November 9, 2015, Respondent's procurement staff explained that the intent to award the Contract had been cancelled due to ambiguity in the instructions and the Bid Sheet for Exhibit C, Section 6. Ultimately, the SC concurred with Respondent's cancellation of the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and agreed that the vendors should be required to submit new price proposals. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Respondent issued Addendum 4, announcing its decision to solicit new price proposals from the responding vendors. Respondent conducted a pre-bid meeting with the vendors on November 12, 2015, and immediately thereafter, issued Addendum 5, consisting of a revised Scope of Services and a substantially revised Bid Sheet for all six sections of Exhibit C. As previously discussed, the Section 6 Bid Sheet issued in Addendum 5 was revised to, among other things, delete the "2.5 Multiplier" column and the column previously titled "Rate" was changed to "Rate Per Unit." Also as discussed above, the instructions to Section 6 were revised to clarify that the "Rate Per Unit" provided for each plant unit must contain all costs associated with the purchase, installation, watering, fertilization, project management, field supervision, invoicing, labor, maintenance of traffic, and other costs specified in the instructions——i.e, constitute a loaded rate. All of these changes were made in an effort to clarify, for the benefit of all vendors, the specific information that Respondent needed to be provided in the price proposals. Rubio testified, credibly, that in requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C, Respondent did not give, or intend to give, any vendor a competitive advantage over any of the other vendors, nor did Respondent place, or intend to place, CECOS at a competitive disadvantage by requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals pursuant to revised Exhibit C. As noted above, once CECOS filed its Notice of Protest, Respondent ceased all procurement activity directed toward awarding the Contract. Consequently, the vendors did not submit new price proposals and the scheduled meetings at which the new price proposals would be opened and the intended awardee announced were cancelled. On December 17, 2015, Rubio briefed the SC regarding the problems with the RFP and described her concerns about proceeding with the procurement. She explained that Respondent's procurement staff was of the view that the instructions in Section 6, as previously published in Addendum 1, were ambiguous because they did not clearly provide direction on how to complete the Bid Sheet for that section. Additionally, the Section 6 Bid Sheet, as structured in Addendum 1, did not allow the vendors to provide a plant unit rate that was inclusive of all overhead costs. To this point, she noted that unless the vendors provided a loaded rate——i.e., one that included all overhead costs——Respondent would not be able to issue work orders for any plant items in Section 6.17/ She explained that these flaws constituted the bases for Respondent's decision, announced on November 9, 2015, to require the submittal of new price proposals. Rubio further explained that in Respondent's rush to issue a revised Scope of Services as part of Addendum 5, mistakes had been made18/ and Respondent's Environmental Office needed more time to carefully review the Scope of Services and Bid Sheet, to ensure the RFP was correctly drafted and structured so that the Contract could be accurately solicited and procured. Additionally, the vendors——including Mark Clark of CECOS——had expressed confusion regarding the revised Bid Sheet and submitting new price proposals, and some vendors had inquired about submitting new technical proposals. Further, under the revised procurement schedule issued as part of Addendum 4 on November 9, 2015, the vendors had a very compressed timeframe in which to prepare and submit their new price proposals, heightening the potential for mistakes to be made. Because of these substantial problems and concerns with the RFP, Rubio recommended that Addendum 5 be rescinded, that all vendor proposals (both technical and price) be rejected, and that the entire procurement process be re-started. The SC concurred with her recommendation. As noted above, on December 17, 2015, Respondent rejected all proposals and announced that the Contract would be re-solicited in the future through issuance of another RFP. CECOS' Position CECOS takes the position that the RFP and the Section 6 Bid Sheet published in Addendum 1 were not ambiguous. Specifically, CECOS contends that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 clearly indicated that Respondent was seeking an unloaded rate for the plant items listed on the Section 6 Bid Sheet. In support of this position, CECOS notes that all of the vendors other than DB had submitted unloaded rates for the plant items in Section 6. CECOS contends that this shows that Section 6 was not ambiguous, and that DB simply did not follow the RFP instructions——of which it was fully aware——in preparing and submitting its price proposal.19/ CECOS also contends that Rubio's failure to contact the other vendors to determine if they found the instructions or use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 ambiguous evidences that Rubio's conclusion that Section 6 was ambiguous lacked any factual basis, so was itself arbitrary. CECOS asserts that Bogardus' intent to use a 2.5 multiplier for compensation purposes was evidenced by its inclusion on the Section 6 Bid Sheet, that its use on the Section 6 Bid Sheet did not render the RFP flawed, and that Bogardus' intent to compensate using the multiplier should control the structure of compensation paid under Section 6.20/ CECOS also notes that the use of the 2.5 multiplier on the Section 6 Bid Sheet mirrors the 2.5 multiplier in the existing environmental mitigation support services contract with the current contractor.21/ CECOs further contends that there was no material difference, with respect to structuring compensation for the plant items, between the ITN process used for procuring the existing contract and the RFP process used to procure this Contract. As additional support for its argument that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 was valid, CECOS points to a request for proposal for environmental mitigation services issued by Respondent's District VI. In that contract, a 2.5 multiplier was used for compensation purposes, albeit for specific plant items that were not contained in the original list of specific plant items for which rate proposals had been solicited in the request for proposal. CECOS further contends that Respondent——and, most particularly, Rubio——did not conduct a thorough investigation into the historic use of 2.5 multipliers in Respondent's commodities contracts. CECOS argues that as a consequence, Respondent's determination that the use of the 2.5 multiplier rendered the Section 6 Bid Sheet structurally flawed and arbitrary was unsupported by facts, so was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that cancelling the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals placed CECOS at a competitive disadvantage and was contrary to competition because once the Proposal Tabulation was posted, the other vendors were informed of the price that CECOS had bid, so knew the price they had to beat when the Contract was re-solicited. CECOS also points to what it contends are procedural irregularities with respect to Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS and DB once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS. Specifically, CECOS contends that Respondent did not respond to its calls or email asking why the intent to award the Contract to CECOS had been cancelled. CECOS also contends that Respondent communicated with DB on substantive matters during the "cone of silence." CECOS further notes that Respondent did not convene a resolution meeting within the statutorily- established seven-day period after CECOS filed its First Petition, but instead held the meeting over 60 days later, on January 28, 2015, and that even then, Respondent did not engage in good faith negotiation to resolve the challenge. Finally, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions (discussed above) that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. CECOS asserts that it followed the instructions in the RFP in preparing its price proposal, submitted the lowest price proposal, and is ready, willing, and able to perform the Contract at the rates it proposed in its response for Section 6. On that basis, CECOS contends that it is entitled to the award of the Contract. Findings of Ultimate Fact CECOS bears the burden in this proceeding to prove that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals was arbitrary, illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.22/ Even if CECOS were to meet this burden, in order to prevail it also must demonstrate that Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract and requiring the submittal of new price proposals were clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. For the reasons discussed herein, it is determined that CECOS did not meet either of these burdens. The Multiplier Rendered Section 6 Ambiguous, Arbitrary, and Structurally Flawed As discussed in detail above, Respondent decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the submittal of new price proposals by the vendors only after it had conducted an extensive investigation that included a careful review of numerous provisions in the RFP and the instructions to Section 6 and had analyzed the structure of Section 6 in relation to other provisions in the RFP. That investigation showed that nowhere in the RFP was the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6, discussed or explained. Thus, to the extent the multiplier was to be used in determining reimbursement for overhead costs and compensation, the RFP failed to explain this extremely important point, leaving the multiplier's purpose, use, and significance open to speculation and assumption by the vendors in submitting their price proposals. This rendered the multiplier's use in Section 6 ambiguous. This ambiguity is further evidenced by DB's and CECOS's widely divergent price proposals for Section 6, and the credible testimony of Perretta and Cyriaks regarding their differing views of the purpose of the 2.5 multiplier. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the ambiguity in Section 6 caused the vendors to have differing interpretations of the manner in which they were to propose plant unit rates in Section 6; that the vendors submitted plant price proposals predicated on differing assumptions; and that this resulted in Respondent being unable to fairly compare the price proposals for purposes of obtaining the most advantageous proposal for the State. On these bases, Respondent reasonably concluded23/ that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6, rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. As extensively discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that Respondent concluded, based on its investigation and review of Section 6, that inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier rendered Section 6 both arbitrary and structurally flawed.24/ The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that Rubio investigated Respondent's use of multipliers in commodities procurements and contracts to the extent necessary and appropriate for her to reasonably conclude that the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6 rendered this portion of the RFP ambiguous, arbitrary, and structurally flawed.25/ In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent engaged in a thorough and thoughtful investigation before concluding, reasonably, that the inclusion of the 2.5 multiplier in Exhibit C, Section 6 rendered that portion of the RFP ambiguous. Respondent's Actions Were Not Contrary to Competition Although the evidence shows that CECOS may suffer some competitive disadvantage because competing vendors were informed of the lowest "bottom line" price they would have to beat, it does not support a determination that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require the vendors to submit new price proposals were contrary to competition. To that point, in Addendum 5, Respondent substantially restructured the Section 6 Bid Sheet and also amended the Bid Sheet comprising the other price proposal sections in Exhibit C, so that CECOS' and the other vendors' price proposals submitted in response to Addendum 5 may have substantially changed from those submitted in response to Addendum 1. In any event, it cannot be concluded that Respondent's decisions to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals are contrary to competition such that they should be overturned in this proceeding. Procedural Irregularities CECOS also points to certain procedural irregularities in Respondent's treatment of, and communication with, CECOS once Respondent decided to cancel the notice of intent to award the Contract to CECOS and require submittal of new price proposals. CECOS apparently raises these issues in an effort to show that Respondent's actions were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The undisputed evidence establishes that Rubio communicated with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" following the posting of its intent to award the Contract to CECOS. The undersigned determines that the "cone of silence" applied to Rubio and her communications with DB and CECOS within the 72-hour period following Respondent's posting of the intent to award the Contract. Specifically, she is an employee of Respondent's District IV Office, so is an employee of the executive branch of the State of Florida. Further, the evidence shows that her communications with both DB and CECOS during the "cone of silence" period dealt specifically with substantive, rather than "administrative" issues regarding the RFP and the vendors' price proposals. Accordingly, it is determined that these communications did, in fact, violate the "cone of silence." However, this does not require that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS be overturned. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that while DB's conversation with Rubio may have spurred Rubio to decide she should investigate the Section 6 instructions and use of the 2.5 multiplier, it was not the reason why Respondent ultimately determined that the intent to award the Contract should be cancelled. Rather, Respondent's discovery of the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, through Rubio's investigation, was the reason that Respondent determined that the intent to award the Contract to CECOS should be cancelled. In sum, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that notwithstanding Rubio's communications on substantive matters during the "cone of silence" with both DB and CECOS, the integrity of the procurement process was not undermined such that Respondent's decision to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. CECOS failed to present persuasive evidence establishing that other procedural irregularities rendered Respondent's actions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decisions to Cancel Intent to Award the Contract and Require Submittal of New Price Proposals Based on the foregoing, it is determined that CECOS did not meet its burden to show that Respondent's decisions in cancelling the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and requiring the vendors to submit new price proposals were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Respondent's Decision to Reject All Proposals As noted above, CECOS contends that Respondent's decision to reject all proposals and start the procurement process anew was predicated on a series of arbitrary and erroneous decisions that created confusion, so that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all proposals was itself arbitrary and capricious. However, the credible, persuasive evidence shows that Respondent's ultimate decision to reject all bids was factually supported and was reasonable. As discussed above, Respondent initially decided to cancel the intent to award the Contract to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals after it discovered the ambiguity and structural flaws resulting from the use of the 2.5 multiplier in Section 6. At that point, rather than rejecting all proposals, which would require the vendors to go to the time and expense of preparing completely new proposals, it decided to instead only require the vendors to submit new price proposals. Due to the interrelated nature of the six sections of Exhibit C comprising the complete price proposal for the RFP, Respondent determined revision of Section 6 would also require revision of the other five sections of Exhibit C, in order to ensure that they were internally consistent with each other. At the mandatory pre-bid meeting preceding the issuance of Addendum 5, the participating vendors had numerous questions about the sweeping revisions to all six sections of Exhibit C, and they expressed confusion about the revisions and their effect on preparation of new price proposals. Some vendors also expressed concern that they may have to change their personnel in order to be able to accurately prepare new price proposals, raising the question whether the technical proposals needed to be revised. As a result of vendor confusion and concern, and also because Respondent's Environmental Office needed additional time to carefully review and revise the RFP as needed, Respondent decided to reject all proposals and to start the procurement process anew. Respondent's decision to reject all bids was made after fully considering all of the pertinent information regarding the ambiguity and structural flaws in Section 6, vendor confusion and concern caused by Respondent's revisions to Exhibit C needed to address the ambiguity and flaws in Section 6, and Respondent's need for additional time to ensure that its RFP accurately and clearly solicited the needed environmental mitigation support services. Accordingly, Respondent did not act arbitrarily in deciding to reject all bids. Further, no persuasive evidence was presented to show that Respondent's decision to reject all bids was illegal, dishonest, or fraudulent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation: Issue a final order in Case No. 16-0769 finding that the rejection of all proposals in response to Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM was not illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent; and Issue a final order in Case No. 16-3530 finding that the decisions to cancel the award of the Contract for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM to CECOS and to require the vendors to submit new price proposals for Request for Proposal RFP-DOT-15/16-4004PM were not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The findings below are based on the undisputed facts set forth in Petitioner's Protest and supplements thereto, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and representations by the parties during the motion hearing. On October 7, 2009, Respondent electronically posted its final ranking of firms which had submitted proposals to provide mechanical engineering services for six HVAC projects for Respondent in 2010. Respondent's electronic posting of the final ranking of firms included the following language: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), shall constitute a waiver of proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes." On October 12, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to Protest the final rankings. On October 22, 2009, Petitioner filed its Protest. Although Petitioner's Protest was timely filed, Petitioner initially did not file a bond or other security. The Protest alleges that Petitioner was not required to file a bond, because Respondent did not include in its final ranking notice that a failure to post a bond would constitute a waiver of proceedings under Subsection 120.57(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Protest alleges that Respondent: (1) failed to provide Petitioner with notice of the estimated contract amounts within 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays and state holidays, of the filing of a notice of protest as required by Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) because Respondent had not provided that notice, Petitioner was unable to calculate the amount of the bond required and was, therefore, relieved of the obligation to file a bond. On October 30, 2009, Respondent, through counsel, wrote to Petitioner. In this correspondence, Respondent informed Petitioner that Section 287.042, Florida Statutes, did not apply to Respondent because it was not an "agency" for purposes of that law. Respondent further informed Petitioner that Section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, allowed Respondent to require a bond in the amount of two percent of the lowest accepted bid or $25,000. Respondent also notified Petitioner that because it was protesting all six project awards, all awards must be included in the calculation of the bond amount required. Finally, Petitioner was allowed ten days within which to post a bond. On November 3, 2009, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a cashier's check in the amount of $3,143.70 and noted that the check was intended to serve as security for the Protest "as required by F.S. 287.042(2)(c)." In the letter which accompanied the check, Petitioner also noted that: (1) the amount of the check was determined by calculating one percent of the largest proposed contract award amount of $314,370.00; and (2) Petitioner was providing that amount "under duress," because Respondent had "just published the contract award amounts." The relief requested by Petitioner in the Protest is that: (1) it be awarded one of the six HVAC projects comprising the final ranking; and/or (2) alternatively, all six awards be rescinded and "start the entire process over." The final ranking which Petitioner protests included six separate projects, each of which had a separate construction budget. Those projects and their respective construction budgets are as follows: Northwest--$1,144,000; Tampa Palms--$2,649,081; Yates--$2,770,828; Ferrell--$2,550,758; Stewart--$2,805,437; and Erwin--$4,191,603. The proposed fees for each project were as follows: $97,240 (Northwest); $211,926 (Tampa Palms); $221,666 (Yates); $204,061 (Ferrell); $224,435 (Stewart); and $314,370 (Erwin).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Hillsborough County School Board, issue a final order dismissing the Protest filed by Petitioner, RHC and Associates, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's (AHCA) proposed award of a contract to Caremark, Inc., based on evaluations of proposals submitted in response to a Request for Proposals (RFP), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the single state agency in Florida authorized to make payments for medical assistance and related services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Medicaid" program). In order to participate in the federal Medicaid program, AHCA is required to maintain a state plan for Medicaid in compliance with Title XIX of the Social Security Act. AHCA is required to operate the Florida Medicaid program in compliance with the state plan. AHCA is apparently concerned by costs associated with the Florida Medicaid program's hemophilia population. Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries constitute a relatively small, but costly population to serve. Hemophilia is a bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency in one of numerous "clotting factors," which normally causes a persons' blood to coagulate. Hemophilia is treated by administration of the deficient clotting factor to the person with the disorder. AHCA seeks to control the cost of providing hemophilia-related services to this population through a combination of case management and medication discounts known as the Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management (MCHM) program. AHCA believes that a single vendor responsible for operation of the MCHM program can provide managed care to the population while achieving significant drug-cost savings. Through a federal requirement referred to as "freedom of choice," Florida's Medicaid program state plan must provide that any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person qualified to perform the service and who undertakes to provide such services. The freedom of choice requirement is subject to being waived in accordance with applicable federal law. Such waiver requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). AHCA began seeking approval from CMS for an amendment to an existing "Managed Care Waiver" to implement the MCHM program in October 2002. By letter dated May 22, 2003, CMS approved AHCA's request to amend the existing waiver to permit implementation of the MCHM program. Subsequent correspondence between the agencies has further established AHCA's authority to implement the MCHM program. AHCA issued the RFP ("RFP AHCA 0403") on October 1, 2003. The RFP seeks to implement the MCHM program. There were no timely challenges filed to the terms and specifications of the RFP. Section 287.057, Florida Statutes (2003), requires that an agency must make a written determination that an invitation to bid is not practicable for procurement of commodities or contractual services prior to issuance of an RFP. AHCA did not make such a written determination prior to issuance of the RFP. Under the terms of the RFP, AHCA will contract with a single provider for a period of two years, with an option to extend the contract for an additional two-year period. RFP Section 10.2 sets out an extensive list of vendor requirements designed to provide care to Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries and better management of related costs. The RFP provides that the successful vendor will be paid only on the basis of the factor products dispensed to eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. All other services required by the RFP must be delivered within the revenue provided by AHCA's reimbursement for factor product costs. No additional payment beyond payment of factor product costs will be provided. The RFP stated that the successful vendor would be reimbursed for factor product cost based on the average wholesale price (AWP) of the factor product minus a minimum discount of 39 percent. The RFP provided that vendors may offer a greater discount than 39 percent. An Addendum to the RFP indicated that if a vendor proposed a discount greater than 39 percent, the increased discount must apply to all factor products and that vendors could not propose varying discounts for individual factor products. The RFP contains language in the background section referencing budget "proviso" language adopted by the Legislature and referring to the MCHM program as a "revenue enhancement program." HHS asserts that because this RFP does not create a revenue enhancement program, AHCA had no authority to proceed with the RFP. The evidence fails to establish that this program will enhance revenue. The evidence fails to establish that based on the "proviso" language, AHCA is without authority to issue the RFP. RFP Section 20.11 sets forth the "proposal submission requirements." The section included a number of requirements set in capital letters and highlighted in boldface. The terms of each requirement indicated that failure to comply with the requirement was "fatal" and would result in rejection of the proposal submitted. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.11. RFP Section 20.16 provides that AHCA may waive "minor irregularities," which are defined as variations "from the RFP terms and conditions, that [do] not affect the price of the proposal or give one applicant an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by others or adversely affect the state's interest." RFP Section 20.17 provides as follows: Rejection of proposals Proposals that do not conform to all mandatory requirements of this RFP shall be rejected by the Agency. Proposals may be rejected for reasons that include, but are not limited to, the following: The proposal was received after the submission deadline; The proposal was not signed by an authorized representative of the vendor; The proposal was not submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 20.11 of this RFP; The vendor failed to submit a proposal guarantee in an acceptable form in accordance with the terms identified in Section 20.12 of this RFP or the guarantee was not submitted with the original cost proposal; The proposal contained unauthorized amendments, deletions, or contingencies to the requirements of the RFP; The vendor submitted more than one proposal; and/or The proposal is not deemed to be in the best interest of the state. None of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding were rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. The evidence fails to establish that any of the proposals submitted by the parties to this proceeding should have been rejected pursuant to RFP Section 20.17. RFP Section 30.1 provides that the "total cost of the contract will not exceed $36,000,000 annually." RFP Section 30.2 provides in part that the "total cost for the contract under any renewal will not exceed $36,000,000 per year." The RFP's contract amount apparently was based on historical information and assumed that some level of cost control would occur through case management. The contract amount cannot operate as a "cap" because Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries are an "entitled" group and services must be provided. If the amount of the contract is exceeded, AHCA is obliged to pay for necessary factor products provided to the beneficiaries; however, in an Addendum to the RFP, AHCA stated that if the contract fails to contain costs "there would be no justification to renew or extend the contract." The RFP required vendors to submit a performance bond based on 20 percent of the $36 million contract amount. The RFP stated that proposals could receive a maximum possible score of 2000 points. The proposal with the highest technical evaluation would receive 1340 weighted points. The proposal with the lowest cost proposal would receive 660 weighted points. The combined technical and cost proposal scores for each vendor determined the ranking for the proposals. The RFP set forth formulas to be used to determine the weighted final score based on raw scores received after evaluation. AHCA conducted a bidder's conference related to the RFP on October 8, 2003. All parties to this proceeding attended the conference. At the conference, AHCA distributed a copy of a spreadsheet chart that listed all factor products provided to Florida's Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries during the second quarter of 2003. The chart identified the amount of each factor product used and the amount paid by AHCA to vendors for the factor product during the quarter. The chart also showed the amount that would have been paid by AHCA per factor product unit had the vendors been paid at the rate of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA received six proposals in response to the RFP. The proposals were received from Caremark, HHS, Lynnfield, PDI Pharmacy Services, Inc., Advance PCS/Accordant, and Coram. RFP Section 60 contained the instructions to vendors for preparing their responses to the solicitation. As set forth in RFP Section 60.1, the technical response was identified as "the most important section of the proposal with respect to the organization's ability to perform under the contract." The section requires vendors to include "evidence of the vendor's capability through a detailed response describing its organizational background and experience," which would establish that the vendor was qualified to operate the MCHM program. Vendors were also directed to describe the proposed project staffing and the proposed "technical approach" to accomplish the work required by the RFP. Vendors were encouraged to propose "innovative approaches to the tasks described in the RFP" and to present a detailed implementation plan with a start date of January 10, 2003. The technical responses were opened on October 29, 2003. AHCA deemed all six proposals to be responsive to the technical requirements of the RFP and each technical proposal was evaluated. For purposes of evaluation, AHCA divided the technical requirements of the RFP into 50 separate criteria. AHCA assembled the technical evaluators at an orientation meeting at which time an instruction sheet was issued and verbal instructions for evaluating the technical proposals were delivered. The instruction sheet distributed to the evaluators provided that the evaluators "should" justify their scores in the "comments" section of the score sheets. The five AHCA employees who evaluated the technical proposal were Maresa Corder (Scorer "A"), Bob Brown-Barrios (Scorer "B"), Kay Newman (Scorer "C"), Jerry Wells (Scorer "D"), and Laura Rutledge (Scorer "E"). AHCA employees Dan Gabric and Lawanda Williams performed reference reviews separate from the technical evaluations. Reference review scores were combined with technical evaluation scores resulting in a total technical evaluation score. Reference review scores are not at issue in this proceeding. Kay Newman's review was limited to reviewing the financial audit information provided by the vendors. Technical evaluators reviewed each technical response to the RFP and completed evaluation sheets based on the 50 evaluation criteria. Other than Mr. Wells, evaluators included comments on the score sheets. Mr. Wells did not include comments on his score sheet. The technical proposal scoring scale set forth in the RFP provided as follows: Points Vendor has demonstrated 0 No capability to meet the criterion 1-3 Marginal or poor capability to meet the criterion 4-6 Average capability to meet the criterion 7-9 Above average capability to meet the criterion 10 Excellent capability to meet the criterion Each evaluator worked independently, and they did not confer with each other or with anyone else regarding their evaluations of the responses to the RFP. Janis Williamson was the AHCA employee responsible for distribution of the technical proposals to the evaluators. She received the completed score sheets and evaluation forms from each of the technical evaluators. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to technical proposals as follows: The total final point scores for proposals will be compared to the maximum achievable score of 1340 points, and the technical proposal with the highest total technical points will be assigned the maximum achievable point score. All other proposals will be assigned a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when a proposal's total technical points are divided by the highest total technical points awarded. S = P X 1340 N Where: N = highest number of final points awarded to t technical proposal P = number of final points awarded to a proposal S = final technical score for a proposal According to the "Summary Report and Recommendation" memorandum dated December 4, 2003, after application of the formula, Caremark received the highest number of technical points (1340 points). Of the parties to this proceeding, HHS was ranked second on the technical proposal evaluation (1132.30 points), and Lynnfield was ranked third (1101.48 points). Lynnfield and HHS assert that the scoring of the technical proposals was arbitrary based on the range of scores between the highest scorer and the lowest scorer of the proposals. Review of the score sheets indicates that Scorer "A" graded "harder" than the other evaluators. The scores she assigned to vendor proposals were substantially lower on many of the criteria than the scores assigned by other evaluators. The range between her scores and the highest scores assigned by other evaluators was greater relative to the Lynnfield and the HHS proposals than they were to the Caremark proposal, indicating that she apparently believed the Caremark technical proposal to be substantially better than others she reviewed. There is no evidence that Scorer "A" was biased either for or against any particular vendor. The evidence fails to establish that her evaluation of the proposals was arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to establish that AHCA's evaluation of the technical proposals was inappropriate. After the technical evaluation was completed, cost proposals were opened on November 21, 2003. Section 60.3 addressed the cost proposal requirements for the RFP. RFP Section 60.3.1 provides as follows: The cost proposal shall cover all care management services, hemophilia specific pharmaceuticals dispensing and delivery, and pharmacy benefits management activities contemplated by the RFP. The price the vendor submits must include a detailed budget that fully justifies and explains the proposed costs assigned. This includes salaries, expenses, systems costs, report costs, and any other item the vendor uses in arriving at the final price for which it will agree to perform the work described in the RFP. The maximum reimbursement for the delivery of services and factor products used in factor replacement therapy (inclusive of all plasma-derived and recombinant factor concentrates currently in use and any others approved for use during the term of the contract resulting from this RFP) will be at Average Wholesale Price (AWP) minus 39%. Proposals may bid at a lower reimbursement but not higher. All other drugs not otherwise specified in factor replacement therapy will be paid at the normal Medicaid reimbursement. RFP Section 60.3.2 provides as follows: A vendor's cost proposal shall be defined in terms of Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and conform to the following requirements: The first tab of a vendor's original cost proposal shall be labeled "Proposal Guarantee" and shall include the vendor's proposal guarantee, which shall conform to the requirements specified in this RFP, Section 20.12. Copies of the cost proposal are not required to include the proposal guarantee. The second tab of the cost proposal shall be labeled "Project Budget" and shall include the information called for in the RFP, including the total price proposed, a line item budget for each year of the proposal, a budget narrative, and other information required to justify the costs listed. The RFP does not define the "detailed" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.1 and does not define the "line item" budget mentioned in RFP Section 60.3.2. No examples of such budgets were provided. RFP Section 80.1 provides as follows: Evaluation of the Mandatory Requirements of the Cost Proposal Upon completion of the evaluation of all technical proposals, cost proposals will be opened on the date specified in the RFP Timetable. The Agency will determine if a cost proposal is sufficiently responsive to the requirements of the RFP to permit a complete evaluation. In making this determination, the evaluation team will review each cost proposal against the following criteria: Was the cost proposal received by the Agency no later than time specified in the RFP Timetable? Did the vendor submit an original and ten copies of its cost proposal in a separate sealed package? Was the vendor's cost proposal accompanied by a proposal guarantee meeting the requirements of the RFP? Did the cost proposal contain the detailed budget required by the RFP? Does the proposal contain all other mandatory requirements for the cost proposal? The AHCA employee who opened the cost proposals apparently determined that each proposal met the requirements of RFP Section 80.1, including providing a "detailed" budget. The RFP set forth a process by which point values would be assigned to cost proposals as follows: On the basis of 660 total points, the proposal with the lowest total price will receive 660 points. The other proposals will receive a percentage of the maximum achievable points, based on the ratio derived when the total cost points are divided by the highest total cost points awarded. Where: S = L X 660 N N = price in the proposal (for two years) L = lowest price proposed (for two years) S = cost points awarded The cost proposal scoring process clearly required comparison of each vendor's total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Caremark's proposal included estimated total costs of $44,797,207 for FY 2002-2003, $43,245,607 for FY 2003-2004, and $44,542,975 for FY 2004-2005. According to RFP Section 30.1, the maximum annual contract was not to exceed $36,000,000. All of Caremark's estimated annual costs exceeded the contract amount set forth in the RFP. Caremark's proposal also provided as follows: The above budget includes all salary expenses for Caremark employees involved in providing services for the program including the Contract Manager, Clinical Pharmacist, Care manager, additional pharmacist(s), Client Service Specialists in Florida for the expanded hemophilia program. Also included are the support staff such as pharmacy technicians, materials management, field service representatives, warehouse, reimbursement, marketing, sales and administrative staff. Also included are all delivery, data and report development, educational and marketing communication expenses. Product costs including medically necessary ancillary supplies, medical waste disposal and removal, protective gear and therapeutic devices. Caremark's proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that Caremark indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. The HHS proposal projected estimated costs identified by month and year. The HHS proposal estimated total first-year costs of $14,261,954 and second-year costs of $27,333,389. HHS did not propose to assume responsibility for serving all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries at the start of the contract, but projected costs as if beneficiaries would "migrate to our service at a rate of 20 per month" during the first year and that full service provision would begin by the beginning of year two. RFP Section 10.2 provides as follows: The purpose of this RFP is to receive offers from qualified vendors wishing to provide the services required by the Florida Medicaid Comprehensive Hemophilia Management Program. The contract resulting from this RFP shall be with a single provider for up to two years commencing on the date signed, with an option to renew for two additional years. Otherwise stated, all Medicaid hemophilia beneficiaries would be served though the program's sole provider from the start of the contract period. The RFP provides no option for a vendor to gradually increase service levels through the first half of the two-year contract. The HHS proposal also included a breakdown of costs by factor product unit, identifying the AWP for each listed factor product and applying a discount of between 39 percent and 45 percent to indicate the product cost-per-unit that would be charged to AHCA. In Addendum 2 to the RFP, AHCA stated that it has received a written inquiry as follows: Knowing that the minimum accepted discount is AWP less 39%, can different products have different discounts. AHCA's response to the inquiry was as follows: No. The proposed discount will apply to all factor products. As to the costs included in the proposal annual total, the HHS proposal provided as follows: The product price above will include the following costs incurred in servicing the patients: The cost of the product dispensed to the patient. The cost of freight and other delivery expense of transporting the product to the patient. Pharmacy, warehouse and patient supplies. Cost incurred for patient protective gear and education materials Salary costs for the following: o Project/Contract Manager Clinical Pharmacist Staff Pharmacist Case Management Coordinator Pharmacy Care Coordinators Shipping Clerk Warehouse Coordinator Community Advocates Insurance Reimbursement Specialist The cost of Information Technology support for systems and reporting The cost of rent, office supplies, equipment, postage, printing. The HHS proposal did not include information sufficient to assign specific costs to any of the items that HHS indicated were included in its annual cost estimate. Lynnfield's proposal estimated total costs of $34,000,000 for calendar year 2004 and $36,000,000 for calendar year 2005. Lynnfield's budget proposal included information identifying the specific expense lines which form the basis for the cost estimation, including salary costs by position, travel costs, employee insurance, postage, equipment costs, and various office expenses. Lynnfield's budget proposal included a significantly greater level of detail than did either the Caremark or the HHS proposals. Jerry Wells was assigned the responsibility to evaluate the cost proposals. Mr. Wells failed to review the RFP or the related Addenda prior to evaluating the cost proposals submitted by the vendors. Mr. Wells asserted that it was not possible, based on the information submitted by the vendors, to perform an "apples- to-apples comparison." Each vendor set forth information in its proposal sufficient to calculate a total price for the initial two-year portion of the contract. Mr. Wells testified at the hearing that his cost review was intended to determine what AHCA would be paying for each of the individual factor products that AHCA provides hemophiliacs through Medicaid because the cost of the products was all AHCA would be paying to the vendors. The RFP did not require vendors to include a detailed list of, or unit prices for, factor products. The RFP specified only that factor products be provided at a minimum of AWP minus 39 percent. AHCA employees, under the direction of Mr. Wells, created a cost comparison chart which purported to identify the price proposed by each vendor for certain factor products and which projects an estimated quarterly factor product cost for each vendor. HHS's cost proposal included a listing of specific prices to be charged for factor products. The list was based on products being used by existing HHS patients. Caremark offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. Caremark also suggested various "innovative cost savings," which specified use of factor products and indicated discounts greater than the 39 percent required by the RFP. Lynnfield did not include a product-specific listing of factor costs in its proposal, but offered to provide all products at the AWP minus 39 percent cost required by the RFP. The AHCA employees used the HHS cost proposal, including the HHS range of discounts, as the basis for preparation of the cost comparison chart that included the other vendors. The factor products listed on the AHCA cost comparison mirror those listed in the HHS cost proposal. AHCA employees apparently applied the factor product usage information from the second quarter of 2003 that was included on the spreadsheet distributed at the bidder's conference to the HHS factor product list. The AHCA spreadsheet distributed at the bidder conference lists 29 factor products by name and dosage. Of the 29 products, 15 are listed in the HHS cost proposal. The AHCA cost comparison created at Mr. Wells' direction includes only the 15 factor products listed on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison assumed no costs would be incurred, where the AHCA spreadsheet information indicated no usage of the factor product that had been included on the HHS cost proposal. AHCA's cost comparison did not include factor products which have been supplied by AHCA to Medicaid beneficiaries, but which do not appear on the HHS list. Mr. Wells relied on this cost comparison to determine that the cost proposal submitted by HHS offered the lowest cost to the agency and was entitled to the 660 points. Lynnfield and Caremark were both ranked according to cost proposals of AWP minus 39 percent, and according to the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum, were awarded 652.74 points. Calculation of the points awarded to Lynnfield and Caremark in the Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum does not appear to comply with the formula set forth in the RFP. The AHCA cost comparison spreadsheet identifies the HHS proposed cost as $10,706,425.66 and identifies the AWP minus 39 percent cost as $10,795,477.48 (assigned as the Lynnfield and Caremark cost proposal). The Summary Report and Recommendation memorandum states the lowest cost proposal to be $10,706,405.66 (perhaps a typographical error). The methodology applied by AHCA assumed that all vendors would utilize identical quantities of identical factor products (based on historical usage in Quarter 2 of 2003 of those listed in the HHS cost proposal) and that there would be no cost savings related to disease management. The application of methodology to compare vendor cost proposals outside the process established by the RFP is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious. The vendors who are party to this proceeding assert that each other vendor's budgetary submission is insufficient, flawed, or unreliable for varying reasons. It is unnecessary to determine whether the budgetary information submitted by the vendors meets the requirements of the RFP because, despite having requested the information, AHCA has no interest in the data. There is no evidence that in making an award of points based on the cost proposals, AHCA relied on any of the budgetary information required by the RFP or submitted by the vendors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted in response to the RFP AHCA 0403. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony L. Conticello, Esquire Thomas Barnhart, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Thomas R. McSwain, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, Banker, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Riley Davis, Esquire Martin R. Dix, Esquire Akerman & Senterfitt Law Firm 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent's intended rejection of all responses to its solicitation of "qualifications" from entities interested in contracting with Respondent to perform construction management at risk services in connection with a project at Fort Lauderdale High School is illegal, arbitrary, and/or dishonest, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a district school board responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all public schools (grades K through 12) in Broward County, Florida (including, among others, Fort Lauderdale High School) and for otherwise providing public instruction to school-aged children in the county. As authorized by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A- 1.012, Respondent has "establish[ed] purchasing rules" (denominated as "policies"). Respondent's Policy 3320 contains Respondent's "Purchasing Policies." Part III of Respondent's Policy 3320 prescribes "Purchasing Policies" for Respondent's Facilities and Construction Management Division, and it provides, in pertinent part, as follows: All additions, modifications, and alterations to School Board properties shall conform with the State Requirement for Educational Facilities (SREF), Florida Building Code (FBC) and the laws of the State of Florida. School Board administrators shall obtain assistance in preparing bid specifications and applicable building permit(s) from the Facilities and Construction Management division for these items. Part VIII of Respondent's Policy 3320 addresses the subject of "protests arising from the competitive solicitation process" and incorporates the protest procedures found in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Policy 7003 is entitled, "Pre- Qualification of Contractors and Selection of Architects, Engineers, Design Builders, Construction Managers, and Total Program Managers Pursuant to the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act." It provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The School Board shall pre-qualify bidders for construction contracts, and, publicly announce, in a uniform and consistent manner, each occasion when construction and/or professional services are required to be purchased in compliance with governing statutes and regulations. The Superintendent shall establish procedures for the pre-qualification of contractors and selection of architects, engineers, design- builders, construction managers and total program managers consistent with this policy, applicable statutes and State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF). Rules The School Board authorizes the Superintendent to: Receive applications for Contractor Pre- Qualification on the attached application form in compliance with FS 1013.46 and SREF 4.1(8), as amended. . . . * * * 4. Designate an evaluation committee of eleven (11) voting members for the purpose of Pre-Qualification of contractors and selection of architects, engineers, design builders, construction managers and total program managers. * * * The committee shall make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the pre- qualification of contractors. The Superintendent shall make recommendations to the Board: Along with a report from the committee containing findings of fact indicating the proposers' compliance with the procurement requirements and scoring criteria and the Board shall have the final approval of such recommendations. The Contractor Pre-Qualification Application Form "attached" to Policy 7003 contains the following description of the contractor pre-qualification process: The School Board ("Board") through the Superintendent or his/her designee, shall pre-qualify all "contractors" for construction contracts, and any other contracts that require a certificate issued pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, all bidders, construction managers, design-builders, job- order contractors, term contractors, and all other types of contractors on an annual basis or for a specific project according to the rules set forth in the State Requirements for Educational Facilities (SREF) Section 4.1(8). Contractors shall be pre-qualified on the basis of the criteria set forth in SREF and included in the foregoing application form. In addition to the foregoing criteria the applicant shall provide the Dun and Bradstreet report indicated in the application. The evaluation committee shall be as set forth in Board Policy 7003. The applicant shall complete the form in its entirety and submit all required documents by the deadline set forth in the public announcement. Separate applications shall be submitted for each desired contracting category. The School Board of Broward County shall receive and either approve or reject each application for prequalification within sixty (60) days after receipt of application in its entirety and all required documents. Approval shall be based on the criteria and procedures set forth in SREF. The Board shall issue to all pre-qualified contractors a certificate valid for one (1) year from the date of approval or for the specific project(s). That certificate shall include the following: A statement indicating that the contractor may bid, propose, or otherwise be considered, on the specific project(s) or for this specific time period. A statement establishing the total dollar value of the work the contractor will be permitted to have under contract with the Board at any one time. The maximum value shall not exceed the contractor's bonding capacity or ten (10) times the net quick assets. A statement establishing the maximum dollar value of each individual project the contractor will be permitted to have under contract with the Board at any one time. The maximum value of each project may be up to twice the value of the largest similar project previously completed but shall not exceed the Contractor's bonding capacity or ten (10) times the net quick assets. A statement establishing the type of work the contractor will be permitted to provide. The expiration date of the certificate. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to renew annually certificates not for a specific project. Financial statements or written verification of bonding capacity on file with the Board shall be updated annually. Failure to submit a new statement or verification of bonding capacity within thirty (30) days written notice by the Board shall automatically revoke a pre-qualification certificate. 1. Pre-qualified contractors may request a revision of their pre-qualification status at any time they believe the dollar volume of work under contract or the size or complexity of the projects should be increased if experience, staff size, staff qualifications, and other pertinent data justify the action. These procedures are in accordance with requirements set forth in Section 4.1 of the State Requirements for Educational Facilities. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 6, "[o]n May 20, 2008, [Respondent] approved the Request for Qualifications No. 2008-030-FC (RFQ) entitled 'Construction Management at Risk Services for Districts 2, 3 and 4 Projects (Cooper City High School - Project No. 1931-99-02; Fort Lauderdale High School – Project No. 0951-27-01; Margate Elementary School – Project No. 1161-26-01; and Northeast High School – Project No. 1241-27-01),' and authorized the public announcement of the RFQ." "[In] [t]he summary explanation and background [section of] the Agenda Request Form [for this agenda item, it was] stated that the 'Facilities and Construction Management staff recommend[ed] the procurement of construction services utilizing Construction Management at Risk delivery method due to the complexity, scope and scale of the projects.'" This "delivery method" is to be distinguished from the "hard bid" or "design/bid/build" method of procurement, where a contractor is hired only after "the construction documents are completed." Under the "Construction Management at Risk delivery method," contrastingly, the construction manager typically assists in the development and "complet[ion]" of the "construction documents," offering advice and recommendations to maximize quality and cost efficiency. As a result, it is "not uncommon" for there to be post-solicitation changes in a project's scope and budget when this "delivery method" is employed. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 7, "[a]t the time of [Respondent's] approval of the RFQ, the portion of the RF[Q] pertaining to [the FHS Project] had an advertised Proposed Construction Budget of $29,150,340 and a project scope which was described [in RFQ] as follows: 'Concurrent replacement in two phases to include: Phase I – Construct a 3- story Administration Classroom Building of 68,940 GSF to include Administration, 3 general classroom[s], 5 resource rooms, 4 Science Labs and related spaces, a 4-classroom ESE Suite, 1 Business Technology Lab, 1 Family and Consumer Science (ProStart) Lab, 1 Health Occupations Lab, 1 Pre-Law Public Service Education Lab, Custodial spaces, Textbook Storage and Student, Staff and Public Restrooms. Demolish Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 14.'" Phase II of the project was, at the time, described in the RFQ as follows: "Construct Parent drop off & pick up area and Staff/Visitor Parking; Construct Regional Athletic Facility; Renovate Building 8 into Science Labs; Demolish existing tennis courts & replace with 6 tennis courts; Demolish Swimming Pool; Construct basketball courts; Resurface Student Parking." These descriptions represented the "initial concept" of the FHS Project (the design of the project having been then only in the "conceptual stage" of development). Respondent wanted to have the benefit of the input and advice of a construction manager (working together with the architect selected for the project) in developing the project's design beyond the "conceptual stage." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Facts 12 through 19, "[b]etween the initial public release of the RFQ and the submission of proposed qualifications, [Respondent] issued seven (7) addenda revising the RFQ's terms and conditions," with "Addendum No. 4 chang[ing] the scope of the [FHS Project] component of the RFQ as follows": Delete the scope in Phase I to demolish Building #4. Delete the scope in Phase II to construct basketball courts and to resurface student parking. Revise the words "replace with 6 tennis courts" to be the words "construct five (5) tennis courts." Clarify phasing: In Phase I, demolish the existing track and athletic field and relocate existing baseball field. Clarify scope: In Phase II, for the staff parking construct a 3-story parking structure including required access road work. Clarify scope: Phase II includes renovation of existing courtyard to provide ADA access to existing gymnasium and auditorium. (Emphasis, by bolding, supplied in original). Addendum No. 6 "[r]evised the [RFQ's] Submittal Due Date to read 'No later than 2:00 p.m. on September 3, 2008.'" As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 20,"[a]fter [the] issuance of Addendum No. 7 to the RFQ, the scope of the [FHS Project] component of the RFQ was described as follows [with strike-throughs and underlining indicating, respectively, post-issuance deletions and additions]: Concurrent replacement in two phases to include: Phase I – Construct a 3-story Administration Classroom Building of 68,940 GSF to include Administration, 3 general classroom[s], 5 resource rooms, 4 Science Labs and related spaces, a 4-classroom ESE Suite, 1 Business Technology Lab, 1 Family and Consumer Science (ProStart) Lab, 1 Health Occupations Lab, [1 Pre-Law Public Service Education Lab], Custodial spaces, Textbook Storage and Student, Staff and Public Restrooms. Demolish the existing track and athletic field and relocate existing baseball field. Demolish Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Phase II – Construct Parent drop off & pick up area and a 3-story parking structure including required road access work for Staff Parking and /Visitor Parking[.] Construct Regional Athletic Facility[.] Renovate building 8 into Science Labs[.] Demolish existing tennis courts & replace with 6 tennis courts construct five (5) tennis courts. Demolish Swimming Pool. Renovate existing courtyard to provide ADA access to existing gymnasium and auditorium. Construct basketball courts. Resurface Student Parking." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Facts 10 and 11, on August 26, 2008, the date that Respondent issued its final addendum to the RFQ (Addendum No. 7), it also issued a Revised Public Announcement publicizing the issuance of the RFQ (as revised by the seven addenda). The Revised Public Announcement read, in pertinent part, as follows: In order to supplement the expertise of the Facilities and Construction Management Department, the Superintendent of Schools, pursuant to Florida Statutes, announces that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, is in need of Construction Management Services, related to new construction and renovations of educational facilities. Pursuant to this request for qualifications, The Board will consider contracts with one of more proposers to provide these services. Services under this contract include, but are not limited to the following items and shall be in accordance with SREF [State Requirements for Educational Facilities] 1999 Chapter 4: Bid and award activities including managing bidder listing, addendum, bidding, proposals, schedule of values, contracts, guaranteed maximum price, value engineering, and bonds. Construction activities including managing meetings, contract administration, monitoring procedures, contract records, inspections, non-conformances, owner- supplied equipment, testing, project accounting, and construction services. Warranty activities including managing claims and periodic inspections. Provide other basic services as required. Refer to the Request for Qualifications for more detailed project scopes. * * * RFQ No. 2008-30-FC Project Nos. 0951 27 01/P000687 Fort Lauderdale High School (proposed construction budget $29,150,340): Phase replacement in 2 phases to include: Phase I - Demolish selected buildings, tennis courts, swimming pool, track and athletic field. Construct a 3-story Administration Classroom Buildings[2] of 68,949 GSF; parent drop off/pick-up area and visitor parking; 5 tennis courts. Relocate existing baseball field. Phase II - Demolish selected building. Construct a 3-story parking structure including required access road work; Regional Athletic Facility. Renovate existing courtyard for ADA access to Gym and Auditorium. Renovate Building 8 into Science Labs. * * * Award: Project will be awarded by Facility. Proposed Construction Budget: Includes all costs inclusive of the Construction Manager's fees, Cost of Work, and any other costs related to construction. Minimum Selection Criteria: Will include the following as a minimum, (refer to document RFQ, Article X Submittal Requirements for expanded list of selection criteria): The company's history, structure, personnel, licenses, and experience. Related projects similar in scope or amount completed by the company, including name of client or its representative. Financial information such as balance sheet and statement of operations and bonding capacity. Project management, scheduling and cost control systems the company uses for similar projects. Proposed minority business involvement in the project. . . . Cost control, value engineering techniques and constructability reviews. Description of litigation, major disputes, contract defaults and liens in the last five (5) years. Interview. Confirmation of references. Consideration of the volume of work previously awarded to each firm, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most qualified firms. * * * The completed RFQ response must be delivered . . . . NO LATER THAN 2:00 PM SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 * * * Qualifications Selection Evaluation Committee (QSEC): After submission, proposers will be evaluated by the Qualification Selection Evaluation Committee (QSEC) based upon the above minimum criteria. The QSEC will select no less than three (3) proposers, ranked in order of tabulated score. The QSEC will recommend the finalist(s) for award of contracts to Construction Managers to the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall either recommend award of contract(s) to the finalist(s) selected by the QSEC or recommend rejection of all proposals to the Board. After the Board approves the recommendations of the QSEC the Board will authorize the Superintendent, or designee, to negotiate a contract for services for fees to provide direct management of the Construction Management at Risk Contract. Recommendations by the Qualification Selection Evaluation Committee do not guarantee a contract will be awarded by the Board. Award of a contract does not guarantee that work will be issued. Fees will be negotiated in accordance with Board Policy 7003 and Section 287.055, F.S. Article I of the RFQ (as revised) listed "General Requirements" that "proposers [had to] meet" "[i]n order to be considered." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 21, Article I.D. of the RFQ (as revised) provided, in pertinent part, as follows: All proposers must be prequalified according to 1013.46 F.S., SREF 4.1(8), and Board Policy 7003 at the time of submittal due date to this RFQ. Article I.H. of the RFQ (as revised) provided as follows: The School Board of Broward County, Florida reserves the right to reject any or all responses, to waive technicalities, or to accept the proposal that, in its sole judgment, best serves the interest of The School Board of Broward County, Florida. Article II of the RFQ (as revised) described the "Selection Process." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 22, Article of the RFQ (as revised) "was entitled 'Proposal Review by Staff' and stated as follows": Facilities and Construction Management Division staff will conduct a review of the proposer's submittal to determine whether the proposer meets the terms of this RFQ, requirements of the Florida Statutes, State Requirements for Educational Facilities regulations, Florida Building Code, and any other code, statute, or standard applicable at the time of response. Facilities and Construction Management Staff will provide information to the QSEC Members showing payments made by the district to the proposing firms over the past three (3) years. Non-compliant proposals will be recommended to the committee for rejection. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 23, Article of the RFQ (as revised) "was entitled 'Shortlist Selection' and stated as follows": The QSEC Members will assign points to each proposer, for each facility, based upon the Selection Criteria below and attached Selection Criteria Score Sheet in the shortlist evaluation process. Each QSEC Member shall assign points for each proposer according to the selection criteria and rank them according to their scores. The proposer receiving the most points by a QSEC Member will be considered the first choice of that QSEC Member. The firm that receives the most first choice votes from the committee will be the top-ranked proposer. The second-ranked proposer will be the proposer that receives the most points, other than the proposer who was already selected as the top-ranked, and so on. In the event of a tie a voice vote will be taken until the tie is broken. If the voice vote is not unanimous, then a roll-call vote will be taken. The selection process will establish a "shortlist" for each facility/project of not less than three (3) proposers and no more than five (5) proposers submitting proposals. Shortlist selection will be done by each facility. Article II.E. of the RFQ (as revised) called for "[p]resentations" to be made to the QSEC by the shortlisted proposers. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 24, Article II.G. of the RFQ (as revised) "was entitled 'Final Selection' and stated as follows": The QSEC will interview and rank the shortlisted firms. The QSEC will assign points to each proposer, for each facility, utilizing the Selection Criteria and point schedule included with the Selection Criteria Score Sheet to finalize the selection. Note, M/WBE staff will provide scores for M/WBE categories. However, such scores are recommendations by M/WBE staff and may be adjusted by individual QSEC Members. Each QSEC Member shall assign points for each proposer according to the selection criteria and rank them according to their scores for each project/facility. The proposer receiving the most points by a QSEC Member will be considered the first choice of that QSEC Member. The proposer that receives the most first choice votes from the committee will be the top-ranked proposer. The second-ranked proposer, will be the proposer that receives the most points, other than the proposer who was selected as the top-ranked proposer, and so on. In the event of a tie a voice vote will be taken until the tie is broken. If the voice vote is not unanimous, then a roll- call vote will be taken. The QSEC will recommend the finalist(s) for award of contract to Construction Manager to the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall either recommend award of contract(s) to the finalist(s) selected by the QSEC or recommend rejection of all proposals to the Board. After the Board approves the recommendations of the QSEC the Board will authorize the Superintendent, or designee, to negotiate a contract with the top-ranked firm according to Section 287.055, F.S. The Board shall have final approval of such recommendations. Final selection will be done by each facility. Article II.H. of the RFQ (as revised) contained the "Minimum Selection Criteria." This provision read as follows: Minimum Selection Criteria: Will include the following as a minimum, (refer to this document Article XI Submittal Requirements for expanded list of selection criteria): The company's history, structure, personnel, licenses, and experience. Related projects similar in scope or amount completed by the company, including name of client or its representative. Financial information such as balance sheet and statement of operations and bonding capacity. Project management, scheduling and cost control systems the company uses for similar projects. Proposed minority business involvement in the project (refer to this document Article I, J for requirements). Cost control, value engineering techniques and constructability reviews. Description of litigation, major disputes, contract defaults and liens in the last five (5) years. Interview. Confirmation of references. Consideration of the volume of work previously awarded to each firm, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of section of the most qualified firms. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 25, Article III of the RFQ (as revised) "[was] entitled 'Competitive Negotiations' and state[d] as follows": After the QSEC ranks the firms, recommends the finalist(s) to the Superintendent, and the Superintendent recommends the finalist(s) to the Board[,] [t]he Superintendent, or designee will negotiate a contract for services for fees to provide direct management cost of the CM and Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). The CM contract shall maintain an "open book" project accounting process, with any savings returned to the Board. Should the negotiations not result in a contract with the finalist at a price determined by both parties to be customary, fair, competitive, and reasonable, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated. The Superintendent, or designee, shall undertake negotiation with the second most qualified firm and thereafter, if necessary, with the third firm. Should the Board be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, additional firms will be selected in accordance with the above- described procedure. Negotiation should continue in accordance with Section 287.055, F.S., or until the Board determines not to proceed and to re-advertise and repeat the process. Article IV of the RFQ (as revised) addressed the "Scope of Services." It simply provided as follows: "Refer to attached Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager for requirements." Article 3 of the "attached Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager" (Sample Contract) enumerated the "Construction Manager's Services." Those services to be performed by the hired construction manager during the "Pre-Design Phase" were described in Article 3.2 of the Sample Contract as follows: The Construction Manager shall review project requirements, educational specifications, on and off-site development, survey requirements, preliminary budget, and make value engineering and constructability recommendations for revisions to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to the final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager shall, subject to Owner's approval and compliance with existing Owner completion schedule, establish a preliminary master project schedule identifying all phases, Critical Path elements, responsibilities of the Owner, Project Consultant, outside agencies, third parties and any other impacts which would affect project schedule and progress and update them monthly throughout the duration of the contract. When the project includes renovation or expansion of an existing Facility, the Construction Manager will assist the Construction Team in preparing an analysis package outlining the condition of the existing Facility, existing structure, existing finishes, and existing equipment, code deficiencies, energy use, and life expectancy of other building systems by providing constructability, value engineering, and cost estimates recommendations. The package should contain the Construction Manager's recommendations, cost estimates and preliminary schedules. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager shall prepare detailed cost estimates and recommendations to Owner and Project Consultant at S.D. (Schematic Design), D.D. (Design Development), C.D. (50% and 100% Construction Documents) phases of the project. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to final payment for each phase. The Construction Manager shall provide project delivery options for the design, bid, and bid packaging of the project for efficient scheduling, cost control and financial resource management. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager shall utilize information and reporting systems to provide the Owner with monthly reports containing accurate and current cost controls, work status, including but not limited to Work narrative, Work completed/anticipated, short term and long term schedules, estimated expenditures, and project accounting systems of the project at all times. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report, prior to final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager shall prepare a report with the Project Team's participation which shall describe, as a minimum, the Work plan, job responsibilities, and written procedures for reports, meetings, inspections, changes to the project, building systems, and delivery analysis and other relevant matters. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant prior to final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager shall provide market analysis and motivation for subcontractor interest and recommendations for minority business participation. This shall include analysis of the Construction Manager's historical data for subcontracting, communication with contractor and trade organizations requesting participation, review of the Owner's M/WBE data, advertising, outreach programs, mailings to all prospective bidders identified by these actions, and reporting of all of the for[e]going to the Owner. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager's personnel to be assigned during this phase and their duties and responsibilities to this project and the duration of their assignments are shown on Exhibit D to the General Conditions. All required reports and documentation shall be submitted and approved by the Owner as pre-requisite to progress payments to the Construction Manager by the Owner during this phase. Those services to be performed by the hired construction manager during the "Design Phase" were described in Article 3.3 of the Sample Contract as follows: The Construction Manager will be required to attend all project related meetings and include a summary of the meeting of its monthly report to the Owner as specified in Document 01310. The Construction Manager will periodically review to the best of their abilities all Contract documents for constructability and compliance with applicable laws, rules, codes, design standards, and ordinances. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report in the format as noted herein prior to final payment for this phase (Refer to exhibits G and H). The Construction Manager will be required to work with and coordinate [its] activities with any additional consultants, or testing labs and others that Owner provides for the project and report all findings as specified in Document 01310. The Construction Manager shall review all Contract documents for the new and existing buildings and/or building sites and provide value engineering recommendations to minimize the Owner's capital outlay and maximize the Owner's operational resources. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to final payment for this phase. All such recommendations shall be acknowledged and incorporated into the construction documents by the Project Consultant unless otherwise authorized by the Owner in writing. The Construction Manager will review construction documents and the new and existing buildings conditions and/or building site to reduce to the best of [its] abilities conflicts, errors and omissions and shall coordinate with the Project Consultant in order to eliminate change orders due to errors, omissions and unforeseen conditions. The Construction Manager shall periodically update the master project schedule and make recommendations for recovery of lost time. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report prior to final payment for this phase. The Construction Manager will coordinate with the Project Consultant and provide to the Project Construction Team permitting applications and requirements for the projects. The Construction Manager will periodically update cost estimates and make recommendations to keep the project within the FLCC. AT COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S REVIEW OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, EXCEPT ONLY AS TO SPECIFIC MATTERS AS MAY BE IDENTIFIED BY APPROPRIATE WRITTEN COMMENTS PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SHALL WARRANT, WITHOUT ASSUMING THE PROJECT CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITES, THAT THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE CONSISTENT, PRACTICAL, FEASIBLE AND CONSTRUCTIBLE. CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SHALL WARRANT THAT THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE VARIOUS BIDDING PACKAGES IS CONSTRUCTIBLE WITHIN THE SCHEDULED CONSTRUCTION TIME. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY: THE OWNER DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY THAT THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROJECT ARE ACCURATE, PRACTICAL, CONSISTENT OR CONSTRUCTIBLE OR WITHOUT DEFECT. .10. The Owner may select certain projects for expediting using fast-track construction. When this option is exercised, in writing, by SBBC, it shall be implemented in accordance with the following: A. Design/Construction documents as noted herein shall be submitted by the Consultant for review and approval by SBBC (including Building Code review and Building permit issuance for 100% completion documents), the Construction Manager and others, as applicable, having jurisdiction: Foundation/Structural/LCCA/Site and Off- Site Package-100% Documents A separate 50% completion progress set (for information only) of Building Finish Package drawings shall also be submitted which shall show all of the major characteristics of the project utilities and service, detailed site and floor plans, elevations, section, schedules, etc. Construction may begin after approvals and building permit is obtained for above package. Building Finish Package-100% Documents As mutually agreed by the parties in writing. .11 Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP): Upon completion of the design phase [construction documents 100% complete] and prior to the bidding and award phase, the Construction Manager shall present to the Owner the GMP for the Owner[']s review and approval in accordance with Article 6 of this Agreement.[3] Those services to be performed by the hired construction manager during the "Bidding and Award Phase" were described in Article 3.4 of the Sample Contract as follows: At this stage the Construction Manager assumes the leadership responsibility for the project team. Upon obtaining all necessary approvals of the Construction Documents including a Building Permit as required by FBC and Owner approval of the latest Statement of Probable Construction Cost, the Construction Manager shall obtain bids and commence awarding construction contracts. The Owner will have the drawings and specifications printed for bidding purposes, either through its open Agreements with printing firms or as a reimbursable service through the Project Consultant, or as set forth in Article 26.03.08 in the General Conditions of this CM Agreement. The Construction Manager shall review the Owner[']s records of pre-qualified contractors, including Minority/Women Business Enterprises (M/WBE) and prepare a list of those recommended for work pursuant to this contract. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all subcontractors recommended for approval. The Construction Manager shall maintain a list of all potential bidders, including M/WBEs and those who are approved as pre-qualified. The Construction Manager shall prepare and issue the bid packages to cover the scope of the Work for this contract. The Construction Manager, in coordination with the Owner, shall schedule pre-bid conferences as required and issue a written summary of the conference(s). Solicitation of Bids: .1 The Construction Manager shall enter into Contracts with the firm who submits the lowest, responsive and responsible bid. The Construction Manager shall advertise according to SBBC policies as amended from time to time for bids on Documents 00101 at least three (3) times, seven (7) days apart, and with the third (3rd) advertisement prior to a pre-bid conference if applicable and at least seven (7) days prior to the bid opening. Written proposals based on drawings and/or specifications shall be submitted to the Construction Manager. The written proposals shall be opened at the usual location for bid opening. A tabulation of the results shall be furnished by Construction Manager to the Owner. .6 The Construction Manager and Owner shall open at the Construction Manager location and evaluate at least three bids, if possible, for each portion of the Work solicited. The Construction Manager shall also make recommendations to the Owner for award to the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder. A recommendation for award to other than the lowest bidder shall be justified in writing. Those services to be performed by the hired construction manager during the "Construction Phase" were described in Article 3.5 of the Sample Contract as follows: The Construction Manager shall fully comply with the provision[s] of the Owner's Project Manual, including but not limited to Division 0 and 1, and the attached General Conditions of this contract. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and such documents the agreement shall control. The Construction Manager shall provide the minimum staffing level as set forth in Exhibit C-F for this project. The Construction Manager shall maintain and prepare monthly updates for all project schedules, including Critical Path elements, provide written progress reports, describe problems and corrective action plan(s) and conduct briefings as required by the Owner. Such information shall be provided to the Owner and Project Consultant in the form of a written report with progress payments requests. The Construction Manager may self perform certain construction work when it benefits the Owner, results in cost and time savings, and is pre-approved by the Owner in writing. The Construction Manager shall coordinate project close-out, operation, and transition to occupancy. The Construction Manager shall coordinate with the Project Consultant to provide complete project records including project manual and electronic Computer Assisted Drafting (CAD) drawings corrected to show all construction changes, additions, and deletions. (Construction Manager shall note all changes on the as-builts for the Project Consultant to reflect on the drawings and CAD disc.) The Construction Manager shall coordinate with the Owner's staff to prepare the Certificate of Final Inspection. The Construction Manager shall obtain and review all warranties, operation and maintenance manuals and other such documents, for completeness, have them corrected if necessary and submit them to the owner. The Construction Manager shall complete all punch list items generated by the Building Code Inspector (BCI), the Owner, the Project Consultant and any others having jurisdiction over the project during its inspections. Those services to be performed by the hired construction manager during the "Warranty Phase" were described in Article 3.6 of the Sample Contract as follows: The Construction Manager shall provide a minimum one (1) year warranty and shall coordinate and supervise the completion of warranty Work during the warranty period. Construction Manager shall participate with the Owner in conducting of warranty inspections held on the sixth (6th) and eleventh (11th) months after occupancy. Construction Manager shall deliver as-built drawings, warranties and guaranties to the Owner. Where any Work is performed by the Construction Manager's own forces or by subcontractors under contract with the Construction Manager, the Construction Manager shall warrant that all materials and equipment included in such work will be new except where indicated otherwise in Contract Documents, and that such Work will be free from improper workmanship and defective materials and in conformance with the Drawings and specifications. With respect to the same Work, the Construction Manager further agrees to correct all work found by the Owner to be defective in material and workmanship and not in conformance with the Drawings and Specifications for a period of one year from the Date of Owner Occupancy of the Project or a designated portion thereof or for such longer periods of time as may be set forth with respect to specific warranties contained in the trade sections of the Specifications or by Florida Law. The Construction Manager shall collect and deliver to the Owner any specific written warranties given by others as required by the Contract Documents. The Construction Manager shall provide a Warranty Summary Report at the end of the 6- month warranty period and 11-month warranty period. This report shall provide at a minimum: Description of each warranty item during the period. Date item reported to Construction Manager. Date item corrected. If more than one trip required, document each. Description of action taken to cure warranty item. Obtain signature of school principal or designee acknowledging warranty items have been completed. Other pertinent information, if applicable. Article V of the RFQ (as revised) provided the following information with respect to "Fees and Pricing": Successful proposers shall negotiate a fee for providing construction management services during the design phase and subsequently shall negotiate a GMP for construction services during the bidding and construction phase. Architectural/Engineering firms will develop Contract documents under separate contract with the Board. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 26, Article VII of the RFQ (as revised) "[was] entitled 'Board's Right to Reject' and state[d] in part as follows": The Board reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and readvertise the project(s) at any time prior to Board approval of the recommended proposer(s) and the negotiated agreement(s). All costs incurred in the preparation of the Proposal and participation in this RFQ process shall be borne by the proposers. Proposals submitted in response to this RFQ shall become property of the Board and considered public documents under applicable Florida law. The District reserves the right to accept or reject any and all submittals, or to waive any technicalities or formalities when and if it is in the best interests of the District. Rejection: A submittal shall be rejected for failure to comply with one or more of the following requirements: The proposer is not licensed or registered in the State of Florida to provide the proposed services. The submittal shall be rejected if not received by The School Board of Broward County, Florida by the specified deadline. Not Applicable. Article XI of the RFQ (as revised) discussed "Submittal Requirements" and contained the following provisions concerning "Related Projects Similar in Scope (to this RFQ)" and "References": Related Projects Similar in Scope (to this RFQ): List educational projects of related scope and size. Provide name and location of project, project owner, project owner name, address phone and contact person, project cost, current project status, firm[']s key personnel assigned to the project. . . . L. References: Provide a list of all projects, clearly stating name of project, using Construction Management at Risk, completed or in progress within the last five (5) years from due date of this RFQ. If Proposer[']s firm also has offices outside the tri-county area (meaning Broward, Miami-Dade, or Palm Beach), then at a minimum provide references for all Construction Management at Risk projects in the tri-county area. List projects that are 75 percent or greater of the construction budget statement in the Public Announcement for each listed project. Provide the address, telephone numbers and contact person(s) listed as references for each project. . . . As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 27, "[o]n or about September 3, 2008, [Respondent] received proposed qualifications to provide construction management at risk services for [the FHS Project] from 13 vendors including Petitioner." Among the other "vendors" submitting "proposed qualifications" were Elkins Constructors, Inc., the Morganti Group, Inc., and W. G. Mills, Inc. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 28, "[i]n accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFQ [as revised] and [Respondent's] governing statutes, rules and policies, Respondent's Qualifications Selection and Evaluation Committee ('QSEC') recommended the rejection of certain proposers for their failure to comply with [Respondent's] pre-qualification requirements or limits." There were three such "proposers": Elkins Constructors, Inc.; the Morganti Group, Inc.; and W. G. Mills, Inc. At the time of the "submittal due date to this RFQ [as revised]," neither Elkins Constructors, nor the Morganti Group, was "prequalified according to 1013.46 F.S., SREF 4.1(8), and Board Policy 7003" for any project. W. G. Mills, on the other hand, was "prequalified" for certain projects, but only within the following limits: a "[p]er [p]roject [l]imit [of] $25,000,000 [and an] [a]ggregate [l]imit [of] $250,000,000." The "advertised Proposed Construction Budget" of the FHS Project was $29,150,340, which was more than W. G. Mills' "[p]er [p]roject [l]imit [of] $25,000,000." As of the date "proposed qualifications" were due, there were 11 prequalified firms, including W. G. Mills, who had a "[p]er [p]roject [l]imit" of between $17,000,000 and $26,000,000. These firms were not eligible to be awarded the contract for the FHS Project because the project's "advertised Proposed Construction Budget" was in excess of their "[p]er [p]roject [l]imit." W. G. Mills was the only one of these 11 prequalified firms to respond to the RFQ (as revised). As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 29, "[i]n accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFQ [as revised] and [Respondent's] governing statutes, rules and policies, [the] QSEC next evaluated and short-listed the remaining proposers. It thereafter received presentations from the short-listed proposers and, after scoring those short-listed proposers, recommended Petitioner . . . to [Respondent] as the proposer with whom to negotiate a contract for services for fees to provide direct management cost of the construction manager and the project's guaranteed maximum price ('GMP')." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 30, "[o]n October 7, 2008, [Respondent] approved [the] QSEC's selection of Petitioner . . . as the vendor with whom negotiations would be had for [the] Fort Lauderdale High School component of the RFQ [as revised] and 'authorized negotiations for Construction Management at Risk Services.' The scope of Construction Management at Risk services was [as noted above] included within the RFQ [as revised]. The summary explanation and background portion of the agenda item to authorize negotiations stated that the 'Superintendent's designees will negotiate the selected Constriction Management at Risk Services fees for the projects and recommend award of contracts at a future School Board Meeting.'" As the parties stated in the "Statement of the Controversy" section of their Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, "[n]egotiations between [Respondent] and [Petitioner] occurred between October 2008 [following Respondent's approval of the QSEC's selection of Petitioner] and December 2009." In December 2009, Cubellis, the architectural firm working on the FHS Project for Respondent, was "experiencing some financial difficulties" and there was uncertainty as to whether it would "be able to continue [on] the project." As a result, negotiations between Respondent and Petitioner were halted. Eventually, Cubellis "assigned [its] contract [with Respondent] to somebody else" (specifically, Manuel Synalovski Associates, LLC), but negotiations between Respondent and Petitioner never resumed. Petitioner's last written contract proposal was dated December 10, 2009. It was based on a proposed construction budget of $18,297,367 and provided for the following "Negotiated Contract Terms": Construction Manager Fees: Pre-Design Not Applicable Design Not Applicable Bidding & Award $37,685 Construction Phase Fee $1,172,370 Warranty $35,000 Overhead $289,200 Profit $185,385 General Conditions $659,846 Total $2,379,489 Above Fees based on scope of work issued "Project Scope" document dated 11/5/2009 per 11/9/2009 letter from M. Decker. CM Performance and Payment Bonds and GL Insurance are included based on budgeted contract amount of $18,297,367. Builders Risk, Contingency, and Subcontractor insurance costs are not included in the fees and will be shown in the schedule of values as separate line items as a cost of work. Should the cost of work increase Bonds and GL insurance fees are to be adjusted at insurance providers' invoiced amount. Overhead, profit and bond allowances for Change Orders: 10% Substantial Completion: 570 Final Completion in General Conditions 25.01.02: 600 Construction Phase Fee and General Conditions in 25.01.02: $3,050 per Consecutive Calendar Day Liquidation Damages for Substantial Completion: $1,000 per Consecutive Calendar Day Liquidation Damages for Final Completion: $600 per Consecutive Calendar Day This contract proposal was made following a December 8, 2009, negotiation session at which Denis Herrmann, Respondent's Director of Design and Construction Contracts, had stated that he had negotiated a construction management at risk contract for another project the previous day where the "Construction Manager Fees" were 13.8 percent of that particular project's proposed construction budget. Mr. Herrmann had relayed this information to Petitioner's representatives at the meeting to give them "a flavor for the range [Respondent was] talking about, not to give them a [specific] number [or percentage] that would be acceptable." The "Construction Manager Fees" proposed by Petitioner in its December 10, 2009, offer were slightly less than 13.8 percent of the $18,297,367 proposed construction budget (but they did not cover any "Pre-Design"-related or "Design"-related work). While Respondent has never, in writing, specifically rejected Petitioner's December 10, 2009, offer, neither has ever formally accepted it. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Facts 45 and 48, respectively, Respondent's "Superintendent of Schools has not placed an item on [the School Board] agenda recommending that [Respondent] enter into a contract with [Petitioner] concerning the RFQ [as revised]," and "[Respondent] has not approved a contract with [Petitioner] concerning [the] RFQ [as revised]." It has been two years since "[Respondent] approved [the] QSEC's selection of Petitioner . . . as the vendor with whom negotiations would be had." Significant changes impacting the FHS Project have occurred over that period of time. Respondent now finds itself in the midst of an "unprecedented budget crisis," making it especially imperative that it "take every [possible] step to maximize the purchasing power of the public's dollars." A precipitous decline in revenue available for capital projects (due, in large measure, to a decline in property values, coupled with a reduction in the capital outlay millage rate) has required Respondent to eliminate or scale back various planned projects. The FHS Project is among the projects that have been scaled back. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 31, "[p]rior to, during and subsequent to its negotiations with [Petitioner], [Respondent] determined on several occasions that the project scope of the [FHS Project] needed to be further adjusted, ultimately resulting [in] the following project scope [with strike-throughs and underlining indicating, respectively, deletions and additions]": Concurrent Replacement in two phases to include: Demolish existing swimming pool (buildings 15 and 16). Demolish existing tennis courts and replace with 6 tennis courts. Demolish Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Construct basketball courts. Construct Regional Athletic Facility. Construct (2) 3-story buildings (1 – Administration & 1 - Classroom) of approximately 68,940 GSF combined to include Administration, 3 general classrooms, 5 resource rooms, 4 science labs and related spaces, 4-classroom ESE suites, 1 Business Technology lab, 1 Family and Consumer Science (ProStart) lab, 1 Health Occupations Lab, 1 Pre-Law Public Service Education Lab, Custodial spaces, Textbook Storage, and Student, Staff and Public Restrooms. Remodel Renovate existing Science Building (building 8). Construct Parent Drop Off and Pick Up area and Staff/Visitor Parking. Resurface Student Parking. Construct New Student parking area on the West side of the site to increase parking capacity by 92 spaces. Modify existing temporary bus loop to meet SREF code and ADA standards; modifications will include barricades and covered sidewalk. Redesign courtyard to meet current ADA standards.' As the parties further stipulated in Admitted Fact 31, "[t]he project scope was revised five (5) times between October 7, 2008 and December 2, 2009[,] [and Petitioner] was notified of the changes in scope and acknowledged the same." "[R]evis[ions]" have also been made to the project's budget. Respondent's "5-Year Plan" allocates funding for all costs (including, but not limited to, construction costs4) associated with each of Respondent's funded capital projects. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 32, "[Respondent] adopts and revises its 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan ('5-Year Plan') each year." As the parties further stipulated in Admitted Fact 33: [Respondent's] 5-Year Plan adopted for Fort Lauderdale High School for Fiscal Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 eliminated the $39,491,259 previously budgeted as "Capacity Additions" . . . . Instead, the 2009-10 to 2013-14 Five Year Plan provided $21,050,000 for Capacity Additions . . . . Respondent's current "5-Year Plan" (for the Fiscal Years 2010- 2011 to 2014-2015), which was adopted on September 7, 2010, allocates $22,366,085 to the FHS Project (as scaled back). The dour economic conditions responsible (in part) for the drop in tax revenues available to fund Respondent's capital projects have also led to increased competition in the construction industry and a resultant decline in construction prices. This increased competition is particularly pronounced "in the procurement area of hard bidding." During "the peak of the construction boom," before the downturn in the economy, it was not atypical for Respondent, when it "hard bid" a construction project, to get just one or even no bids in response to the solicitation. Now, Respondent "expect[s] to see between half a dozen [and] a dozen or more bidders." Moreover, recently, winning bids on "hard bid" projects have been, on average, well below these projects' advertised proposed construction budgets. Respondent has not experienced the same overall cost-savings results when it has used the "Construction Management at Risk delivery method." Given the market conditions that exist today, Respondent estimates that the construction costs for the FHS Project (as scaled back) would be no more than $16,950,000 and possibly as little as approximately $13,000,000 (if a "hard bid" were used). These amounts are considerably less than the "Proposed Construction Budget of $29,150,340" that had originally been "advertised." There are prequalified firms (including W. G. Mills) which were not eligible to be awarded the contract under the RFQ (as revised) because their "[p]er [p]roject [l]imit" was less than $29,150,340, but which would now be able to bid on a scaled-back FHS Project were it to be readvertised (with a proposed construction budget of $16,950,000). Another (and perhaps the most significant) difference between the circumstances existing at present and those that existed two years ago (vis-à-vis the FHS Project) is that the design of the project (as scaled back) has advanced to the point that, with a few revisions,5 the construction documents for the project will be 100 percent complete.6 As a result, Respondent no longer has a need for most, if not virtually all, of the "pre-design" and "design" services, described in Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Sample Contract, that, back in 2008, it had wanted a construction manager to perform. In April 2010, Respondent's Office of the Chief Auditor issued a report (April 2010 Audit Report) critical of Respondent's use of the "Construction Management at Risk delivery method" in connection with 14 projects "which were included in the Construction Management at Risk Kitchen/Cafeteria RFQ No. 2006-12-FC." The report read, in pertinent part, as follows: The projects included in RFQ No 2006-12-FC were sufficiently completed by the Architect/Engineer firm(s) prior to being advertised as CM at Risk construction projects. The inability [of] any CM firm to provide "professional services" and scheduling of both design and construction phases represents a deviation from the intent of Florida Statutes, SREF and the School Board's CM at Risk contract.[7] In nearly every executed CM at Risk agreement in the Kitchen/Cafeteria program, the Pre- Design and Design phase responsibilities of the CM were stricken from the contract. That is a further representation that the input required by a prospective CM to qualify for the committee selection process was not, nor was it intended to be provided. F.S. 1013.45(1)(c) also states that the use of the CM at Risk delivery method " . . . shall not unfairly penalize an entity that has relevant experience in the delivery of construction programs of similar size and complexity by methods of delivery other than program management." All of the projects in the Kitchen/Cafeteria program were originally intended to be "hard-bid" but were changed to the CM at Risk delivery method. One project was removed from the group prior to the due date of submittals for RFQ No. 2006-12-FC. That hard bid project, Margate ES, cost approximately $5.6 million, including nearly $466,226 in change orders, which was approximately $3.3 million less, on average, than the fourteen (14) projects that remained in RFQ No. 2006-12- FC. Due to the change in delivery method, general contracting firms could have been "unfairly penalized" by the decision to use the CM at Risk delivery method, as many local general contractors have the relevant experience in the delivery of construction programs of similar size and complexity by methods other than the CM at Risk delivery method.
Recommendation We recommend that Facilities & Construction Management discontinue developing construction procurement packages (i.e. RFQ and RFP) for award of CM at Risk agreements when construction management services requested are associated with reused, prototypical or otherwise sufficiently developed construction documents. Kitchen/Cafeteria program data indicates that the benefits associated with the CM at Risk delivery method were not realized using prototypical designs, as the program resulted in over $24 million in avoidable fees while circumventing applicable laws and regulations. On May 10, 2010, Mr. Herrmann sent a letter to Respondent's General Counsel requesting, in light of the April 2010 Audit Report, a "legal opinion related to the award of a Construction Manager at Risk Agreement (CM) to [Petitioner] and whether such an award would comply with Chapter 1013.45(1)(c), S. and State Requirements for Educational Facilities 1999 (SREF)," given that the FHS Project (as scaled back) was then "in the design phase and Phase III 100% Construction Documents [were] being prepared." The concluding paragraph of the letter read as follows: In this project, The Weitz Company has been selected by the board and we intend to recommend award of a contract within several months. An award of a CM agreement in this case would not violate the specific audit recommendation and we believe such an award does not violate statute or SREF. Please advise whether you concur. Mr. Herrmann has since changed his opinion. He now believes (reasonably so, in the undersigned's view) that "award of a CM agreement" in the instant case would be inconsistent with the "audit recommendation" inasmuch as the FHS Project (as scaled back) now has "sufficiently developed construction documents." On May 18, 2010, Mr. Herrmann sent another letter to Respondent's General Counsel. This letter read as follows: This is to provide you with additional information relating to a request for a legal opinion regarding the award of a Construction Manager at Risk Agreement (CM) to The Weitz Company. Please also refer to the attached memos dated 10/14/09, 11/16/09 and 5/10/10. In summary, we have requested opinions based on the following: Whether such an award would comply with applicable statutes, SREF, and board policy given the extent of the changes to the scope and budget. Whether such an award would comply with Chapter 1013.45(1)(c), F.S. and State Requirements for Educational Facilities 1999 (SREF). We have recently revised the construction cost estimate as a result of current market conditions, and the project consultant, Manuel Synalovski [Associates], LLC agrees with the revised estimate. The change in the cost estimate is as follows: In the RFQ: $29,150,340 October 2009 (Change in scope): $21,770,000 November 2009 (Market conditions): $18,297,367 May 2010 (Market conditions) $16,950,000 Please advise whether we should proceed with the award or reject all bids. Respondent's General Counsel responded to neither of these May 2010, letters from Mr. Herrmann. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 34, "[o]n June 15, 2010, [Respondent] approved Item J-15 during its June 15, 2010, Regular Meeting." The "Requested Action" and "Summary Explanation and Background" section of the Agenda Request Form for this agenda item (J-15) provided as follows: REQUESTED ACTION Approve the change in the delivery method from Construction Management at Risk to Design/Bid/Build and the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Manuel Synalovski Associates, LLC (MSA) for Fort Lauderdale High School, Phased Replacement Project No. 095-27-01, dated February 12, 2008. SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND Scope of Work: Basic Services Amended 6/15/10: This item changes the delivery method from Construction Management at Risk to Design/Bid/Build. Demolish existing Swimming pool (Buildings 15 and 16); demolish existing tennis courts; demolish Buildings 1, 2, and 3; construct two 3-story buildings (1 administration and 1 classroom) of approximately 68,940 gross square feet combined to include administration, 3 general classrooms, 5 resource rooms, 4 science labs and related spaces, 4 ESE classroom suite, 1 business technology lab, 1 family and consumer science (ProStart) lab, 1 health occupations lab, 1 pre-law public service education lab, custodial spaces, textbook storage, and student, staff, and public restrooms. Remodel existing science building (Building 8). Construct new parent drop off and pick up areas and staff/visitor parking. Construct new student parking area on the west side of site to increase parking capacity by 92 spaces. Modify existing temporary bus loop to meet SREF, Florida Building Code and ADA Standards. ADA modifications will include barricades and covered sidewalk. Remodel existing courtyard for ADA access to gym and auditorium. MSA and the Superintendent's Negotiations Committee negotiated a total reduction in [architectural] fees from the February 12, 2008 Board approved amount of $2,021,000 to $1,683,650. This decrease in the Basic Services Fees totals $337,350 and is decreased as follows: Phase IV (Bidding and Award) by $54,357, Phase V (Construction Administration) by $269,250, and Phase VI (Warranty) by $13,743. This fee reduction is as a result of a reduction of the original scope as per Attachment 2 to the First Amendment. This First Amendment also reduces the Fixed Limit of Construction Cost (FLCC) from $29,150,340 to $16,950,000 as a result of the reduction in scope and construction costs resulting from current market conditions. The Risk Management Department and the Office of the Chief Auditor have reviewed this First Amendment. The School Board Attorney has approved this First Amendment as to form and legal content. As the parties stipulated in Admitted Fact 35, on June 30, 2010, "[Respondent] posted its Revised Recommendation[] and Tabulation for [the FHS Project, which] set forth the following recommendation": Per Article VII.A of the RFQ, based upon the recommendation of the Qualification Selection Evaluation Committee, the Facilities and Construction Management Division intends to recommend that The School Board of Broward County, Florida, at the School Board meeting on July 20, 2010, reject all responses received for Fort Lauderdale High School Project No. P.000687. The original, intended scope of work as set forth in the original RFQ is substantially and materially different than the revised scope of work and budget in the proposed contracts and such work should be re- advertised and re-bid. This decision to "reject all responses" and "re- advertise[] and re-bid" was based on an honest and good faith exercise of discretion, intended, ultimately, to allow Respondent to receive (in the words of Mr. Herrmann) "more bang for [its] buck." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Facts 39 through 41, Petitioner timely protested Respondent's intended "reject[ion] [of] all responses." As the parties stipulated in Admitted Facts 42 through 44, after the parties had unsuccessfully attempted "to resolve the protest by mutual agreement," Respondent, at Petitioner's request, referred the matter to DOAH on August 23, 2010.
